Please, there's no need for that.
It'd be nice to credit people where possible, keeping commit messages and authorship where appropriate, whether or not this particular patch was from (I've not looked). There really is no need to go find fault in other code, we all have something we're not too proud of anyway, hidden in some old commit
Please take it as a good occasion to code something nice that Monero devs will then want to use (with credit of course). We all gain when this happens.

   _o<

No, that is correct. It's about 1.7 GB here. It does depend a bit on the platform, but 1.6 GB seems in the right ballpark.

You need:
 - the new client (see post by TheMightyX earlier)
 - delete your current blockchain.

Save your wallet before you delete the blockchain.

Once I did that, it all updated fine for me.

And I just noticed I get black on black on the list headers in coin control. No mouse hover fix there though. So there is definitely something weird going on. As you say, though, no big deal either.

They look just fine here (Fedora). Black on grey, both when the mouse is over and not.
I'm using the latest from git, but it was fine before as well.

I was about to post this same thing. I've got the new wallet, and it's not downloading anything (I've removed the blockchain and all (except the wallet, thanks for the warning TMX)).

One thing that might or might not be relevant: the wallet prints thing:

Object::connect: No such slot BitcoinGUI::lockWallet()

The wallet does print 4 active connections. but the current number of blocks stays at 0.

I guess it could be it's connected to older wallets ?

I was re-reading that bit of the OP, and... that typo makes it scary to participate

Also, the end of the post ends with a few unwanted [/list] commands. May or may not care to fix, but I found the first one funny enough to point it out

I hope so
I think I know one of the ones I've got wrong. The other, I'm curious, there are a couple I wasn't 100% sure and I want to know which one

And I really don't know why there's so few people. It's a fun idea! Or maybe my idea of fun isn't quite the same as other people ? I did enjoy the researching of crypto history

I agree with it being roughly right. I does vary a fair amount though. I mine with two of these, and one gets about 30/s (that one mines in several places, with one thread miners, but that does not matter, I checked), the other around 60/66/s. The first one is an older i5 with the miner in a VM, the second one is a more recent one on raw hardware. The second one has a fair bit of variance, annoyingly, something that the first one does not have (no idea why).

Oh, I see it in the cancelled list, you're right. Not sure why I did not see it there It makes sense now, I guess it doesn't readily fit in either cancelled nor completed categories since it was half complete.

Thanks for your work!

Moreover, I just noticed that the sell order for 50 is listed in my history. So it has gone through. The buy order, however, is not here (even though I sold to myself). So (1) only one part of the transaction is present on my trade history, and (2) none of it is in the market history.

That said, you might choose to disallow trading with oneself, as this is probably not what the order placer would have intended.

I was playing with it, placing a buy order for 100 XDN.
I then placed a sell order of 50 XDN (at same price). I then cancelled the buy order (half filled).
The market history does not show that transaction, but I have only 999999.75000000, so the transaction seems to have gone through as the fee was taken.

There is a list maintained with all the scores. Look in the OP, the link is called "(Click here to check your score!)".
I guess there is a bit of delay till you get added, but you should find your name and score in there soon without having to wait for hte end of the contest.

Congratulations to BitDesign on the win. A nice and distinctive logo. It was a close race to the end

About the key issue, I think I saw somewhere that some coin dev had left the key from the coin they forked, and the original dev sent a warning about this to the new coin's wallet Not 100% sure it's true though, but better change it anyway just in case!

I think this is a good time to start that signature

Username: moneromooo
SRCC address: SeCJkBRKg5Xs6pyGRBXTY51CT5EQs7kDXj
Current Post Count: 60
Current Activity: 42
Member Rank: Jr member

I just updated my signature to include the Jr member version.

Thanks

Nice work, it all synced perfectly here, last updated before was a couple days back.

Great, I registered without issues now.

One thing that's not really a bug, but confusing:
I placed a couple orders, and I noticed at least the second one gave me a BTC value like this:
0.000003885 BTC
Note how this has 9 decimals, and I could quickly read it as 3885 satoshis. Easy to make a mistake with that!
If you're going to count in fractions of satoshis, maybe display the extra decimals specially, like smaller font, or something like that ?

Anyway, it seems nice, I'll play with it a bit more later when I get time. I'll PM you my address too.

Do we have "written" permission to try to break it since the funds are not real yet ?

I'm curious now. How do *you* define spamming, then ?

Just in on the bandwagon