I'm getting errors when trying to compile with just wxBase. g++ -c -O0 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -D__WXGTK__ -DNOPCH -I"/opt/tdep/include" -I"/usr/include" -DwxUSE_GUI=0 -o obj/nogui/util.o util.cpp
In file included from util.cpp:5:
headers.h:22:24: error: wx/clipbrd.h: No such file or directory
In file included from headers.h:100,
from util.cpp:5:
db.h: In member function 'bool CDB::Exists(const K&)':
db.h:140: error: 'class Db' has no member named 'exists'
make: *** [obj/nogui/util.o] Error 1
Clipbrd.h isn't installed with wxBase. Moving wxWidgets-2.9.0/include/wx/clipbrd.h to my include directory just eliminates those two "no such file" lines. |
|
|
|
|
I'm using Linux From Scratch, so installing a dependency-ridden package like GTK would be a bit of a pain. Why should I add a dozen additional packages and hundreds of megabytes to my system when BitCoin doesn't even use them?
|
|
|
|
On Linux it needs libgtk2.0-0 installed
Will this requirement be removed sometime? I'd rather not have to deal with GTK. |
|
|
|
I'm at theymos.ath.cx. I should be online 24/7. You need to look up my IP address before you give it to Bitcoin. My IP address only changes infrequently, so this should be OK. |
|
|
|
|
I generated 5 blocks today on my Pentium processor. Two of them were within 3 minutes of each other.
I have noticed some slowdown since the adjustment, but I still generate a lot of coins. My computer is off while I'm sleeping, and BitCoin bootstraps quickly when I turn it back on. Do you guys-who-are-having-trouble have the BitCoin port open?
|
|
|
|
|
The CA's root certificate needs to be included in the browser to make the warning go away. CACert isn't included in any popular browser, and Startcom was only recently added to Windows. With Startcom, anyone who doesn't install the optional root certificates update in Windows update will still get an error in Chrome, Safari, and Internet Explorer. Firefox has had it built-in for a while.
HTTPS isn't the default (or really necessary) for bitcoin.org, so it doesn't much matter. If you want to manually switch to HTTPS, then you can deal with the self-signed certificate.
|
|
|
|
The TLS certificate is self-signed, so the warning is "correct". The encryption is just as strong as any other HTTPS connection, but without a CA's signature the site's identity can't be guaranteed -- a man-in-the-middle attack could be used. Unfortunately, getting a signature costs money. Verifying the certificate's fingerprint here before adding an exception will prevent any MITM attack. This is only necessary when you add an exception; subsequent MITM attempts will trigger a warning by your browser. |
|
|
|
|
It doesn't even detect bitcoin.exe normally, just when it's in the installer. I sent the file to ESET, but I don't know if they actually check into these things.
|
|
|
|
|
Turn off NOD32, download, and save to a different location than before.Then run the installer (the one you just downloaded). It's not a virus. You can turn NOD32 back on after the installation is complete.
|
|
|
|
|
What property guarantees the continuing profitability? If the cost of electricity triples in 20 years, the number and size of transactions wouldn't change (as far as I know), but running a node would become more expensive and possibly unprofitable.
What stops someone from creating a client that will send repeated transactions just below the fee maximum when it has to in order to avoid fees? Or from many different identities to the same one (if this is possible)? I can see there being a great demand for such a client if BitCoin becomes very popular.
|
|
|
|
|
Is the fee enough to always ensure the profitability of running a node, even when BitCoin generation stops being profitable?
|
|
|
|
There's a small transaction fee for very large transactions. (usually over 10,000 bc) The node that generates the block that contains the transaction gets the fee.
The fee is based on the KB size of the transaction and intended to compensate the network for the resources used to process it.
If the same money gets sent again, it won't incur the fee again because it'll be small. The first time they're bundling hundreds of 50 bc coins together. After that it's just one line to send the combined unit.
Does the sending client send more BitCoins to account for the fee (so the recipient gets what he's expecting)? Why couldn't someone just send 1000 small transactions to bypass fees? |
|
|
|
I thought BitCoin only generated in 50 coin increments, but I got 50.44 here.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
