Diapolo
|
|
September 01, 2012, 08:56:33 AM |
|
Via -addnode=[2001:470:9ff2:2:a001:3cff:fea5:a49] (that is an example IP, can't say if you are able to connect now).
Example? Thats my address... And, no, I don't believe its up anymore... I found it in a test script, sorry Matt . I used the phrase example, as I did know it was working before, but was not sure about it ^^. Dia
|
|
|
|
OneEyed
aka aurele
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
|
|
September 01, 2012, 09:03:58 AM |
|
Oh well, I don't think I was able to maintain any ipv6 connections anyway. I'm behind a tunnel broker, so I don't know if that matters or not. Thanks devs for all the work and I look forward to future releases.
It would be great to have a flag asking to prefer IPv6 over IPv4 when selecting outgoing peers to connect to.
|
|
|
|
sturle
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1437
Merit: 1002
https://bitmynt.no
|
|
September 01, 2012, 11:15:06 AM |
|
Where's the -walldir option? Can anyone explain why it appears so difficult to write some code to separate the wallet.dat file from the blockchain?
First of all: wallet.dat is a file, not a directory. You would want -wallfile not -walldir. Just do it yourself if you think it is so easy. The rest of us just move wallet.dat to where we want it and symlink. Because it is even easier, works for any file, and is probably the reason why nobody can be bothered to write any code for it in the client.
|
Sjå https://bitmynt.no for veksling av bitcoin mot norske kroner. Trygt, billig, raskt og enkelt sidan 2010. I buy with EUR and other currencies at a fair market price when you want to sell. See http://bitmynt.no/eurprice.plWarning: "Bitcoin" XT, Classic, Unlimited and the likes are scams. Don't use them, and don't listen to their shills.
|
|
|
keystroke
|
|
September 01, 2012, 04:58:34 PM |
|
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/Tor.txt"In particular, the Tor Browser Bundle defaults to listening on a random port." As of the latest Tor Browser Bundle it no longer listens on a random port (at least under Windows from what I could tell).
|
"The difference between a castle and a prison is only a question of who holds the keys."
|
|
|
Balthazar
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
|
|
September 01, 2012, 11:40:41 PM |
|
We running bitcoin-0.6.99 snapshot for a week, and generated 20 "version 2" blocks during this time.
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
September 04, 2012, 02:40:56 AM Last edit: September 04, 2012, 03:04:01 AM by AbelsFire |
|
My node is listening on ipv4, ipv6 and a Tor.
So far I haven't seen any ipv6 or Tor connections.
Edit: I can connect to gmaxwell's hidden service. How would a new Tor-only node learn about hidden services without manually adding peers found via forum posts?
|
|
|
|
URSAY
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1974
Merit: 1010
|
|
September 04, 2012, 03:37:03 AM |
|
Send some coin to my 0.7.0 client? I'll send it back to your 0.7.0 client ehhhh...
13e23Ud5Nk8x52oF4zE1vSQkvyvrbrm3jN
|
|
|
|
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 8702
|
|
September 04, 2012, 06:57:40 AM |
|
Edit: I can connect to gmaxwell's hidden service. How would a new Tor-only node learn about hidden services without manually adding peers found via forum posts?
You need at least one peer before you can learn of more over the network. Right now the only way to bootstrap an onion-only node is manually.
|
|
|
|
Diapolo
|
|
September 04, 2012, 12:19:03 PM |
|
On what port is it listening for you? Dia
|
|
|
|
keystroke
|
|
September 05, 2012, 04:00:25 PM |
|
I see BIP 0034 is listed on the CVE page. Is it actually to fix a vulnerability? Also will CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 be fixed in 0.7?
|
"The difference between a castle and a prison is only a question of who holds the keys."
|
|
|
Luke-Jr
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
September 05, 2012, 04:11:15 PM |
|
I see BIP 0034 is listed on the CVE page. Is it actually to fix a vulnerability? The listed BIPs are there because they effectively create vulnerabilities in older pre-BIP clients. That is, the fact that these old clients accept blocks that are (now) invalid, is a risk. Also will CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 be fixed in 0.7? Thanks to Sergio Lerner for reporting denial-of-service vulnerabilities fixed in this release. These are the same.
|
|
|
|
Sergio_Demian_Lerner
|
|
September 05, 2012, 06:18:15 PM |
|
Also will CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 be fixed in 0.7? Thanks to Sergio Lerner for reporting denial-of-service vulnerabilities fixed in this release. These are the same. No, since CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 have different numbers, they are new vulnerabilities fixed in 7.0rc1 by the dev team.
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
September 05, 2012, 08:36:17 PM |
|
Also will CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 be fixed in 0.7? Thanks to Sergio Lerner for reporting denial-of-service vulnerabilities fixed in this release. These are the same. No, since CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 have different numbers, they are new vulnerabilities fixed in 7.0rc1 by the dev team. It's my understanding that you reported multiple vulnerabilities fixed in 0.7.0rc1, each of which is assigned a different number.
|
|
|
|
Sergio_Demian_Lerner
|
|
September 05, 2012, 11:22:29 PM |
|
It's my understanding that you reported multiple vulnerabilities fixed in 0.7.0rc1, each of which is assigned a different number.
Yes, you're right. These are not the same vulnerabilities that were fixed in 0.6.3, they may be the ones reported by me or other reported by somebody else, I don´t know.
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
September 06, 2012, 12:05:52 AM |
|
It's my understanding that you reported multiple vulnerabilities fixed in 0.7.0rc1, each of which is assigned a different number.
Yes, you're right. These are not the same vulnerabilities that were fixed in 0.6.3, they may be the ones reported by me or other reported by somebody else, I don´t know. CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 are two reported by you and fixed in 0.7rc1.
|
|
|
|
Sergio_Demian_Lerner
|
|
September 06, 2012, 01:37:02 AM |
|
CVE-2012-4682 and CVE-2012-4683 are two reported by you and fixed in 0.7rc1.
Great, that means that there were no more vulnerabilities found.
|
|
|
|
phelix
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 09, 2012, 07:01:23 PM |
|
Does this version have coin control? No, Coin Control was found to be poorly designed (how can you control specific outputs held by the same address?) and its maintainer disappeared. Parts of it (grouping logic) were merged into the new raw transaction RPC methods. At this point, getting Coin Control in probably means someone needs to step up to adapt it and clean it up to provide the same functionality as the raw transaction stuff. Together with multisig coin control is one of the most important features imho. No coin control is a deal breaker for me and potentially for anyone who ever used it... It is not quite clear to me, could you/team please clarify if it is possible via rpc in 0.7? Are there any plans for implementing the gui for it? still: great to see all the progress.
|
|
|
|
jgarzik
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1099
|
|
September 09, 2012, 07:43:37 PM |
|
Does this version have coin control? No, Coin Control was found to be poorly designed (how can you control specific outputs held by the same address?) and its maintainer disappeared. Parts of it (grouping logic) were merged into the new raw transaction RPC methods. At this point, getting Coin Control in probably means someone needs to step up to adapt it and clean it up to provide the same functionality as the raw transaction stuff. Together with multisig coin control is one of the most important features imho. No coin control is a deal breaker for me and potentially for anyone who ever used it... It is not quite clear to me, could you/team please clarify if it is possible via rpc in 0.7? Yes, it is possible via the raw transaction RPC API. Your software is required to know how to construct proper binary-format bitcoin transactions. Are there any plans for implementing the gui for it?
None immediately, no.
|
Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own. Visit bloq.com / metronome.io Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
|
|
|
Luke-Jr
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
September 09, 2012, 09:02:01 PM |
|
Together with multisig coin control is one of the most important features imho. No coin control is a deal breaker for me and potentially for anyone who ever used it...
It is not quite clear to me, could you/team please clarify if it is possible via rpc in 0.7? You can use external software to create your own custom transactions via RPC now. You cannot simply "sendfromaddress <fromaddr> <toaddr> <amount>". Are there any plans for implementing the gui for it? I suspect everyone would plan to merge it if anyone submitted a properly-designed and cleaned up GUI. I suggested in another thread that those interested might set up a bounty, and/or hire a developer to get it done.
|
|
|
|
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4242
Merit: 8702
|
|
September 09, 2012, 10:44:02 PM |
|
Together with multisig coin control is one of the most important features imho. No coin control is a deal breaker for me and potentially for anyone who ever used it...
Your claim is objectively false. If it were that important at all there would have been _someone_ to step up and maintain it. But there was none although we begged and begged and warned that it wouldn't go in without one. Complain all you like about "deal breakers", — actions speak much louder than words. You can achieve the same level of control using the console and listaddressgroupings / listunspent / createrawtransaction / signrawtransaction / sendtrawtransaction. (Listaddressgroupings was part of the coincontrol patch, and I was willing to maintain it because it's all I needed to get the level of coincontrol functionality I wanted... I don't use the GUI)
|
|
|
|
|