Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind version 0.7.0 released

[kuzetsa]

Bitcoin transactions do not have a sender address. They have one or more input txouts, each of which may or may not have an identifiable address it was previously sent to. Relying on this information is not portable, as it is client-dependent. If you need a refund address or some payout address, ask for it. This also prevents reuse of addresses, which is bad for Bitcoin's privacy model (not just of those whose addresses are involved).
PS: since 0.7, you can find this information using the raw transaction API.

really?

1) Are you sure that there are transactions without an identifiable sender addresses? I've never seen a single transaction like that in the blockchain.

2) "coin taint" all the way back to the original generated coin(s) in question  has always been fully traceable whenever I've attempted.

3) Coin control is a desired / requested / needed feature. The ability to control which source coins are spent in transactions and whatnot.

4) there is no four. except maybe "please qualify your assertion as I've addressed in #1"

[kjj]

Bitcoin transactions do not have a sender address. They have one or more input txouts, each of which may or may not have an identifiable address it was previously sent to. Relying on this information is not portable, as it is client-dependent. If you need a refund address or some payout address, ask for it. This also prevents reuse of addresses, which is bad for Bitcoin's privacy model (not just of those whose addresses are involved).
PS: since 0.7, you can find this information using the raw transaction API.

really?

1) Are you sure that there are transactions without an identifiable sender addresses? I've never seen a single transaction like that in the blockchain.

2) "coin taint" all the way back to the original generated coin(s) in question  has always been fully traceable whenever I've attempted.

3) Coin control is a desired / requested / needed feature. The ability to control which source coins are spent in transactions and whatnot.

4) there is no four. except maybe "please qualify your assertion as I've addressed in #1"

What you have is the last address that received those coins.  This is not the same thing as a sender address.

Things get even more silly if you think about transactions with multiple inputs and/or outputs.

[kuzetsa]

@kjj

huh? why not?

Are you saying you can spend someone else's coins despite not having access to the private key for their address(es)?

Edited to add:

multi-input transactions require private keys just the same as single-input. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

A rather direct, simlpified implication is that if coins are sent, the private key(s) used to generate the transaction script(s) is controlled by the sender.

[kjj]

@kjj

huh? why not?

Are you saying you can spend someone else's coins despite not having access to the private key for their address(es)?

Edited to add:

multi-input transactions require private keys just the same as single-input. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

A rather direct, simlpified implication is that if coins are sent, the private key(s) used to generate the transaction script(s) is controlled by the sender.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.  Post an address, and I will cause a 3rd party to send a transaction to it in such a way that it can not be returned to me.

[szuetam]

Thanks for new version.

[Luke-Jr]

Is there really STILL no coin control options in this release? This is the major feature I have been waiting for for many many months and I am so disappointed that it seems to be not here ?

Please find or hire someone to update and fix the problems in it, so that it might be merged in the future. Maybe start a bounty?
Today's next-test still has Coin Control barely merged in, but this will probably be the last time due to rapid bitrot.

[kuzetsa]

Please find or hire someone to update and fix the problems in it, so that it might be merged in the future. Maybe start a bounty?

+1

I would love to see this feature working.

I might start the bounty myself in the morning (or some other time) if it hasn't been started yet... After when I've slept and/or look back in this direction (bitcointalk forums) again.

Thanks for the official-like status update on the future of this feature, luke.

[kuzetsa]

((...snip...))
Post an address, and I will cause a 3rd party to send a transaction to it in such a way that it can not be returned to me.

Are you describing a scenario where your bitcoin wallet (private keys) is controlled by a third party?

Or perhaps (for example)

One could "withdraw" from their GLBSE balance to someone else's bitcoin address (to make a patment from them)

perhaps mtgox and/or other "in the cloud" wallet providers... I can only speculate. Only ever used official satoshi (bitcoinqt / bitcoind) wallet.

[wumpus]

<PissAntComplaint>
As a colour blind DBA (i.e UI retarded), I dislike the startup logo.
I'd rather see the "traditional" Bitcoin icon on a light coloured (perhaps a gradient) background.
</PissAntComplaint>

I'm aiming to completely get rid of the splash screen by 0.8. No promises though.

[kjj]

((...snip...))
Post an address, and I will cause a 3rd party to send a transaction to it in such a way that it can not be returned to me.

Are you describing a scenario where your bitcoin wallet (private keys) is controlled by a third party?

Or perhaps (for example)

One could "withdraw" from their GLBSE balance to someone else's bitcoin address (to make a patment from them)

perhaps mtgox and/or other "in the cloud" wallet providers... I can only speculate. Only ever used official satoshi (bitcoinqt / bitcoind) wallet.

Yes.  I have at least three accounts with services that will send coins at my command, but will not come from a key that I control, or is otherwise associated with me in any way.  A return to sender on those payments will go either to the service provider, or to a random user of that service.

And that's just off the top of my head.  I bet that if I looked through my password safe, I'd see plenty more accounts that I've totally forgotten.

And that's not all.  Say you are making a major sale, and you want the proceeds to go into a P2SH multisig account where most of the keys are offline, or under the control of an authentication service.  You get the payment and check the list, see that the coins are "tainted".  Now what?  You don't have the keys available to return them immediately.  Oops.

[dlb76]

updated to 0.7.0-beta
Thanks!

[Gavin Andresen]

Update, 22 Sept:  Still looking for a fix for OSX 10.5 users. If you are running 10.5, you should not upgrade yet.

[ydenys]

A minor issue, not sure if yet reported. 0.7.0 client does not allow to transfer the whole balance, stating an incorrect initial fee (prior to ‘send’ confirmation). My example: balance 0.1739839, client does not allow to spend more then 0.1719839 (initially assumes 0.002 minimum fee), the minimum fee is in fact 0.0015 (correctly calculated after 'send' data check on 0.1719839 and overrides an earlier 'assumed' 0.002), so 0.0005 remains unspent even if you force it as a nominal fee in the settings. Initial fee miscalculation? 6.3 does not have such problem. Please check. TIA.

pm me for details if needed.

[rate5]

I am having a issue deleting old addresses from the address book using version 0.7.0 on Ubuntu 12.04.  Does anyone else have this issue?

[elux]

Update, 22 Sept:  Still looking for a fix for OSX 10.5 users. If you are running 10.5, you should not upgrade yet.

If so, this warning should be included in the top post. (Not everyone will read page five before upgrading.)

[regular]

I am having trouble copy and pasting addresses into Pay to box when trying to send BTC in that it won't even give me the option to paste despite it being in the clipboard and working for all other applications.  .  Reverting to 0.63 works again for me.

I'm on windows 7 x64.

[kuzetsa]

A minor issue, not sure if yet reported. 0.7.0 client does not allow to transfer the whole balance, stating an incorrect initial fee (prior to ‘send’ confirmation). My example: balance 0.1739839, client does not allow to spend more then 0.1719839 (initially assumes 0.002 minimum fee), the minimum fee is in fact 0.0015 (correctly calculated after 'send' data check on 0.1719839 and overrides an earlier 'assumed' 0.002), so 0.0005 remains unspent even if you force it as a nominal fee in the settings. Initial fee miscalculation? 6.3 does not have such problem. Please check. TIA.

pm me for details if needed.

I've experienced that exact issue before in 0.6.3 but just never thought to report it.

1) Often would get a message "insufficient... something something something ...after fee included" (can't remember exact wording)

2) So then  after I subtract the fee manually, it takes out a different fee amount or sometimes reports a different fee is required.

-- I haven't sent coins since upgrading to 0.7.0 but if I am able to reproduce this behavior at a later date I will fully document the messages

[Boussac]

Thanks to everybody who contributed to this release:

Chris Moore
Christian von Roques
David Joel Schwartz
Douglas Huff
Fordy
Gavin Andresen
Giel van Schijndel
Gregory Maxwell
Jeff Garzik
Luke Dashjr
Matt Corallo
Michael Ford
Michael Hendricks
Peter Todd
Philip Kaufmann
Pieter Wuille
R E Broadley
Ricardo M. Correia
Rune K. Svendsen
Scott Ellis
Stephane Glondu
Wladimir J. van der Laan
cardpuncher
coderrr
fanquake
grimd34th
sje397
xanatos

Thanks to Sergio Lerner for reporting denial-of-service vulnerabilities fixed in this release.

Thanks to you Gavin and to the whole team.

[BitPay Business Solutions]

it looks like 0.70 is registering the bitcoin: URI protocol (at least in Windows) but if I already have the bitcoin client running, I get an error.

[mb300sd]

Downloading the blockchain in 0.7, seems a lot faster