How bitcoin dev's are helping to kill bitcoin

[chrisvl]

Pay a bit attention to the top line on every page: News: ♦♦♦ If you are using any wallet other than Bitcoin Core 0.10.x or 0.9.5, then you should not trust incoming transactions until they have ~30 confirmations. More info.

Your all just a bunch o loser's who know nothing about you being scammed.. just cause I deleted 120 btc does not make it go up in value, in fact, it fell.. Again. If it was'nt for the wallet being corrupted by the software dev's.. hey, just re-build app from scource.. what difference will that make? None if they want all the bitcoin's.. why FORCE us to use only the latest version? Because it suit's the dev's, who are clearly not interested in fixing any bug that has been there since the very first edition of the software.. suffer scum bag scammer's, the world's onto ya.. so is the isp.. ban p2p, kill bitcoin, if that dont work, leave it to the dev's..

Psst, 1 and a half million for a website? I'd sack them if it was'nt up by now.. scammed, the lot o ya.

There will always be small problems...

[fulluser]

Altough op claims  and reason to be annoyed are wrong and not btc dev's fault , there is a kernel of truth here

It definetely has to improve in the UX department ; i mean does your banking app require a SSD  ?

[fulluser]

Also why downloading blocks requires so much time unless you  either open ports , download the chain , or just use a SPV like electrum

[gmaxwell]

Also why downloading blocks requires so much time unless you  either open ports , download the chain ,

Neither of these two things improve the time it takes to download blocks.

[lontivero]

The guy sounds rude but he is right in one point: to be forced to reindex the blockchain because the computer had a problem or because there was a power outage is not nice at all. I run bitcoin-qt --testnet for development reasons and everytime that my laptop's battery is empty, or a windows update restart the machine, I have to reindex again. Sure, reindexing the test chain is very fast but not fun in any way.

I think this is something that could be improved in future versions.
 

[gmaxwell]

The guy sounds rude but he is right in one point: to be forced to reindex the blockchain because the computer had a problem or because there was a power outage is not nice at all. I run bitcoin-qt --testnet for development reasons and everytime that my laptop's battery is empty, or a windows update restart the machine, I have to reindex again. Sure, reindexing the test chain is very fast but not fun in any way.

The database is intended to handed unclean shutdowns and I tested it with _thousands_ of unclean shutdowns previously.  There may be system specific reasons or hardware problems that are causing you to see corruption on power loss, they're certantly not expected or intended (or expirenced by everyone else). If it is the case that your system is outright corrupting recently written blocks on unclean shutdown then there may be no real remedy possible.

[Foxpup]

There may be system specific reasons or hardware problems that are causing you to see corruption on power loss, they're certantly not expected or intended

Aren't they, though? NTFS isn't a proper journaling file system, after all. Of course, defective file management is clearly the fault of the operating system, and you'd think people would be grateful that Bitcoin Core can repair the resulting corruption in almost all cases, but they aren't. "It's too slow! You need to make Bitcoin Core run faster on defective systems!"

[lontivero]

The guy sounds rude but he is right in one point: to be forced to reindex the blockchain because the computer had a problem or because there was a power outage is not nice at all. I run bitcoin-qt --testnet for development reasons and everytime that my laptop's battery is empty, or a windows update restart the machine, I have to reindex again. Sure, reindexing the test chain is very fast but not fun in any way.

The database is intended to handed unclean shutdowns and I tested it with _thousands_ of unclean shutdowns previously.  There may be system specific reasons or hardware problems that are causing you to see corruption on power loss, they're certantly not expected or intended (or expirenced by everyone else). If it is the case that your system is outright corrupting recently written blocks on unclean shutdown then there may be no real remedy possible.

Well, I have an encrypted HD and that could be a system specific reason. By the way, I know Bitcoin Core is well tested, that's water clear. I just wanted to share the problem that I have and that other people had too.

[dexX7]

If you have antivirus software some of it is known to corrupt Bitcoin, you should disable it or except the Bitcoin directories.

Please, for your own sake, don't do this.

I'm not aware of any antivirus software that interferes with Bitcoin Core, but the better alternative would probably be to switch to a less hostile antivirus product.

[lontivero]

If you have antivirus software some of it is known to corrupt Bitcoin, you should disable it or except the Bitcoin directories.

Please, for your own sake, don't do this.

I'm not aware of any antivirus software that interferes with Bitcoin Core, but the better alternative would probably be to switch to a less hostile antivirus products.

Yes, there were AV that detect viruses in the blockchain because someone included virus segments in the transactions' scripts.

[Kprawn]

Let's just post for the sake of other, who might have similar problems.

1. Do not use Microsoft XP {Not even Microsoft is supporting it anymore}
2. What percentage of people still use Microsoft XP? {Why would developers spend huge amounts of time, to support a outdated OS?}
3. Why keep 120 Bitcoins in a unstable environment, if you have had problems before? {Store it in cold storage, until the problem was sorted out}
4. If you own 120 Bitcoins, could you not have invested in a better OS suited for the purpose?

Before you place the blame on the dev's look at your own mistakes and improve on that. 

Sorry for your loss, but you have to share the blame here. 

[medUSA]

why do I have to rebuild the index everytime my pc shut's down?

There is something wrong with your Windows. I run Core on an old laptop with Windows XP. It verifies blocks every time it starts but does not rebuild the index.

I just deleted 120 bitcoin's, have a nice fuckin day

You are too experienced in Bitcoin to not have a backup of your wallet.dat. Load your backup and they are where they have always been

dude, you should finally realize, that bitcoin core is not desktop application anymore. it consumes lot of disk space, bandwidth or cpu and you can simply avoid all this using electrum or multibit.

Well said. Core's CPU and memory requirement is very high. I have an old notebook (probably over 6 years) running windows xp and only have 1G memory, it takes 10 minutes to start Core. Downloading blocks is almost impossible without killing the notebook. I had it on for 8 hours straight and could only download 1 week's worth of blocks. On my 2 year old desktop, starts Core in 1 minute and run through block downloads. Both are on the same internet connection connected with network cables (not wifi).

In case anyone asks why I run 2 copies of Core: I download the blockchain on my desktop and copy them over to my notebook. Desktop wallet has no bitcoin on it.

Also why downloading blocks requires so much time unless you either open ports , download the chain ,

Neither of these two things improve the time it takes to download blocks.

Would adding more nodes in config file accelerate download? Would Core grab a list of nodes automatically if I do not open a port? Thanks.

Do not use Microsoft XP {Not even Microsoft is supporting it anymore}
What percentage of people still use Microsoft XP? {Why would developers spend huge amounts of time, to support a outdated OS?}

I know A LOT of people are using it. There is nothing wrong with it after you spend 2 to 3 hours running the windows update. Microsoft is dropping support to force businesses to update or buy new computers. Windows XP still runs active on 16.94% of world's desktop computers, surprising high for an 14 years' old OS  
http://www.cnet.com/news/windows-xp-use-continues-to-drop-but-still-in-no-2-spot/

[moug]

1. backup wallet before turn off the very first time... And every time you get a new "change address"
2. Defrag your XP hard drive, don't defrag if you have a SSD Or Ubuntu 14 which works good with Bitcoin QT
3. Don't Defrag with Bitcoin Running.

I think his wallet was corrupted so unreadable? maybe some one can fix that..

[lorylore]

I just wonder how can i contribute to help the bitcoin, because this stress test was good enough to make people angry.

[manselr]

in other hand...you are still considering Bitcoin Core as Desktop application? Maybe something changed recently, but I still remember, that after each reboot was my 4 years old laptop ~30 minutes almost unusable, because core start syncing blocks from previous day and I didn't have SSD back in the time:)

Well you called out the reason there-- not having an SSD.  I run bitcoin core on a battery life optimized ultra light laptop and never notice it running.  That its a fine desktop application doesn't mean that it's super awesome on a 4 year old non-ssd enabled laptop. The much larger blocks these days do require more work to catch up on, but the software is also quite a bit faster.

Do you need to have an SSD that can store the entire blockchain to benefit, or you can have the software in SSD and the blockchain in a HDD and benefit?

I say this because SSD is way too expensive, and the blockchain is too big, in no time it will be way too big to store the entire blockchain in regular HDD; let alone the expensive SSDs..

[turvarya]

in other hand...you are still considering Bitcoin Core as Desktop application? Maybe something changed recently, but I still remember, that after each reboot was my 4 years old laptop ~30 minutes almost unusable, because core start syncing blocks from previous day and I didn't have SSD back in the time:)

Well you called out the reason there-- not having an SSD.  I run bitcoin core on a battery life optimized ultra light laptop and never notice it running.  That its a fine desktop application doesn't mean that it's super awesome on a 4 year old non-ssd enabled laptop. The much larger blocks these days do require more work to catch up on, but the software is also quite a bit faster.

Do you need to have an SSD that can store the entire blockchain to benefit, or you can have the software in SSD and the blockchain in a HDD and benefit?

I say this because SSD is way too expensive, and the blockchain is too big, in no time it will be way too big to store the entire blockchain in regular HDD; let alone the expensive SSDs..

My blockchain is not on a SSD and I didn't have any problems with that so far. I also don't really see the point in running Bitcoin Core on an SSD(I do that, just because every other program is also on my SSD), since I don't think Read/Write on your Hard Disk is a major factor for running Bitcoin Core.

[Meuh6879]

Fuckin idiot's, why do I have to rebuild the index everytime my pc shut's down

crappy hard drive.
crappy RAM.
crappy antivirus.

choose your goal ... but, even with an E7300, i have only 1 time in 2 years, the reindex demand (RAM corrupted).

[philipma1957]

in other hand...you are still considering Bitcoin Core as Desktop application? Maybe something changed recently, but I still remember, that after each reboot was my 4 years old laptop ~30 minutes almost unusable, because core start syncing blocks from previous day and I didn't have SSD back in the time:)

Well you called out the reason there-- not having an SSD.  I run bitcoin core on a battery life optimized ultra light laptop and never notice it running.  That its a fine desktop application doesn't mean that it's super awesome on a 4 year old non-ssd enabled laptop. The much larger blocks these days do require more work to catch up on, but the software is also quite a bit faster.

Do you need to have an SSD that can store the entire blockchain to benefit, or you can have the software in SSD and the blockchain in a HDD and benefit?

I say this because SSD is way too expensive, and the blockchain is too big, in no time it will be way too big to store the entire blockchain in regular HDD; let alone the expensive SSDs..

well lets see op have 120 btc which =  120 x 300 = 36,000

when he posted it was 120 x 250 = 30,000


    a 250 gb ssd = 90 usd
   a second 250 gb ssd = 90 usd
   a 1tb hdd = 50 usd
and a hdd/ssd cloner = 40 ssd

grand total = 270 usd   

270 usd or 30,000-- 36,000 usd.


link for the ssd:

http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-BX100-250GB-Internal-Solid/dp/B00RQA6TEI/ref=sr_1_2?

link for the hdd  oh 58 usd not 50

http://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-5400RPM-SATA3-Notebook-MQ01ABD100/dp/B00AUH3L04/ref=sr_1_4?

link for the cloner

http://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-External-Duplicator-Function-EC-HDD2/dp/B00IKC14OG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1436744884&sr=8-1&keywords=hdd+cloner

[turvarya]

in other hand...you are still considering Bitcoin Core as Desktop application? Maybe something changed recently, but I still remember, that after each reboot was my 4 years old laptop ~30 minutes almost unusable, because core start syncing blocks from previous day and I didn't have SSD back in the time:)

Well you called out the reason there-- not having an SSD.  I run bitcoin core on a battery life optimized ultra light laptop and never notice it running.  That its a fine desktop application doesn't mean that it's super awesome on a 4 year old non-ssd enabled laptop. The much larger blocks these days do require more work to catch up on, but the software is also quite a bit faster.

Do you need to have an SSD that can store the entire blockchain to benefit, or you can have the software in SSD and the blockchain in a HDD and benefit?

I say this because SSD is way too expensive, and the blockchain is too big, in no time it will be way too big to store the entire blockchain in regular HDD; let alone the expensive SSDs..

well lets see op have 120 btc which =  120 x 300 = 36,000

when he posted it was 120 x 250 = 30,000


    a 250 gb ssd = 90 usd
   a second 250 gb ssd = 90 usd
   a 1tb hdd = 50 usd
and a hdd/ssd cloner = 40 ssd

grand total = 270 usd  

270 usd or 30,000-- 36,000 usd.


link for the ssd:

http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-BX100-250GB-Internal-Solid/dp/B00RQA6TEI/ref=sr_1_2?

link for the hdd  oh 58 usd not 50

http://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-5400RPM-SATA3-Notebook-MQ01ABD100/dp/B00AUH3L04/ref=sr_1_4?

link for the cloner

http://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-External-Duplicator-Function-EC-HDD2/dp/B00IKC14OG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1436744884&sr=8-1&keywords=hdd+cloner

A (hardware) Cloner? lol
As far as I rememer, I just used this:
http://www.easeus.com/download/free-software.html

[Lauda]

Here we go again. People that are clearly trying to push the blame from themselves over to the developers. Your first and main mistake is that you're running a outdated OS.
The majority of people are not using XP. The majority is using Windows 7. Actually Windows 7 has more than 5x the market share than XP.
Stop living in the past and stop blaming others for your own mistakes.