Taranis (OP)
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
 |
June 08, 2011, 07:04:53 AM |
|
Hello,
It seems that the "generate bitcoins" button is missing on the Bitcoins 0.3.22 windows version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SomeoneWeird
|
|
June 08, 2011, 07:18:16 AM |
|
You shouldn't be using that anyway. Get a proper miner.
|
|
|
|
|
Maged
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015
|
|
June 08, 2011, 07:18:25 AM |
|
Hello,
It seems that the "generate bitcoins" button is missing on the Bitcoins 0.3.22 windows version.
This is intentional. That is because specialized mining clients will outproform the built-in client, so you should use those. Additionally, we don't want to give people the false assumption that they will actually ever find a block. See this thread for more info: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=5353.0 |
|
|
|
Taranis (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
|
June 08, 2011, 10:02:46 AM |
|
You shouldn't be using that anyway. Get a proper miner.
I think I heard something...  Hello,
It seems that the "generate bitcoins" button is missing on the Bitcoins 0.3.22 windows version.
This is intentional. That is because specialized mining clients will outproform the built-in client, so you should use those. Additionally, we don't want to give people the false assumption that they will actually ever find a block. See this thread for more info: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=5353.0Thanks for this answer, post link is very interesting. Very. |
|
|
|
|
nixxle
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 47
Merit: 0
|
|
June 08, 2011, 11:10:54 AM |
|
Hello,
It seems that the "generate bitcoins" button is missing on the Bitcoins 0.3.22 windows version.
This is intentional. That is because specialized mining clients will outproform the built-in client, so you should use those. Additionally, we don't want to give people the false assumption that they will actually ever find a block. See this thread for more info: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=5353.0good call. nice to see this moving ahead. great work guys. |
|
|
|
|
|
cdnbcguy
|
|
June 08, 2011, 12:24:58 PM |
|
It STILL doesn't encrypt the wallet file. That is the most important thing!
|
Annona ad! Please keep in mind that there is nothing wrong with Bitcoin itself. All it's scandals are caused by wonky websites and sleazy people exploiting it. The light attracts bugs. When all this bullshit drys up and blows away, Bitcoin will be stronger than ever.
|
|
|
grondilu
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1080
|
|
June 08, 2011, 12:25:58 PM |
|
It STILL doesn't encrypt the wallet file. That is the most important thing!
No it is not. |
|
|
|
Lukeus_Maximus
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
|
June 08, 2011, 02:15:48 PM |
|
It STILL doesn't encrypt the wallet file. That is the most important thing!
No it is not. Please explain. Do you believe that wallet encryption is important but is not currently the most important thing to Bitcoin's continued development or do you mean that wallet encryption in general should never happen. It should easily be possible to split the wallet file into two different sections, one containing the public keys + addresses and the other encrypted section containing private keys. This can be separately encrypted with AES256 (or similar) within the same file and provide the necessary protection against someone stealing your computer and immediately gaining access to all the Bitcoins stored on it. You could then have peace of mind once a backup is restored that your coins are secure. If I am wrong, explain your reasoning clearly. |
|
|
|
|
|
SomeoneWeird
|
|
June 08, 2011, 02:41:19 PM |
|
It STILL doesn't encrypt the wallet file. That is the most important thing!
No it is not. Please explain. Do you believe that wallet encryption is important but is not currently the most important thing to Bitcoin's continued development or do you mean that wallet encryption in general should never happen. It should easily be possible to split the wallet file into two different sections, one containing the public keys + addresses and the other encrypted section containing private keys. This can be separately encrypted with AES256 (or similar) within the same file and provide the necessary protection against someone stealing your computer and immediately gaining access to all the Bitcoins stored on it. You could then have peace of mind once a backup is restored that your coins are secure. If I am wrong, explain your reasoning clearly. This would mean that you would have to enter your password when sending coins, if you had your wallet stolen, that person would (probably) have physical (virtual if you got hacked) access to your computer, and have a chance to keylog your pass. All I think it does is add a false sense of security. You should encrypt it manually in a TC container or something. |
|
|
|
|
nixxle
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 47
Merit: 0
|
|
June 08, 2011, 03:17:30 PM |
|
It STILL doesn't encrypt the wallet file. That is the most important thing!
No it is not. Please explain. Do you believe that wallet encryption is important but is not currently the most important thing to Bitcoin's continued development or do you mean that wallet encryption in general should never happen. It should easily be possible to split the wallet file into two different sections, one containing the public keys + addresses and the other encrypted section containing private keys. This can be separately encrypted with AES256 (or similar) within the same file and provide the necessary protection against someone stealing your computer and immediately gaining access to all the Bitcoins stored on it. You could then have peace of mind once a backup is restored that your coins are secure. If I am wrong, explain your reasoning clearly. This would mean that you would have to enter your password when sending coins, if you had your wallet stolen, that person would (probably) have physical (virtual if you got hacked) access to your computer, and have a chance to keylog your pass. All I think it does is add a false sense of security. You should encrypt it manually in a TC container or something. I like this idea of entering a password before making a transaction. My bank does that too. It adds a lot to the sense of security. Should be optional though. |
|
|
|
|
Lukeus_Maximus
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
|
|
June 08, 2011, 04:04:34 PM |
|
I would like to see a complete removal of the plain text wallet.dat. It's like leaving my physical wallet full of cash on a park bench. How this be done and still allow the client to act as a node in the network.
|
|
|
|
|
Maged
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015
|
|
June 08, 2011, 05:14:08 PM |
|
It STILL doesn't encrypt the wallet file. That is the most important thing!
That is currently targeted for 0.4.0. See this thread for the open Pull request: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8728.0 |
|
|
|
grondilu
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1080
|
|
June 12, 2011, 11:16:34 AM |
|
It STILL doesn't encrypt the wallet file. That is the most important thing!
No it is not. Please explain. Do you believe that wallet encryption is important but is not currently the most important thing to Bitcoin's continued development or do you mean that wallet encryption in general should never happen. It should easily be possible to split the wallet file into two different sections, one containing the public keys + addresses and the other encrypted section containing private keys. This can be separately encrypted with AES256 (or similar) within the same file and provide the necessary protection against someone stealing your computer and immediately gaining access to all the Bitcoins stored on it. You could then have peace of mind once a backup is restored that your coins are secure. If I am wrong, explain your reasoning clearly. Walllet encryption is a completely different functionality from what bitcoin is supposed to do. It should be implemented as a different software. And in fact, it is. Use truecrypt, ecryptfs or whatever else. |
|
|
|
|
