Yet another Coin Control Release [CLOSED]

[phelix]

Before I dump my time into it... do you also have a hint on this one?

Code:

...

looks like you are using the original bitcoin-qt.pro, not the new one. I have tested the code I gave you again, it sure compiles for me.

My bad.    Compiles like a charm (tip sent).

[1715072290]

1715072290

[1715072290]

1715072290

[1715072290]

1715072290

[1715072290]

1715072290

[kuzetsa]

Just wanted to point out this is available for testing on a more recent "next-test" build:

Bitcoin-Qt next-test 2013-07-21

[K1773R]

this might be of interested to you cozz: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=227287.msg3005468#msg3005468

thanks again (as i already used it for a long time @ btc) for your work!
is your signature address still valid (ie, no lost privkey) so i can send you a little donation?

greetings

[Dabs]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287351.0
Version 0.8.4 of the standard QT client released.

[cozz]

update: v0.8.4

[Dabs]

update: v0.8.4

Wow, Thanks for the very fast update!

[Dabs]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=293307.0
Bitcoin-Qt / bitcoind version 0.8.5 released

Cozz, also, your previous version, 0.8.4 had the wrong dates, or you dated it all 2011. Don't forget to use the current date when you update this. Thanks!

[cozz]

update: v0.8.5

@Dabs: changed date in my build script this time

[Birdy]

Thank you :3

[gmaxwell]

Can someone please work on creating a test plan and working through it so we can merge this?

[phelix]

cross post fyi

No one who has any interest in coin control spent any time on the payment protocol as far as I know.

This sentence can be interpreted in a lot of ways

Well, that was intentional. I might be corrected, but I don't think Gavin has ever considered the feature particularly important. He isn't opposed to it, and its supported by other core developers but Gavin has been pretty insistent on someone doing a robust test plan for it (and I agree)— which no one has ever done.

[my emphasis]

Maybe it's not even so bad: https://github.com/bitcoin/QA/

I would be happy to help testing.

edit: had not even seen gmaxwell's post above  

edit2: This might be helpful: https://github.com/dserrano5/QA/blob/0ad3091599c71bcca602926adf7d6ac180e21d36/SpendFrom.md

edit3: I had expected a test plan to cover at least the majority of possible cases including lots of edge cases...  what I see is more like a well documented sanity test. The above SpendFrom.md test plan with some additions should do the job.

[behindtext]

Can someone please work on creating a test plan and working through it so we can merge this?

I would think it's been tested enough. Unless you mean that someone has to create a test plan to satisfy some bureaucratic nonsense.

it's not a matter of whether it's been behavior-tested enough in the field, it's a matter of ongoing test support, thus the request for a plan.

a test plan matters and it is not "bureaucratic nonsense". if you distribute software that breaks or has bugs creep in, especially with financial software, it reflects poorly on the developers.

[K1773R]

Can someone please work on creating a test plan and working through it so we can merge this?

I would think it's been tested enough. Unless you mean that someone has to create a test plan to satisfy some bureaucratic nonsense.

it's not a matter of whether it's been behavior-tested enough in the field, it's a matter of ongoing test support, thus the request for a plan.

a test plan matters and it is not "bureaucratic nonsense". if you distribute software that breaks or has bugs creep in, especially with financial software, it reflects poorly on the developers.

It'd be pretty hard for CC to break at this point, since so many people have tested it and tried to break it. Unless you mean a test plan to expose any future bugs.

also many ppls (including me) are using CC since it was available (both versions, first coderrr's, now cozz's).

[Dabs]

I haven't tried to break it. But it hasn't failed me yet.

[Financisto]

Greetings!

Thank you for developing such a great plug-in/add-on to bitcoin-Qt.

IMHO I think it should be available as default to official client.

[drrussellshane]

Greetings!

Thank you for developing such a great plug-in/add-on to bitcoin-Qt.

IMHO I think it should be available as default to official client.

I heartily agree!

Kaj ankaŭ, kun nomon tiel vian kaj vian verdstelon, mi vetas, ke vi povas legi ĉi tion sen tro malfacileco.

[Gavin Andresen]

IMHO I think it should be available as default to official client.

... then volunteer to run through the test plan and help shake out any bugs. Code that touches the wallet is particularly sensitive, because an obscure bug might cause lots of people to lose lots of money.

[eldentyrell]

Edit: sorry, it actually reduces the amount sent, which is the safer thing to do.  I tried this twice (once exhausting the inputs, once not) and mixed up the transactions when I viewed them.

It looks like the fee source depends on the structure of the sending wallet -- apparently it will take the fee above-and-beyond the amount sent if it can, and otherwise it reduces the amount sent.  It might be nice to mention this behavior to the user…

I found a small bug, although I'm running a somewhat outdated version of coin control so this might be fixed.

Select inputs for a transaction such that the inputs are just enough to fund the transaction and its fee "under ordinary circumstances".  If the resulting transaction winds up being "over the size limit" the client will ask the user if they want to pay the extra 0.0005BTC but won't ask where to take the fee from the chosen inputs (since they're exhausted).  Instead it appears the fee is simply taken from some other random input in the wallet, potentially compromising privacy.

FWIW, the privacy provided by the coin control client in the presence of this bug is still strictly superior to the legacy client, so this report should not in any way delay the integration of coin control into the legacy client.

[eldentyrell]

IMHO I think it should be available as default to official client.

... then volunteer to run through the test plan and help shake out any bugs.

Are you saying that if I run through that test plan and confirm that it doesn't turn up bugs you'll upstream the patches?

Because if that's what you're saying, I'll do it.  Please bitmessage me, I read the forum infrequently.

But if this is just another excuse/double-standard I have better things to do.

[Dabs]

cozz, would you be willing to do this for an alt-coin? I have one in mind.