Yet another Coin Control Release [CLOSED]

[Dabs]

I do a backup every other transaction or when I remember. I could easily set it up so there is a daily backup which goes to another computer, or encrypted in the cloud or something. The wallet.dat file is relatively small compared to all other things that I work on, although it is already about 4 MB. (all those transactions take up space.)

What I like to do is take a simple dump of the private keys once in awhile, using pywallet, print it, stuff that in an envelope and lock it in my office where it's protected by armed guards.

But even at 4 MB, I can just copy that file every week to a few of my USB flash drives.

The way I use Coin Control, I usually either spend it all, or specify a particular change address (sometimes back to itself) so I don't think that generates a new private key in the key pool. Besides, you can see all the keys that have unspent inputs.

[Dabs]

0.8.6 released.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=364353.0

While we wait for 0.9.0 with built in coin control.

[wtogami]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320695.0
Bitcoin OMG10 (0.8.5 with all of 0.8.6's bug fixes) already has Coin Control.

[Dabs]

I like Cozz's version. Good to have alternatives, but I will also give bitcoin OMG a try.

[wtogami]

I like Cozz's version. Good to have alternatives, but I will also give bitcoin OMG a try.

Bitcoin OMG *is* Cozz's version.

[cozz]

Yes, please use wtogamis binaries, this patch is included there.

[Dabs]

Okay. Thanks! I like Coin Control. The OMG binary isn't compressed though, so I thought someone else was working on it. (but that's just executable compression, so not a big deal.)

[Diapolo]

I feel like OMG is not thought of as an addition or bleading edge thing, but tries to get people away from the official reference client?

Dia

[piotr_n]

I feel like OMG is not thought of as an addition or bleading edge thing, but tries to get people away from the official reference client?

You see it upside down.
The official reference client tries to get people away from itself.
Pretty effectively, in fact.

[wtogami]

I feel like OMG is not thought of as an addition or bleading edge thing, but tries to get people away from the official reference client?

Dia

Please do not feel alarmed.  This is merely a decentralized variation of the reference client that is intended to help improve the 0.8.x and master branches.  OMG testing has directly contributed to the selection of patches that went into 0.8.6.  OMG was also very helpful in testing various candidate patches for the MacOS leveldb corruption issue as shipped in 0.8.6.  wumpus also points out that we caught the deleteLater issue with Coin Control thanks to OMG.

Bitcoin OMG was published because a ton of work was put into testing the backport patches shipped in Litecoin 0.8.x and it was not much more effort to repackage those patches into a Bitcoin client.  Users want features like Coin Control and through many months of testing and some of feedback to cozz it has improved to a point where I personally feel comfortable using it in these 0.8 backports.

As far as client security goes, OMG has its own gitian.sigs where random members of the public are invited to help verify with their own GPG-signed gitian sigs.

[wtogami]

I feel like OMG is not thought of as an addition or bleading edge thing, but tries to get people away from the official reference client?

Dia

Actually the litecoin core development team actually listens to the users, instead of themselves. Instead of trying to implement other protocols that are broken in a Beta client

Please be respectful to the Bitcoin devs.  We are all in this together.

[Dabs]

I think the reference client is conservatively stable. It should be that way. The source is open, so anyone who wants new features can add to it, just like what we are seeing with Coin Control and OMG and no wallets.

Those additional features can possibly have bugs. In any case, both the reference client and the modified versions are not recommended for new users.

I do recommend people to study it, and if you're going to have any amount of bitcoins or litecoins, you might as well learn how the whole thing works, and QT is a good place to start. Also, another full node is good for the network(s).

[gmaxwell]

I feel like OMG is not thought of as an addition or bleading edge thing, but tries to get people away from the official reference client?
Dia

Actually the litecoin core development team actually listens to the users, instead of themselves. Instead of trying to implement other protocols that are broken in a Beta client

Please be respectful to the Bitcoin devs.  We are all in this together.

What you should have said is "Bitcoin OMG is just backporting patches from Bitcoin 0.9, I'm not actually writing these things." because it seems some people think otherwise!

[piotr_n]

What you should have said is "Bitcoin OMG is just backporting patches from Bitcoin 0.9, I'm not actually writing these things." because it seems some people think otherwise!

Sounds like you're jealous that your super-team (aka the bitcoin elite) cannot manage to make it before him.

My advise: less patronizing - more work... and maybe one day you will become equally efficient in pulling patches. Doubtfully, but maybe...

[wtogami]

People.  Calm down.  Litecoin and Bitcoin OMG regularly backports bug fixes and features for the purpose of testing.  Various bug fixes in 0.8.3 through 0.8.6 and master were directly or indirectly influenced by our work.  Much of it was not directly written by us but was the result of a collaborative effort.  Most of the credit goes to the Bitcoin devs.

[wumpus]

I hear you. We need actual features in Bitcoin-QT, it doesn't have to be a wallet for idiots only.

We just don't have the manpower to make (and maintain, and test!) a wallet with as much features as some of the others.

Coin control did eventually get integrated into master (which will be 0.9). People are very good at screaming that something needs to be integrated but hardly anyone bothers to review or to test a pull request. That's not the developer's fault. You know, when a bug in the wallet suddenly causes people's coins to disappear, we will be blamed. So yes we are careful.

If you think that the pace of wallet development should change, then join in. It's an open source project. Complaining won't do a thing, it only annoys and distracts the current developers, in some cases causing them to give up completely.

He thought of the payment protocol, during the summer, and it is already going to be in a 0.9 release There is something wrong right with that. No Core dev codebase unless it is security related should be implement into clients that fast, when the community can't get something into clients that fast.

Gavin was very effective in getting people to test payment requests. He organized a test plan, I think he even gave out bounties for testing, people followed it and reported on it. Also the payment request code is a layer on top, it doesn't complicate the basic wallet code like coin control does, so it was easier to review.

[wumpus]

Complicates the basic wallet code? He extended one or two methods in the wallet code... Yet Gavin uses foundation money to give out bounties (which no one even knows about, I even googled searched, probably faked it) and that is accepted, even thou a broken protocol is being used... I don't follow this logic. 

Ok, it's clear, you seem hell-bent on ranting instead of taking this into constructive territory. Have fun.

[wumpus]

How am I ranting? I am pointing out logic, you didn't say any logic. If you look at the pull request most the code is for the gui, and button functions. That doesn't complicate the wallet code at all. I only saw him extend two methods, so you are wrong. Also I don't expect you to go against Gavin you pretty much work for him, and if you didn't agree with him I doubt you be working on the client. So I am taking my ranting as you have no facts to prove your points and so you attack.

Ok... ignoring the personal provocation, one last time trying to be constructive:

- What are you trying to accomplish?
- How do you think this can be accomplished effectively?
- How could you help accomplish this?

We're in this boat together and fighting will only help sink it.

[gweedo]

How am I ranting? I am pointing out logic, you didn't say any logic. If you look at the pull request most the code is for the gui, and button functions. That doesn't complicate the wallet code at all. I only saw him extend two methods, so you are wrong. Also I don't expect you to go against Gavin you pretty much work for him, and if you didn't agree with him I doubt you be working on the client. So I am taking my ranting as you have no facts to prove your points and so you attack.

Ok... ignoring the personal provocation, one last time trying to be constructive:

- What are you trying to accomplish?
- How do you think this can be accomplished effectively?
- How could you help accomplish this?

We're in this boat together and fighting will only help sink it.

This will be the third time laying it out. Also who is fighting you are clearly the only one attacking me.

- What are you trying to accomplish?
: Getting community patches in as fast as Core Dev patches. No more favoritism. You claim there are no one willing to test, I am willing to test no one ever post about testing. You claim Gavin used bounties no bounties have ever been posted. Also getting rid of the payment protocol for work should be done on the blockchain. Right now only Peter really works on the blockchain, and this is kinda important, but it takes the back seat to Gavin's ideas.

- How do you think this can be accomplished effectively?
: Be more open. Hence why I use bitcoin-omg. Kinda sad when the litecoin devs are better understanding how the community should drive the development.

- How could you help accomplish this?
: I actually know C++ and could be just like you programing on the core dev team, I chose not to. I don't agree with Gavin's direction of the codebase. Hence why I don't help the core dev team and use the Bitcoin-omg. Voting with my disk space.

[wumpus]

Also getting rid of the payment protocol for work should be done on the blockchain. Right now only Peter really works on the blockchain, and this is kinda important, but it takes the back seat to Gavin's ideas.

Pieter does a great job and it is as appreciated as Gavin's work. He doesn't 'take a back seat' in anything. His headers-first work has utmost priority.

If anything, it is the wallet code that is in the back seat, not the blockchain/network code. Hardly any of the core devs is interested in wallet changes, and after modularizing bitcoind there's a large chance that it will be split off to another project.

- How do you think this can be accomplished effectively?
: Be more open.

More open? How can we more open, everything is in the open on github (or on the mailinglist, or on #bitcoin-dev). There is no secret cabal of developers.

Hence why I use bitcoin-omg. Kinda sad when the litecoin devs are better understanding how the community should drive the development.

Then use bitcoin-omg. If anything, wtogami is doing us a favor by making those releases, because too few people test pull requests. At least the features he backports get some testing this way!

- How could you help accomplish this?
: I actually know C++ and could be just like you programing on the core dev team, I chose not to. I don't agree with Gavin's direction of the codebase. Hence why I don't help the core dev team and use the Bitcoin-omg. Voting with my disk space.

So, help wtogami with the Bitcoin-omg code then? At least review code changes and provide comments to improve them. It's the same code base so it helps the main project too.

"Programming on the core" does not involve an oath of loyalty to anyone, certainly not to Gavin. We all scratch our own itches here and trying to improve the source code in our own way.

If you really want to help, you should realize that, and not let your dislike for Gavin or me ruin your motivation to do so.