jgarzik (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1099
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 13, 2011, 04:09:46 AM |
|
There will be a lot of fee-related UI changes in the next version. Matt C already has a 'better fee UI' pull request at github. This version is just to triage the P2P network, until we get to that awesome, big next version with wallet encryption and other useful things. The point of v0.3.23 is to release it fast, fast, fast... So people: test, test, test! ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own. Visit bloq.com / metronome.io Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
|
|
|
LightRider
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1500
Merit: 1022
I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 13, 2011, 04:15:09 AM |
|
Does switching from a newer version to a previous version mess up the wallet.dat file? Is it possible that the previous version might have not handled full precision transactions properly?
|
|
|
|
jgarzik (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1099
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 13, 2011, 04:30:50 AM |
|
Does switching from a newer version to a previous version mess up the wallet.dat file?
Probably not, we've taken steps to make sure that works. But if you jump back too far in time, that could create a problem. Is it possible that the previous version might have not handled full precision transactions properly?
Define previous version. All recent versions handle full precision correctly, though the UI might not display it or other cosmetic details like that.
|
Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own. Visit bloq.com / metronome.io Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
|
|
|
LightRider
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1500
Merit: 1022
I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 13, 2011, 04:35:18 AM |
|
Mystery solved, I apologize for the confusion. Apparently the transaction took a very small fee that I could not account for until I saw the transaction page on Blockexplorer. Also, I neglected to look for it in the transaction details panel in the client. I feel very silly now. Thanks for your help.
|
|
|
|
Mike Hearn
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1129
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 13, 2011, 08:54:57 AM |
|
Awesome turnaround guys! I tested the Mac version both with and without port forwarding, it was able to establish a connection to the network within a few seconds in both configurations (tried a few times). This was with UPnP off.
I also tried the UPnP option and it worked fine here.
|
|
|
|
Dobrodav
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 13, 2011, 05:56:25 PM |
|
Is there something done to prevent sending BTC on unknown address when backuping new wallet (without 100 new address created) - or we will again see something like - " OMG - i am followed instructions on backup, and my xxxx BTC gone in unknown direction - where is nearest window to jump in ?"
Maybe some steps to send back unclaimed tx`s back to sender in 6 month ? Just to avoid that unnecessary windows jumps. How about choose clearly one address to send (not all of us buying drugs , your know, - at least not every time) . Easy consolidation of wallet amounts on one address still require some focus-pocus actions with fee free nodes ? Clear representation of BTC`s on each address in wallet ? Floating point operations ? - that is annoying question, but still important.
Anyway, i am believe you are done great job. Will test it.
|
|
|
|
Maged
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 13, 2011, 11:24:43 PM |
|
Is there something done to prevent sending BTC on unknown address when backuping new wallet (without 100 new address created) - or we will again see something like - " OMG - i am followed instructions on backup, and my xxxx BTC gone in unknown direction - where is nearest window to jump in ?"
The keypool is now created immediately in this version. However, it could use some testing.
|
|
|
|
Dayofswords
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 138
Merit: 11
Exchange BTC in Telegram https://bit.ly/2MEfiw8
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 14, 2011, 01:43:14 AM |
|
no zip version?
|
|
|
|
[Coins!]
Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 14, 2011, 06:37:33 PM |
|
One thing that might make the display of the wallet less confusing (maybe) would be to show all the properly available decimal places.
1.0000000000 for example.
or 2.500000000 not just 2.5
Why truncate the display at all?
Thanks for your hard work!
|
|
|
|
andrew_jacksun
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 24
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 14, 2011, 06:47:37 PM |
|
One thing that might make the display of the wallet less confusing (maybe) would be to show all the properly available decimal places.
1.0000000000 for example.
or 2.500000000 not just 2.5
Why truncate the display at all?
Thanks for your hard work!
ditto. and, why was the 'generate coins' option removed? will you bring it back or is that only for elitists who can understand setting up scripts?
|
|
|
|
gigabytecoin
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 16, 2011, 11:44:03 AM |
|
One thing that might make the display of the wallet less confusing (maybe) would be to show all the properly available decimal places.
1.0000000000 for example.
or 2.500000000 not just 2.5
Why truncate the display at all?
Thanks for your hard work!
ditto. and, why was the 'generate coins' option removed? will you bring it back or is that only for elitists who can understand setting up scripts? I somewhat agree. Theoretically a 10mhash CPU could generate 0.35 BTC over the next month if the difficulty stayed stagnant. It won't, but still that is a great way to distribute small amounts of currency to new interested users. Sure, flash a warning perhaps that it might deplete their CPUs lifespan and increase their electrical bill... but don't restrict them from the possibility that was once there. A lot of people don't want to have to install more than 1 program in the course of a their days. One is more than enough to frustrate many of my friends.
|
|
|
|
foo
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 16, 2011, 01:08:52 PM |
|
ditto. and, why was the 'generate coins' option removed? will you bring it back or is that only for elitists who can understand setting up scripts?
I somewhat agree. Theoretically a 10mhash CPU could generate 0.35 BTC over the next month if the difficulty stayed stagnant. It won't, but still that is a great way to distribute small amounts of currency to new interested users. Sure, flash a warning perhaps that it might deplete their CPUs lifespan and increase their electrical bill... but don't restrict them from the possibility that was once there. A lot of people don't want to have to install more than 1 program in the course of a their days. One is more than enough to frustrate many of my friends. FFS, just start the client with the -gen option then.
|
I know this because Tyler knows this.
|
|
|
Pieter Wuille
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 16, 2011, 02:12:10 PM |
|
If you really want to mine on a CPU, please use cpuminer or another specialized program that is efficient, optimized and supports pool mining. The miner left in the default client is only intended as a reference and for testing.
|
I do Bitcoin stuff.
|
|
|
jgarzik (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1099
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 16, 2011, 04:43:47 PM |
|
ditto. and, why was the 'generate coins' option removed? will you bring it back or is that only for elitists who can understand setting up scripts?
I somewhat agree. Theoretically a 10mhash CPU could generate 0.35 BTC over the next month if the difficulty stayed stagnant. It won't, but still that is a great way to distribute small amounts of currency to new interested users Incorrect. Besides being slower than other CPU miners, the built-in CPU miner has never supported pooled mining. It only mines full blocks. Thus, users either get zero BTC (highly likely) or 50 BTC (highly unlikely). At current difficulty, you get a block once every 8 years, at 10 Mhash/sec. http://www.alloscomp.com/bitcoin/old_calculator.php
|
Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own. Visit bloq.com / metronome.io Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
|
|
|
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1006
Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 21, 2011, 07:06:50 PM |
|
But for example in 3.22 when trying to send a very low priority tx, you were forced to pay a fee. Do you now have the option to not send with a fee even though it will likely take a long time to be confirmed?
No, you have to hack the client in order to send spam. In the future, people are considering a checkbox to avoid the recommended fee. Was the spam-detection algorithm improved since 0.3.21 ? In 0.3.21, even when i wanted to send some bitcoins having 7 confirmations, i had to pay the fee. Downgrade to 0.3.20 fixed the problem, and i could send the bitcoins (and later i got 2 confirmations after 45 minutes, so the transaction was OK contrary to what client claimed). So is this finally fixed or not ?
|
|
|
|
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1006
Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 21, 2011, 08:29:05 PM |
|
Polite bump.
Let's ask this question differently: Was the algorithm which decides what is spam and what isn't changed at all since 0.3.21 ?
|
|
|
|
Pieter Wuille
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 23, 2011, 12:55:07 PM |
|
Let's ask this question differently: Was the algorithm which decides what is spam and what isn't changed at all since 0.3.21 ?
No, but the minimum fee required in case it is considered "spam" was decreased to 0.0005 in 0.3.22 and to 0.0001 in 0.3.23.
|
I do Bitcoin stuff.
|
|
|
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1006
Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 23, 2011, 09:15:02 PM |
|
Let's ask this question differently: Was the algorithm which decides what is spam and what isn't changed at all since 0.3.21 ?
No, but the minimum fee required in case it is considered "spam" was decreased to 0.0005 in 0.3.22 and to 0.0001 in 0.3.23. Actually, i had the forced feee even when sending 10 BTC having 7 confirmations.... So i guess this wasn't fixed.
|
|
|
|
|