0.8.2rc1 ready for testing

[keystroke]

Starts up fine under Windows 8 x64.

[1714106767]

1714106767

[1714106767]

1714106767

[1714106767]

1714106767

[1714106767]

1714106767

[rme]

Testnet splash screen:


Cool 

[slothbag]

Works fine for me on Win8 64bit.  Startup time seems greatly improved which is nice.

Splash screen behaves a little nicer than the previous one.

Great work.

[CryptoPath]

Is there a risk for a new fork chain ?

[gmaxwell]

Is there a risk for a new fork chain ?

0.8.2 does not obviously have any high consensus-consistency risk changes.

[keystroke]

Working great so far, I'm just leaving it running. I guess we will get a release before the 15th?

[Searinox]

2 days of solid running, 1 instance of qt another of bitcoind, both mining P2Pool on different machines, ATI and nVidia respectively. No crashes, abnormal latency, slow response or anything of the sort. Both machines are running Windows 7 x64 SP1 + all updates.

[Kupsi]

Works fine on my Win 7 64 bit. And now I have over 63 connected nodes 

Thank you for great work again.

[jdbtracker]

hey just for fun I decided to do a little math and see how much this change would gain the network.

61883 transaction per 24 hour cycle

times .0001 x 120USD/BTC = 742USD/day as it stands now

742USD/day  divided by 24 hours divide that by 6 blocks/hour  = 5.15USD/block divided by .012c/kb= 429kb of transactions

61883/24/6= 429 transactons/block

wow! are people all sending 1kb transactions today?!

LOL!

Now this has me curious, what kind of scale of transactions is the maximum number of transactions

2898 transactions per hour

29,891 BTC sent per hour

120USD/BTC

.17mb / block transaction average

 thats 174kb

 0.36kb/transaction,

so dividing 500kb/.36 = 1388 maximum transations per block =  200,000 maximum transactions per day
x
.0001BTC(.012 cents)

that's 19.9872BTC/day x 120USD=2398.464USD/Day payed in fees

x
.0083BTC(.996 dollars)

thats 1660BTC/Day x 120USD = 200,000USD/Day yeah more or less correct


wow it would be nutty to think that might be possible one day, but the size of some transactions is enormous!
Holy how much are they transferring?

by the way, works great on p2pool windows 7 x64

[mikeg]

Initial test results:

Code:

OS: Ubuntu 12.04 LTS 64-bit
Memory: 3.9GB
Processor: Intel Core2 Quad CPU Q8200
Graphics: Vesa Cypress

01) >cp ~/.bitcoin .bitcoin-bak
02) >rm .bitcoin/wallet.dat
03) >rm .bitcoin/addr.dat
04) Built bitcoind, bitcoin-qt
05) Launched bitcoin-qt: [Error:Invalid amount for -mintxfee=<amount>:'0.00000000']
06) >rm .bitcoin/bitcoin.conf
07) Launched bitcoin-qt
---> 8:17pm, Verifying Blocks
---> 8:18pm, Rescanning [no indication anything is happening]
---> 8:24pm, Main Wallet Screen [2 hours behind blockchain]
---> 8:25pm, Sync [OK]
08) quit bitcoin-qt
09) >cp ../.bitcoin-bak/addr.dat .
10) Launched bitcoin-qt, addresses not available
11) Quit bitcoin-qt
12) >cp ../.bitcoin-bak/wallet.dat .
13) Launched bitcoin-qt, addresses and previous balance [OK]
14) Quit bitcoin-qt
15) Launched bitcoind [ran a few commands, OK]
16) Built bitcoin, bitcoin-qt tests
17) ./test_bitcoin [Running 93 test cases... *** No errors detected]
18) ./bitcoin-qt_test [Config: Using QTest library 4.8.1, Qt 4.8.1 -- Totals: 3 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped]

[saddambitcoin]

I'm not sure that I like the Bitcoin logo changing color from a pleasant gold to darker orange, reminds me of the color of Triaminic syrup.

[gmaxwell]

09) >cp ../.bitcoin-bak/addr.dat .
10) Launched bitcoin-qt, addresses not available

Addr.dat has nothing to do with bitcoin addresses. It was a file the older versions of Bitcoin used to keep track of peers. The name refers to IP network addresses. The functionality was replaced by peers.dat several versions ago and current software doesn't read addr.dat at all, so your results there are completely expected.

[jl2012]

Is there a risk for a new fork chain ?

0.8.2 does not obviously have any high consensus-consistency risk changes.

People thought the same when 0.8 was released.  

EDIT: this comment is not accurate. see below

[gmaxwell]

People thought the same when 0.8 was released. 

Uh. No. That is entirely untrue. The database and blockchain engine was completely rewritten and, in fact, we had considered releasing 0.8.0 as "not for use by miners". Several severe chain splitting bugs had been introduced in the coarse of 0.8's development and corrected prior to release.   Obviously it wasn't know that there were outstanding ways of trigger inconsistency, but it was certainly known that there were higher risk changes. Please don't rewrite history just to create a forum quip.

Of course, its not possible to be certain that something is bug free: Surprising things happen. But thats why I answered that there were no known high risk changes, rather than responding that there was no risk.

[LightRider]

Splash screen does not indicate that bitcoin is now under the microtransaction hating iron fisted tyrannical rule of Gavin the Merciless. Otherwise, works ok.

Thanks devs!

[keystroke]

The "Pay transaction fee" dialog box defaults to a 0.00100000 fee if the up arrow is clicked. It still allows entering a 0.00000001 fee manually. This makes sense as the default policy can be overridden. However perhaps the dialog box should have information about the default fee and how fees are calculated? Or a pop-up to warn if the fee used is too low?

[jdbtracker]

Had a crash in Windows 7 x64 fully updated. running p2pool 11.4, I close p2pool and Bitcoind crashes. Just testing on a new build.

[jgarzik]

The "Pay transaction fee" dialog box defaults to a 0.00100000 fee if the up arrow is clicked. It still allows entering a 0.00000001 fee manually. This makes sense as the default policy can be overridden. However perhaps the dialog box should have information about the default fee and how fees are calculated? Or a pop-up to warn if the fee used is too low?

There is near-universal agreement that the fee system -- its calculation, presentation to users, and other details -- are in need of revision.  That is one of the goals of 0.9, hopefully.

[jdbtracker]

I'm only a new user, just found out about it from my boss who wanted me to check Bitcoin out see what I thought about it.

but for these features that your talking about they should be up-front in the client, so people can change them on the fly, just like Facebook.

Everyone has seen Facebook, it does everything that e-mail does, it's just in your face, transfer pictures, text,files, etc and make it easy to adjust; A minimum clicks per feature approach. Let the Bitcoin users have easy access in their face to these features.

e.g. put the transaction fee/kb in the front, so it is a visible and changeable on the fly variable.
       when sending a transaction, list the Kb size of that transaction so people know how much they should actually put as a fee; right now people are just guessing and hoping... trial and error on the part of the user = frustration.
      also can it somehow be listed in the client before sending a transaction the likelihood of it being included in the next block according to the fee provided? This can create a market feedback loop as to how fast they want that transaction in the block.

I think the more info the relevant users have in front of them the more likely they will react intelligently to changes in the network.

[IVIasterZox]

Looks verry Good !!!

But why did not you implement Coincontroll?
I wait for this ....