Very first "bitcoin-0.1.5.rar"

[imjustagirl]

Hi,
I have been looking all over the internet to find that very first bitcoin release "bitcoin-0.1.5.rar" with bitcoin.exe.
Can't find it anywhere! If anyone has the original file, would you please please please please very very please send it to me!
Thank you 

[achow101]

Code and binaries for the first releases are available here: http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/code/

[imjustagirl]

Thank you  I suppose it's better than nothing. Still not the 0.1.5 version I was looking for 

[cr1776]

Thank you   I suppose it's better than nothing. Still not the 0.1.5 version I was looking for  

Try here:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases?after=v0.2.2

There is a zip and a tar of 0.1.5 on the bottom of that page.  That isn’t the first release, but the one you asked for.

[achow101]

Thank you  I suppose it's better than nothing. Still not the 0.1.5 version I was looking for 

0.1.5 is not the very first release. 0.1.0 is, and 0.1.3 was released shortly after 0.1.0. There is almost no difference between 0.1.0, 0.1.3, and 0.1.5. Why do you want specifically 0.1.5?

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Thank you   I suppose it's better than nothing. Still not the 0.1.5 version I was looking for  

0.1.5 is not the very first release. 0.1.0 is, and 0.1.3 was released shortly after 0.1.0. There is almost no difference between 0.1.0, 0.1.3, and 0.1.5. Why do you want specifically 0.1.5?

I arrived here in the times of 0.7 and I just realized we are back to 0.15. Why is this? I guess the number of the version went back to 0.1 when Bitcoin-QT was renamed to Bitcoin Core? but why would you change the number of the version?

Well I guess it makes sense because we were getting way too close to 1.0 and we are obvious years away from calling the client "final version" (is it even possible to call it final version ever? It will always keep improving I presume)


Edit: Oh wait I just realized this:

https://bitcoin.org/en/version-history

It looks like the number just keeps increasing. It's confusing because 0.9 looks closer to 1.0 than 0.15 to me.

[achow101]

I arrived here in the times of 0.7 and I just realized we are back to 0.15. Why is this? I guess the number of the version went back to 0.1 when Bitcoin-QT was renamed to Bitcoin Core? but why would you change the number of the version?

Well I guess it makes sense because we were getting way too close to 1.0 and we are obvious years away from calling the client "final version" (is it even possible to call it final version ever? It will always keep improving I presume)


Edit: Oh wait I just realized this:

https://bitcoin.org/en/version-history

It looks like the number just keeps increasing. It's confusing because 0.9 looks closer to 1.0 than 0.15 to me.

The version number was not reset to 0.1. It kept increasing. After 0.9 was 0.10, then 0.11, etc. Notice how there is no dot (.) between the numbers. It is a higher number. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be a 1.0 release because that would indicate some level of finality, and we don't want that nor can we agree at what point should there be a 1.0 release. Right now it seems that we might just keep incrementing that middle number to infinity. I am in favor of just dropping the 0. in front of the version number or changing our version number scheme to the one used by Ubuntu (2-digit year followed by 2-digit month for the year and month that the release was made).

[miguelmorales85]

I arrived here in the times of 0.7 and I just realized we are back to 0.15. Why is this? I guess the number of the version went back to 0.1 when Bitcoin-QT was renamed to Bitcoin Core? but why would you change the number of the version?

Well I guess it makes sense because we were getting way too close to 1.0 and we are obvious years away from calling the client "final version" (is it even possible to call it final version ever? It will always keep improving I presume)


Edit: Oh wait I just realized this:

https://bitcoin.org/en/version-history

It looks like the number just keeps increasing. It's confusing because 0.9 looks closer to 1.0 than 0.15 to me.

The version number was not reset to 0.1. It kept increasing. After 0.9 was 0.10, then 0.11, etc. Notice how there is no dot (.) between the numbers. It is a higher number. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be a 1.0 release because that would indicate some level of finality, and we don't want that nor can we agree at what point should there be a 1.0 release. Right now it seems that we might just keep incrementing that middle number to infinity. I am in favor of just dropping the 0. in front of the version number or changing our version number scheme to the one used by Ubuntu (2-digit year followed by 2-digit month for the year and month that the release was made).

I understand the never-release-1.0 thing but isnt software made to be always evolving? There is never a final release of a software just because it is 1.0
I mean you can have 1.1 , 1.11 and so and so..

[cr1776]

I arrived here in the times of 0.7 and I just realized we are back to 0.15. Why is this? I guess the number of the version went back to 0.1 when Bitcoin-QT was renamed to Bitcoin Core? but why would you change the number of the version?

Well I guess it makes sense because we were getting way too close to 1.0 and we are obvious years away from calling the client "final version" (is it even possible to call it final version ever? It will always keep improving I presume)


Edit: Oh wait I just realized this:

https://bitcoin.org/en/version-history

It looks like the number just keeps increasing. It's confusing because 0.9 looks closer to 1.0 than 0.15 to me.

The version number was not reset to 0.1. It kept increasing. After 0.9 was 0.10, then 0.11, etc. Notice how there is no dot (.) between the numbers. It is a higher number. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be a 1.0 release because that would indicate some level of finality, and we don't want that nor can we agree at what point should there be a 1.0 release. Right now it seems that we might just keep incrementing that middle number to infinity. I am in favor of just dropping the 0. in front of the version number or changing our version number scheme to the one used by Ubuntu (2-digit year followed by 2-digit month for the year and month that the release was made).

I understand the never-release-1.0 thing but isnt software made to be always evolving? There is never a final release of a software just because it is 1.0
I mean you can have 1.1 , 1.11 and so and so..

You can.

Satoshi wanted to go to 1.3 in 2010 - from 0.3


edit:
Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=217.0

[imjustagirl]

That earlier version suits my purposes just fine, I wanted to look at how it actually was, when I was too young to understand it 
But for some very odd reason bitcoin.org used to have that version "bitcoin-0.1.5.rar" and its just nowhere to be found. I mean the code is there, but the already built version just vanished from the whole internet, I couldn't find it in any of ftp sites, or software resources, etc. It's a conspiracy theory I say 

[achow101]

That earlier version suits my purposes just fine, I wanted to look at how it actually was, when I was too young to understand it  
But for some very odd reason bitcoin.org used to have that version "bitcoin-0.1.5.rar" and its just nowhere to be found. I mean the code is there, but the already built version just vanished from the whole internet, I couldn't find it in any of ftp sites, or software resources, etc. It's a conspiracy theory I say  

It really is not a conspiracy theory. Bitcoin.org stopped hosting the older versions mostly because they ran out of disk space on their servers for a while so those had to be removed to make way for the newer versions. I don't believe that that is a problem anymore now, but the old ones are not being reposted because I don't think anyone actually has the old released binaries anymore.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

I arrived here in the times of 0.7 and I just realized we are back to 0.15. Why is this? I guess the number of the version went back to 0.1 when Bitcoin-QT was renamed to Bitcoin Core? but why would you change the number of the version?

Well I guess it makes sense because we were getting way too close to 1.0 and we are obvious years away from calling the client "final version" (is it even possible to call it final version ever? It will always keep improving I presume)


Edit: Oh wait I just realized this:

https://bitcoin.org/en/version-history

It looks like the number just keeps increasing. It's confusing because 0.9 looks closer to 1.0 than 0.15 to me.

The version number was not reset to 0.1. It kept increasing. After 0.9 was 0.10, then 0.11, etc. Notice how there is no dot (.) between the numbers. It is a higher number. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be a 1.0 release because that would indicate some level of finality, and we don't want that nor can we agree at what point should there be a 1.0 release. Right now it seems that we might just keep incrementing that middle number to infinity. I am in favor of just dropping the 0. in front of the version number or changing our version number scheme to the one used by Ubuntu (2-digit year followed by 2-digit month for the year and month that the release was made).

I understand the never-release-1.0 thing but isnt software made to be always evolving? There is never a final release of a software just because it is 1.0
I mean you can have 1.1 , 1.11 and so and so..

You can.

Satoshi wanted to go to 1.3 in 2010 - from 0.3


edit:
Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=217.0

Im not sure if caling Bitcoin 1.3 would be a good idea. 1.0 means usually "final version". If you add additional numbers behind 1.x, that x just means patches that fixes bugs but the final design is already there.

Maybe Satoshi wanted to call it 1.x+ because he wanted Bitcoin to stay as it was for life and additional changes would be just that, bug fixes over the same design (which would mean no blocksize increases btw). Well we will never know what Satoshi exactly wanted, what matters is now and I think 1.x sounds too much like "final version" to me so we might as well keep increasing the 0.x number into infinity.

[cr1776]

I arrived here in the times of 0.7 and I just realized we are back to 0.15. Why is this? I guess the number of the version went back to 0.1 when Bitcoin-QT was renamed to Bitcoin Core? but why would you change the number of the version?

Well I guess it makes sense because we were getting way too close to 1.0 and we are obvious years away from calling the client "final version" (is it even possible to call it final version ever? It will always keep improving I presume)


Edit: Oh wait I just realized this:

https://bitcoin.org/en/version-history

It looks like the number just keeps increasing. It's confusing because 0.9 looks closer to 1.0 than 0.15 to me.

The version number was not reset to 0.1. It kept increasing. After 0.9 was 0.10, then 0.11, etc. Notice how there is no dot (.) between the numbers. It is a higher number. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be a 1.0 release because that would indicate some level of finality, and we don't want that nor can we agree at what point should there be a 1.0 release. Right now it seems that we might just keep incrementing that middle number to infinity. I am in favor of just dropping the 0. in front of the version number or changing our version number scheme to the one used by Ubuntu (2-digit year followed by 2-digit month for the year and month that the release was made).

I understand the never-release-1.0 thing but isnt software made to be always evolving? There is never a final release of a software just because it is 1.0
I mean you can have 1.1 , 1.11 and so and so..

You can.

Satoshi wanted to go to 1.3 in 2010 - from 0.3


edit:
Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=217.0

Im not sure if caling Bitcoin 1.3 would be a good idea. 1.0 means usually "final version". If you add additional numbers behind 1.x, that x just means patches that fixes bugs but the final design is already there.

Maybe Satoshi wanted to call it 1.x+ because he wanted Bitcoin to stay as it was for life and additional changes would be just that, bug fixes over the same design (which would mean no blocksize increases btw). Well we will never know what Satoshi exactly wanted, what matters is now and I think 1.x sounds too much like "final version" to me so we might as well keep increasing the 0.x number into infinity.

You can read his thoughts in the link above.  In short, he wanted it to "lose the Beta".  But then at the end of the thread just figured it would stay at 0.3.  This was 2010, remember.