Bitcoin version 0.3.24 released

[Nescio]

Please make this thread sticky until the next version and keep repeating that
There is so much traffic now many people might not see this thread.

[1714043844]

1714043844

[1714043844]

1714043844

[1714043844]

1714043844

[1714043844]

1714043844

[1714043844]

1714043844

[randomguy7]

Is there some gpg signature to verify the integrity of the files?

[jgarzik]

Is there some gpg signature to verify the integrity of the files?

Yes.  See the original post in this thread.

[Matt Corallo]

I dont know where bugreports is collected, so i post it here

We use github, put in a bug at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/395.  If someone can translate to russian, that is what would be needed here.

[Serge]

I dont know where bugreports is collected, so i post it here

We use github, put in a bug at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/395.  If someone can translate to russian, that is what would be needed here.

I'm not on github so will post translation here

Open Bitcoin - Oткpыть Bitcoin (Биткoин), this one is right
Send Bitcoins - Oтпpaвить Bitcoins (Биткoины)

In parenthesis singular and plural word Bitcoin in case it's needed

[becoin]

There's nobody to whom "the greed" could "get".

Certainly there is. Mining pools currently get 50 BTC for every block plus total transaction fees for that same block. For many of them transaction fees are the only revenue source. The minimum transaction fee effectively is a mining pool 'tax' for all network users. I understand the need to protect against DoS attacks. However, what is the point of protecting against an attack if there is no attack? If you're not flexible, always keeping your shield charged to the maximum, it is just a waste of resources!

The minimum transaction fee should be a dynamically defined variable by the system. Its value must depend on <some data related to things happening on the Bitcoin network> including DoS attacks (or other attacks) already commenced and in progress.

[kokojie]

Can we have an option to change the language on the fly please? I am on a Chinese language windows7 system, so all my Chinese software would work flawlessly, but I prefer my English software to be actually in English, because the translation is often horrid(and the Chinese translation for bitcoin client is really confusing). Right now, I delete the zh_cn folder, each time the program updates, and it's a chore.

[error]

Can we have an option to change the language on the fly please? I am on a Chinese language windows7 system, so all my Chinese software would work flawlessly, but I prefer my English software to be actually in English, because the translation is often horrid(and the Chinese translation for bitcoin client is really confusing). Right now, I delete the zh_cn folder, each time the program updates, and it's a chore.

Have you considered submitting better translations?

[elements]

Hi,
just checked out the link on sourceforge but the mac version seems to be still 0.3.23 , right?
Or is just the file named wrongly?

Thanks!

[davux]

Can we have an option to change the language on the fly please? I am on a Chinese language windows7 system, so all my Chinese software would work flawlessly, but I prefer my English software to be actually in English

When I need to do so (for example read a manpage in English instead of my locale), I use environment variables. If you're using an Unix-like system, you can run bitcoin with the following command on the shell prompt: LANG=en_US bitcoin

[error]

Can we have an option to change the language on the fly please? I am on a Chinese language windows7 system, so all my Chinese software would work flawlessly, but I prefer my English software to be actually in English

When I need to do so (for example read a manpage in English instead of my locale), I use environment variables. If you're using an Unix-like system, you can run bitcoin with the following command on the shell prompt: LANG=en_US bitcoin

Slightly better is to use LC_ALL, lest some things be displayed strangely.

Code:

LC_ALL=en_US.UTF-8 bitcoin

[jgarzik]

Bump.  All users are encouraged to upgrade to 0.3.24, to avoid block chain download issues currently seen in the field.

[geek-trader]

Bump.  All users are encouraged to upgrade to 0.3.24, to avoid block chain download issues currently seen in the field.

I'd be happy to if there was a Mac version. 

[WakiMiko]

Bump.  All users are encouraged to upgrade to 0.3.24, to avoid block chain download issues currently seen in the field.

Why not sticky release threads until the next release?

[riush]

Bump.  All users are encouraged to upgrade to 0.3.24, to avoid block chain download issues currently seen in the field.

just to be clear, if i don't have issues myself, do i help others by upgrading?

also, +1 on sticky

Edit: just upgraded, working smoothly.
block download started instantly, got >25 connections within a minute and upnp didn't kill my already forwarded port

only thing is the tests won't run, am i doing something wrong?

$ make -j5 -f makefile.unix test_bitcoin
g++  -o test_bitcoin  obj/test/test_bitcoin.o -Wl,-Bstatic -l boost_system -l boost_filesystem -l boost_program_options -l boost_thread -l db_cxx -l ssl -l crypto -l miniupnpc -Wl,-Bdynamic -l gthread-2.0 -l z -l dl -l pthread -lboost_unit_test_framework
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/crt1.o: In function `_start':
(.text+0x20): undefined reference to `main'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make: *** [test_bitcoin] Error 1

[jgarzik]

Bump.  All users are encouraged to upgrade to 0.3.24, to avoid block chain download issues currently seen in the field.

just to be clear, if i don't have issues myself, do i help others by upgrading?

Yes, most definitely.

Nodes requesting block chain downloads can have their downloads cut off abruptly, on older versions of bitcoin.

The more people running 0.3.24, the less this awful behavior will be seen.

[gmaxwell]

The minimum transaction fee effectively is a mining pool 'tax' for all network users. I understand the need to protect against DoS attacks. However, what is the point of protecting against an attack if there is no attack? If you're not flexible, always keeping your shield charged to the maximum, it is just a waste of resources!

Repeat after me: There is no minimum transaction fee.

and then:

Repeat:  The overwhelming majority of transactions are zero fee.

The software requires a for relay for transactions which the adaptive technical detection for DOS-attack-like transactions can't distinguish from an attack, and for transactions which are unusually burdensome (many kbytes of data).   The adaptive detection doesn't depend on the instantaneous network status:  Its can't easily because in a decentralized system there is no singular status, and if nodes disagree about the status the protection isn't effective (if its fail open) or it makes txn get stuck in unspendable limbo at random (if its fail closed).

Instead the adaptivity depends on the character of the transaction itself— it's value, the time since its inputs were last spent, the size of the outputs, and the amount of data used to represent it.   These are all factors which are directly relevant to a DOS attack because they objectively measure the effort it takes to perform the attack and the impact on the whole network of performing the attack.  This is a usable criteria because it's objective and can be acted on uniformly by independent nodes.

Above the cutoff priority txns are handled in a priority oriented manner which gives the soft "only messes things up if there is an attack" behavior that you seem to think we lack.   .... You only think we lack it because it actually works.   Unfortunately, the soft behavior can only work to a limited extent because in order to handle things in a priority order nodes must have first undertaken the non-trivial costs of storing and forwarding the transaction— so at some point the system has to simply say "No, I refuse to use memory for this, I refuse to use bandwidth for this". Otherwise the attacker can exhaust these resources even if non-spammish transactions always beat them into the blocks.  If the threshold at which transactions aren't remembered (which makes them _very unlikely_ to go through) is too dynamic then you'll continually end up with transactions which are stuck in limbo polluting your wallet, and potentially polluting the wallet of the receiver if they happened to hear the txn.  

These zombie unconfirmed transactions can end up like a spreading cancer, since their (or their change) will eventually get used as inputs as a last resort thus spreading the confirmation delays to additional transactions which would otherwise confirm quickly.

At yes, the setup is far from perfect— for example because, unfortunately, a lot of new users make transactions which are technically indistinguishable from a DOS attack... and because the proper fee for DOS-like-txn depends on the current "value" of bitcoin, which changes in unpredictable ways.

On the flip side, the worst case for these newbie transactions is that it causes some users to have to pay a 0.0005 BTC fee per transaction sometimes.  This is less than a penny. The gross burden on the disk space of full nodes to store the transaction (around 10 megabytes for a normal sized transaction, assuming 40k full nodes) is currently a similar cost.  The fee structure also creates a nice opportunity to educate people about more pro-social usage of bitcoin (e.g. making all payments with zillions of 0.01 txn is unnecessarily burdensome on the network).

Certainly there is a lot of room for improvement, but whining— especially whining which exaggerates and misrepresents the situation is not helpful.

[geek-trader]

Repeat after me: There is no minimum transaction fee.
...
On the flip side, the worst case for these newbie transactions is that it causes some users to have to pay a 0.0005 BTC fee per transaction sometimes.
...

Sure looks like a minimum transaction fee to me.

[Matt Corallo]

Repeat after me: There is no minimum transaction fee.
...
On the flip side, the worst case for these newbie transactions is that it causes some users to have to pay a 0.0005 BTC fee per transaction sometimes.
...

Sure looks like a minimum transaction fee to me.

Did you bother to read the post, or did you just Cntrl-F for 0.0005?

[geek-trader]

Repeat after me: There is no minimum transaction fee.
...
On the flip side, the worst case for these newbie transactions is that it causes some users to have to pay a 0.0005 BTC fee per transaction sometimes.
...

Sure looks like a minimum transaction fee to me.

Did you bother to read the post, or did you just Cntrl-F for 0.0005?

The average user doesn't care about all the technical details in that post.  They care that people keep saying there's no minimum fee, when there is. 

I don't care that there's a fee.  I have mine set to 0.01 for all transactions, anyway.  just STOP SAYING there is no minimum fee when clearly there is.  It's confusing.

[edited for typo]