People running older versions of Core - Why?

[DaveF]

So over the last couple of days / weeks I have seen a bunch of questions come up from people who are running / using older versions of core.
This person running 20.x: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5468581.0
This person connecting to 23.x: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5468928.msg62950766#msg62950766
And so on.

Now, I know if you are trying to work with older wallets (10+ years at this point) that's one thing.
But dealing with other issues why? It's not a difficult thing to update. And, if you don't you are going to have problems later.

Am I missing something?

-Dave

[1714564485]

1714564485

[1714564485]

1714564485

[1714564485]

1714564485

[1714564485]

1714564485

[1714564485]

1714564485

[dzungmobile]

They probably did not check Bitcoin Core Version history and did not know that there are newer versions that the version they are using.

Bitcoincore.org - Bitcoin Core Released versions.

I can understand they hesitate to upgrade their Bitcoin Core software to a newest version by security worry and it's understandable if they want to keep one version older than a newest one, wait for a while from community usage and review on a newest versions. However using wallet versions that are 2 or 4 years ago is non-understandable. Yes, did I miss something like you.

[pooya87]

It's not a difficult thing to update.

It kind of is difficult. It is not as easy as updating your browser for example where it either updates in the background without the user noticing or you just click a button. You have to actually go to the core website, download the binaries then verify the signatures before you install the new version. All these extra steps makes people postpone such updates specially since they are not facing any difficulties with their usage.

Additionally core does not give the user any indication of the new versions being available inside the software itself, so it is understandable that people don't pay attention to it either.

It is like this for all software that users use. This is why there are all these pop-ups everywhere, like your phone keeps reminding you to update your apps or the OS itself, or your desktop having all these Windows/Linux update reminders, and almost all applications on your desktop have some "check for update" option hidden somewhere inside them.
Long story short, most people will never upgrade anything unless they are either reminded or they face an issue.

[DaveF]

It's not a difficult thing to update.

It kind of is difficult. It is not as easy as updating your browser for example where it either updates in the background without the user noticing or you just click a button. You have to actually go to the core website, download the binaries then verify the signatures before you install the new version. All these extra steps makes people postpone such updates specially since they are not facing any difficulties with their usage.

Additionally core does not give the user any indication of the new versions being available inside the software itself, so it is understandable that people don't pay attention to it either.

It is like this for all software that users use. This is why there are all these pop-ups everywhere, like your phone keeps reminding you to update your apps or the OS itself, or your desktop having all these Windows/Linux update reminders, and almost all applications on your desktop have some "check for update" option hidden somewhere inside them.
Long story short, most people will never upgrade anything unless they are either reminded or they face an issue.

I know that, BUT and this is the reason I chose the 2 links, BOTH of those users had the old version pointed out to them and they did not acknowledge it at all.
Granted one has been only about 24 hours since the comment.

But, if you read the posts they are not casual users, they are people working with core and seem to know what they are doing and trying to figure out an issue or why it's behaving the way it is.

Could just be me, but the 1st thing I do when that happens is look to see if there are newer versions of the software. Not just in the crypto world but in any sort of computer issue.

-Dave

[Findingnemo]

Apart from @pooya87 mentioned, in some cases, the user who updates may need to have redownload blockchain data because old wallet files are no more supported for example

Note that the block database format also changed in version 0.8.0 and there is no automatic upgrade code from before version 0.8 to version 0.15.0. Upgrading directly from 0.7.x and earlier without redownloading the blockchain is not supported.

which nobody likes tbh. but since the Bitcoin Core 0.17.0 version there is no change in the format of wallet files so users having versions of the latter have no issues like downloading the data and can use their existing wallet files to sync with the new version.

[pooya87]

Could just be me, but the 1st thing I do when that happens is look to see if there are newer versions of the software. Not just in the crypto world but in any sort of computer issue.

I can't comment on the reasons each individual has for not upgrading but I can tell you that it has always been a pain for developers that they fix a bug and release a new version but users keep complaining about the same bug that they had already fixed because they never updated or checked that there is an update.

The best example I can think of is the network change in Electrum that prevented old clients from connecting to servers. The issue tracker is filled with people complaining about not being able to connect because they hadn't upgraded.
Example: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/5260
Some even from 2 years later: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/6992

[hugeblack]

I'm still using an old version of Electrum/browser that I haven't updated in about a year, so I think the important update is 0.21.1 where the taproot soft fork (BIP341) was added.
As for me, I read the changes that come with the updates. If they are not important to me, there is no need to update unless a vulnerability is found that needs updating. Therefore, I think that some people see that features in that the latest updates are unnecessary, so there is no need for that.
Also, some may be late in updating, as there may be some bugs, so they wait until there are sufficient downloads.

[achow101]

Apart from @pooya87 mentioned, in some cases, the user who updates may need to have redownload blockchain data because old wallet files are no more supported

They should never need to. Backwards compatibility is maintained for as long as possible, with background upgrading and/or explicit migration available for several versions. Even when something is eventually removed, it is possible to upgrade to a version in between that support old and new versions, do the database upgrade (which may just happen in the background), and then upgrade again. Additionally, removing support for older things rarely happens so upgrading rarely breaks compatibility with prior versions.

The people who think they need to redownload the entire blockchain if they want to upgrade to any version are simply wrong.


For a while, bitcoin.org (which is not controlled by anyone who works on Bitcoin Core) hosted old and outdated versions. They were telling people the latest version was 22.0 when 23.0, 24.0, and 25.0 had already been released. Only recently have they updated to hosting 25.0.

[Cricktor]

My approach to updates of Bitcoin Core, Electrum, Sparrow or my Lightning node is: when a new version is released I quickly read the release notes of the new version. Is there a security or other important fix that makes a quick update necessary? If this isn't the case or no other new feature makes me want to update as soon as possible, I wait a few days or weeks and don't rush it.

Are there issues with the new version, are there permanent features which I don't like, how is the reception of the user base? I try to take all of this into consideration before I decide to update finally which may take me from a few days to a few weeks usually.

When it comes to wallet software I'm no update junkie, ie. no update asap. Bitcoin Core and Electrum are quite stable, severe security or stability fixes are rare, no need to rush the update. Sparrow is younger, maybe gets more features and whatnot, an update could bring more nice changes to it, so I'd likely update this more quickly. LND or Core Lightning has even more new stuff, work in progress or security and stability fixes where sometimes an update is beneficial as soon as possible. It all depends...

[philipma1957]

I have more than one trezor. I do not like to update them. As it is work.

I fear killing off the trezor and losing coins.

So I move all the coins out of one trezor in to another trezor.

I fully update the coins trezor.

I move a small amount of coins back from the not updated trezor and check all took and is working on the updated trezor.

I then fully move the coins back to the up dated trezor. making the backup trezor empty I then update it.

So with three trezors this is a lot of work.

my bitcoin core I have two clones of it. but I empty the main one into an updated trezor then up date it.

I then update the clones.

so after my clones work I then move the coins back with the trezor to the bitcoin core.

so basically i dont want to do all that work.

[LoyceV]

Let me ask a counter question: why not? I remember upgrading to Bitcoin Core 0.21.1: I came from 0.17.0 and had not updated in years. The result was an annoying bug. If it works without problems, why bother?

I get that updates are needed once in a while for new features (such as Segwit), but other than that, I don't need to have every latest version. And it's always a hassle to verify the new version to make sure it's the real one. I'm lazy

[nc50lc]

This person running 20.x: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5468581.0
This person connecting to 23.x: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5468928.msg62950766#msg62950766

One reason is if the user doesn't want to support a new feature or a soft fork.

For the person who uses v23:
The next versions don't have "forced features". The closest update has "full-rbf" in v24.0.1 but it's not enabled by default.
So it's either lack of research about the person's undesired feature or just don't have the time to update.

For the person who uses v20.1:
He left a reply about his reason for not updating: /index.php?topic=5468581.msg63001184#msg63001184

[shield132]

Not only bitcoin core but I run older version of Electrum too. Probably I haven't updated Electrum since 2020, after this accident but I know that won't trick you if you take security seriously and that's what I do. Also, I think that when it comes to updates, it's best to be late unless update targets the correction of available dangerous bugs. My approach is, let others test new software for a while and if there are no bugs, problems and they run it smoothly, then feel free to update. There is no need to hurry if current version works well and there is not some mindblowing feature added.

You have to actually go to the core website, download the binaries then verify the signatures before you install the new version.

I have always downloaded without verifying signatures. If someone hacks website and uploads compromised bitcoin core, then he will be able to edit website and signatures and fake whole process. Or is it a good approach to save signature right now and check if they match the next time you download/update bitcoin core?

Additionally core does not give the user any indication of the new versions being available inside the software itself, so it is understandable that people don't pay attention to it either.

Bitcointalk's upper news bar is a great alternative notifier, when there is a change, I always notice.

For the person who uses v23:
The next versions don't have "forced features". The closest update has "full-rbf" in v24.0.1 but it's not enabled by default.
So it's either lack of research about the person's undesired feature or just don't have the time to update.

I can't imagine why someone shouldn't support that feature. You lose absolutely nothing by enabling RBF and the transaction stuck problems would easily be solved if RBF was enabled since 2017. I can't find a single reason why you should hesitate update because of enabled RBF, probably companies which offer bitcoin transaction accelerate services will be the only ones who will protest RBF.

[nc50lc]

For the person who uses v23:
The next versions don't have "forced features". The closest update has "full-rbf" in v24.0.1 but it's not enabled by default.
So it's either lack of research about the person's undesired feature or just don't have the time to update.

I can't imagine why someone shouldn't support that feature.

It's mostly those who rely on "zero-confirmation deposit" in some centralized Exchange or Casino
because when transactions became all replaceable, they wont be able to continue such feature without a huge risk.

You'll find some arguments about it in this thread as well as the links provided in the OP: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403730.0 (Full RBF)
Mostly in the middle to last few pages; you'll even find tons of articles related to it in Google search.

[pooya87]

I have always downloaded without verifying signatures. If someone hacks website and uploads compromised bitcoin core, then he will be able to edit website and signatures and fake whole process. Or is it a good approach to save signature right now and check if they match the next time you download/update bitcoin core?

Not the signatures but the public keys, the signatures change each time based on the binary. Like transactions that each time you create a different tx (eg. spending from the same address), the signature is different even though your key is the same.

The security comes down to a concept called Web of Trust. You basically have to find a way to find and acquire the correct public keys used in signing the binaries. Then you can download the binaries and its corresponding signature from anywhere in the future and verify it with the public key you already have. So even if the websites were compromised and the attacker signs the binaries with their own public key, you still wouldn't fall for it because the signature won't verify against the correct public key you already have and trust.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The result was an annoying bug. If it works without problems, why bother?

To me it's simple. You either want to verify post-softfork transactions (i.e., taproot), or you want to use a new mempool policy which wasn't possible from the UI in previous versions, like -mempoolfullrbf.

You basically have to find a way to find and acquire the correct public keys used in signing the binaries.

This is what I do:
- Download builders' keys: git clone git@github.com:bitcoin-core/guix.sigs.git
- Go to the builders-key directory and run: find . -type f -name "*.gpg" -print0 | xargs -0 gpg --import
- Verify the binaries.
- Anonymously use a search engine to find results for a couple of public keys just to check they have been archived (so they are legitimate).

[Volgastallion]

Let me ask a counter question: why not? I remember upgrading to Bitcoin Core 0.21.1: I came from 0.17.0 and had not updated in years. The result was an annoying bug. If it works without problems, why bother?

I get that updates are needed once in a while for new features (such as Segwit), but other than that, I don't need to have every latest version. And it's always a hassle to verify the new version to make sure it's the real one. I'm lazy

I support this way of thinking, i dont run any bitcoin core but for example i dont update my electrum wallet everytime they launch a new version, i wait a lot of time until i update the wallet.

And maybe you again asked why? And the why is because if you update fast anything you can be the first one to experience bugs or new problems, so sometimes its better to wait and when you know X version is fully stable then you update to that version, and im talking about everything, a game a SO, etc.

[seek3r]

I’m still running 0.19.0 because I don’t see the need to upgrade. Maybe part of me is paranoid about verifying the signatures too.

I have a question but didn’t want to start my own thread. I run an old Bitcoin Core Wallet back at my parents house. Recently I am only able to get 1 or 2 outgoing connections. Does Windows 10 Firewall or Windows Defender prevent outgoing connections? It still syncs but much, much slower. I was always able to get 8 outgoing connections previously.

Maybe some Windows updates screwed something up? You could have a look at the Windows Defebder settings. Go to Allow an app or feature through... and make sure that Bitcoin Core is checked for both networks, public and private.
You could have a look at the configuration file of Bitcoin Core aswell (bitcoin.conf) for a change that could limit outgoing connections.
One more thing that comes into mind is that the port '8333' should be opened.

[Timelord2067]

The Dev Team probably gave up using the "announcement" feature in CORE given how many varieties of wallets there now are.

Some people may not want to upgrade a program until such time as an bugs in the system are ironed out.

[OgNasty]

A lot of people use older or custom implementations of Core because they’ve built other systems on top of that and they don’t want to spend the rest of their lives digging through code to keep everything working each time core has a new updates. When it comes to keeping software functioning, updates can be the bane of your existence.