Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 12:10:46 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Please help test: Bitcoin-Qt, bitcoind version 0.5.2rc1  (Read 2159 times)
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
January 12, 2012, 09:17:34 PM
 #1

Bitcoin version 0.5.2rc1 is now available for download at:
  http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.5.2/test/

This is a bugfix-only release based on 0.5.1.

Please report bugs by replying to this forum thread.

Stable source code is hosted at Gitorious:
  http://gitorious.org/bitcoin/bitcoind-stable/archive-tarball/v0.5.2rc1#.tar.gz

BUG FIXES

  • Check all transactions in blocks after the last checkpoint (0.5.0 and 0.5.1 skipped checking ECDSA signatures during initial blockchain download; this was not a security vulnerability).
  • Cease locking memory used by non-sensitive information (this caused a huge performance hit on some platforms, especially noticable during initial blockchain download).
  • Fixed some address-handling deadlocks (client freezes).
  • No longer accept inbound connections over the internet when Bitcoin is being used with Tor (identity leak).
  • Re-enable SSL support for the JSON-RPC interface (it was unintentionally disabled for the 0.5.0 and 0.5.1 release Linux binaries).
  • Use the correct base transaction fee of 0.0005 BTC for accepting transactions into mined blocks (since 0.4.0, it was incorrectly accepting 0.0001 BTC which was only meant to be relayed).
  • Don't show "IP" for transactions which are not necessarily IP transactions.
  • Add new DNS seeds (maintained by Pieter Wuille and Luke Dashjr).



Thanks to everybody who contributed code or helped test this release:

Luke Dashjr
Matt Corallo
Wladimir J. van der Laan
Gavin Andresen
Pieter Wuille
Dylan Noblesmith

1481155846
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481155846

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481155846
Reply with quote  #2

1481155846
Report to moderator
1481155846
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481155846

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481155846
Reply with quote  #2

1481155846
Report to moderator
1481155846
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481155846

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481155846
Reply with quote  #2

1481155846
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481155846
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481155846

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481155846
Reply with quote  #2

1481155846
Report to moderator
1481155846
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481155846

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481155846
Reply with quote  #2

1481155846
Report to moderator
Mushoz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


Bitbuy


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2012, 01:24:49 AM
 #2

What's the ETA on the official release? It's looking good so far!  Smiley

www.bitbuy.nl - Koop eenvoudig, snel en goedkoop bitcoins bij Bitbuy!
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
January 16, 2012, 01:27:28 AM
 #3

What's the ETA on the official release? It's looking good so far!  Smiley
Technically, it's already tagged. We just wanted to make sure more people tested it before putting it on the front page. Wink

pc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 253


View Profile
January 16, 2012, 03:37:16 PM
 #4

Check all transactions in blocks after the last checkpoint (0.5.0 and 0.5.1 skipped checking ECDSA signatures during initial blockchain download).
That sounds scary. Could you clarify what risks somebody has in using 0.5.0 and 0.5.1 right now? Is there link to a forum thread or the like about this? Or is this not as scary as it sounds?
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
January 16, 2012, 04:04:50 PM
 #5

Check all transactions in blocks after the last checkpoint (0.5.0 and 0.5.1 skipped checking ECDSA signatures during initial blockchain download).
That sounds scary. Could you clarify what risks somebody has in using 0.5.0 and 0.5.1 right now? Is there link to a forum thread or the like about this? Or is this not as scary as it sounds?
It's not that scary if you follow best practices of waiting 6 confirmations for transactions. Even if there's a malicious miner out there, other miners would have rejected his blocks.

Mushoz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


Bitbuy


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2012, 04:10:07 PM
 #6

I think it's crucial this gets released ASAP though. But of course, not without being sure there aren't any major bugs in this release. The thing is, the downloads for the client are picking up, most likely because of the The Good Wife show. Loads of new people might get turned off by the hours long blockchain synchronization. Decisions, decisions...

www.bitbuy.nl - Koop eenvoudig, snel en goedkoop bitcoins bij Bitbuy!
fornit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 989


View Profile
January 16, 2012, 04:28:36 PM
 #7

seems to work with win7 64-bit.
didnt do anything special though, just checking all tabs, options and sorting and let it download a few weeks of blocks.

finway
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile
January 16, 2012, 05:22:15 PM
 #8

Working fine on WinXP

pc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 253


View Profile
January 16, 2012, 06:56:20 PM
 #9

Check all transactions in blocks after the last checkpoint (0.5.0 and 0.5.1 skipped checking ECDSA signatures during initial blockchain download).
That sounds scary. Could you clarify what risks somebody has in using 0.5.0 and 0.5.1 right now? Is there link to a forum thread or the like about this? Or is this not as scary as it sounds?
It's not that scary if you follow best practices of waiting 6 confirmations for transactions. Even if there's a malicious miner out there, other miners would have rejected his blocks.
If somebody were mining using 0.5.0 or 0.5.1, could they have in theory been "tricked" into building onto malicious blocks?

I do understand that anything with a handful of confirmations is fine, but it's rather disconcerting that the client has been effectively a lightweight client (trusting the miners entirely), especially as the Satoshi client is a reference of how to mine in addition to the core transaction client.

I guess this all just builds into Gavin's wish for more automated tests to try to verify correct operations. But it makes me wonder whether I should keep upgrading to the latest versions as soon as they come out, or whether the tried-and-true older versions are more or less likely to be "correct"…
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
January 16, 2012, 09:08:17 PM
 #10

But it makes me wonder whether I should keep upgrading to the latest versions as soon as they come out, or whether the tried-and-true older versions are more or less likely to be "correct"…
That's why I'm maintaining the 0.4.x series.

Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
qt
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
January 16, 2012, 09:20:32 PM
 #11

If somebody were mining using 0.5.0 or 0.5.1, could they have in theory been "tricked" into building onto malicious blocks?

No, that's not a realistic attack.

For an attacker to feed you a malicious block chain, they would have to be able to produce malicious blocks that have CORRECT proof-of-work. I don't think it is realistic to think that any attacker would throw lots of hash power onto a malicious block chain just so they can feed a bad block chain to somebody who connects to them.

Especially since that somebody would discover that their version of the block chain was incorrect within about 10 minutes, as soon as they got a new block message.

The bugfix was a "belt and suspenders" change to limit the potential damage from somebody who already had more than 50% of hashing power.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
nibor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 348


View Profile
January 16, 2012, 11:29:29 PM
 #12


I know I am always behind adding new versions to the charts! You guys keep adding them too often and I have not worked out a nice easy way to add the to rrd. Anyway I have now added a table so you can at least see the current number of all versions:

http://bitcoinstatus.rowit.co.uk/#versions
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
January 17, 2012, 02:19:47 AM
 #13

I know I am always behind adding new versions to the charts! You guys keep adding them too often and I have not worked out a nice easy way to add the to rrd. Anyway I have now added a table so you can at least see the current number of all versions:
Unfortunately, since this number is becoming the protocol version and neither of the more common clients (bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt) comply with BIP 0014, such nice statistics will probably become history anyway. Sad

nibor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 348


View Profile
January 17, 2012, 10:04:18 PM
 #14

Arh - shame. Also the stats are wrong cos of Multibit and bitcoin spinner type clients that do not send address messages.

From a marketing point of view being able to say xx thousand active users is useful.

Bit of a useless post though as have no real solution to issue.
pc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 253


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 12:32:19 AM
 #15

Are there digital signatures or hashes or such for the files? It looks like they're not even hosted on sourceforge over SSL (I don't know how hard it would be for them to set that up), and it'd be useful if the downloads were signed by the developers (preferably several), who could attest to the fact that the binaries are correctly compiled and won't (intentionally at least) take all our money.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
January 18, 2012, 12:36:06 AM
 #16

Are there digital signatures or hashes or such for the files? It looks like they're not even hosted on sourceforge over SSL (I don't know how hard it would be for them to set that up), and it'd be useful if the downloads were signed by the developers (preferably several), who could attest to the fact that the binaries are correctly compiled and won't (intentionally at least) take all our money.
I think I'm the only one who signed rc1. BlueMatt built it. The same binaries (except Bitcoin-Qt for Windows, since it isn't 100% deterministic yet) are being renamed to final now, built and signed by devrandom and sipa, and signed again by me. I expect Gavin might sign the hashes when he uploads them too.

stcupp
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 02:41:12 AM
 #17

just wondering why arn't some of the new RPC functions that are in the source built into this build?  like  getblockbyhash?

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
January 18, 2012, 03:09:18 AM
 #18

just wondering why arn't some of the new RPC functions that are in the source built into this build?  like  getblockbyhash?
As stated in the initial post, this is a bugfix-only release. New features will be in 0.6.

stcupp
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
January 18, 2012, 03:32:15 AM
 #19

oh i see.... any estimated date for 6.0?

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
January 18, 2012, 03:36:26 AM
 #20

oh i see.... any estimated date for 6.0?
0.6, not 6.0. Big difference. I wouldn't bet on it being until March.

Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!