Gavin Andresen (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 2216
Chief Scientist
|
 |
April 20, 2011, 07:12:20 PM |
|
Linux and Windows binary releases are at: https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.21/Changes and new features include: - Support for Universal Plug and Play to open a port for incoming connections (off by default, turn it on using the -upnp=1 command-line switch or the checkbox on the Options dialog box).
- Sending and displaying arbitrary precision amounts of bitcoins (you can send exactly 1.0001 bitcoins if you like). Sending less than 0.01 bitcoins requires a 0.01 bitcoin fee, however.
- New rpc command "sendmany" to send bitcoins to more than one person in a single transaction (already being used by some of the mining pools for payouts).
- Several bug fixes, including a serious intermittent bug that would sometimes cause bitcoind to stop accepting rpc requests.
If you find bugs, report them at: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues |
How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raulo
|
|
April 20, 2011, 08:01:10 PM |
|
I have been using the git HEAD version for some time on desktop and for mining and have not encountered any problems but I'm pretty sure this issue would cause a lot of confusion and a deluge of questions from new users: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/170I understand the reason for the change (although these transactions will become confirmed after some time or if the block is less than 3 kB which happens from time to time) but the error dialog is very confusing. |
1HAoJag4C3XtAmQJAhE9FTAAJWFcrvpdLM
|
|
|
|
trentzb
|
|
April 20, 2011, 09:10:44 PM |
|
Is this thread the right place to discuss issues with RC?
What version of MiniUPnP is intended to be supported? There seem to be some changes in most recent MiniUPnP (18/04/2011) that will need some massaging in RC to get it to build.
I will be happy to post an issue at github if needed. I just wanted to get an idea whether this should be an issue at all or should RC just support the 1.5 MiniUPnP.
|
|
|
|
|
xf2_org
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 13
|
|
April 20, 2011, 09:14:38 PM |
|
"jgarzik's favorite features list" for 0.3.21 includes, - A new method of seeding addresses, via DNS A records. -dnsseed option will enable this, if you'd like to avoid IRC seeding for whatever reason.
- -logtimestamps option, to add a timestamp to each line in debug.log. Note: satoshi worried about the privacy implications of this option, so it defaults to 'off'.
- Immature blocks (newly generated, under 120 confirmations) are now shown in listtransactions. My own xlisttransactions patch should be obsolete at this point, unless I'm missing something.
|
|
|
|
|
xf2_org
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 13
|
|
April 20, 2011, 09:15:57 PM |
|
Is this thread the right place to discuss issues with RC?
Absolutely! What version of MiniUPnP is intended to be supported? There seem to be some changes in most recent MiniUPnP (18/04/2011) that will need some massaging in RC to get it to build.
I will be happy to post an issue at github if needed. I just wanted to get an idea whether this should be an issue at all or should RC just support the 1.5 MiniUPnP.
1.5 is the supported and tested version, but I'm curious what massaging is needed for more recent versions? |
|
|
|
|
|
eMansipater
|
|
April 20, 2011, 09:27:37 PM |
|
I understand the reason for the change (although these transactions will become confirmed after some time or if the block is less than 3 kB which happens from time to time) but the error dialog is very confusing.
Agreed. Can we change this from "This is an oversized transaction that requires a transaction fee" to something like "Because of its amount, complexity, or rapid re-use of recently received coins, this transaction requires a transaction fee (0.0x recommended)" ? |
If you found my post helpful, feel free to send a small tip to 1QGukeKbBQbXHtV6LgkQa977LJ3YHXXW8B Visit the BitCoin Q&A Site to ask questions or share knowledge. 0.009 BTC too confusing? Use mBTC instead! Details at www.em-bit.org or visit the project thread to help make Bitcoin prices more human-friendly. |
|
|
Gavin Andresen (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 2216
Chief Scientist
|
|
April 20, 2011, 09:39:50 PM |
|
RE: changing the confusing transaction fee message: good idea, and yes, "we" can.
How about:
This transaction requires a transaction fee of at least 0.0N because of its amount, complexity, or use of recently received funds
I don't want to use the word "recommend", because the GUI doesn't let you try to send them without a fee.
|
How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
|
|
|
|
dust
|
|
April 20, 2011, 09:40:40 PM |
|
What are the disadvantages (security, etc) of having UPnP turned on?
|
|
|
|
|
trentzb
|
|
April 20, 2011, 09:47:22 PM |
|
1.5 is the supported and tested version, but I'm curious what massaging is needed for more recent versions?
Yea, 1.5 builds fine. 1.5.20110418 does not build but it looks like it may be partially a miniupnp install issue. It fails to install portlistingparse.h and miniupnpctypes.h. upnpDiscover():53 is in miniupnpc.h as upnpDiscover(int delay, const char * multicastif,
const char * minissdpdsock, int sameport,
int ipv6,
int * error);
net.cpp calls it as: devlist = upnpDiscover(2000, multicastif, minissdpdpath, 0);
There may be more, that was the first one I hit though. |
|
|
|
|
dishwara
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1855
Merit: 1016
|
|
April 20, 2011, 09:47:32 PM |
|
WOW, is it true?
I see 8 decimal points, that completely solves the microbitcent problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
eMansipater
|
|
April 20, 2011, 09:49:28 PM |
|
This transaction requires a transaction fee of at least 0.0N because of its amount, complexity, or use of recently received funds
Much more succinct! And you're right--"we" is just a polite way of some random person on the internet trying to lend themselves credibility. It's the people who actually wrangle code that do the work  |
If you found my post helpful, feel free to send a small tip to 1QGukeKbBQbXHtV6LgkQa977LJ3YHXXW8B Visit the BitCoin Q&A Site to ask questions or share knowledge. 0.009 BTC too confusing? Use mBTC instead! Details at www.em-bit.org or visit the project thread to help make Bitcoin prices more human-friendly. |
|
|
|
ByteCoin
|
|
April 20, 2011, 09:50:01 PM |
|
This transaction requires a transaction fee of at least 0.0N because of its ... complexity,
Since the prohibition on non-standard transactions, the only reason for a transaction to be overly "complex" is due to its large number of inputs and outputs. In this case the solution is for the client software to offer the option of recasting the transaction into two or more less complex ones, possibly using staging addresses, which would no longer incur fees. ByteCoin |
|
|
|
|
dishwara
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1855
Merit: 1016
|
|
April 20, 2011, 09:52:37 PM |
|
Using for the past 10-20 minutes. So far no glitch or anything, besides, instead of 2 digits , now i see 8 digits after decimal point. Support for Universal Plug and Play to open a port for incoming connections
Is that mean can any port be used to connect bitcoin client to internet besides 8332. I have a fear that suddenly ISP's will block 8332 port, at least my ISP. |
|
|
|
|
|
trentzb
|
|
April 20, 2011, 09:58:52 PM |
|
Support for Universal Plug and Play to open a port for incoming connections
Is that mean can any port be used to connect bitcoin client to internet besides 8332. I have a fear that suddenly ISP's will block 8332 port, at least my ISP. I don't know anything about UPnP but I would have to say no. It would only open port 8333 (for incoming). Someone correct me if I am wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
khal
|
|
April 20, 2011, 11:39:14 PM |
|
I suspect some fee problem when sending with a CIn like 0.01234567.
I've sent 0.01234567 to myself, waited for 10 confirmations and try to send 0.01234567 to myself again.
=> bitcoin GUI suggest me a 0.01 fee
This transaction is over the size limit. You can still send it for a fee of 0.01, which goes to the nodes that process your transaction and helps to support the network. Do you want to pay the fee?
I tried 7/8 times, same message appears. There shouldn't be a fee here ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
mewantsbitcoins
|
|
April 20, 2011, 11:49:09 PM
Last edit: April 21, 2011, 01:59:17 AM by mewantsbitcoins |
|
I don't have an account with GitHub, so here goes:
UPnP doesn't seem to work. I checked "Map port using UPnP" and restarted the client but still stuck at 8 connections.
I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 32bit in VMware Fusion 3.1. utorrent UPnP works fine in the same environment.
Also, might be just me, but I think "Send" and "Cancel" buttons are too small in "Send Coins"(in Windows 7 default theme)
|
|
|
|
|
xf2_org
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 13
|
|
April 21, 2011, 12:06:07 AM |
|
I suspect some fee problem when sending with a CIn like 0.01234567.
I've sent 0.01234567 to myself, waited for 10 confirmations and try to send 0.01234567 to myself again.
=> bitcoin GUI suggest me a 0.01 fee
This transaction is over the size limit. You can still send it for a fee of 0.01, which goes to the nodes that process your transaction and helps to support the network. Do you want to pay the fee?
I tried 7/8 times, same message appears. There shouldn't be a fee here ?
To bitcoin, this type of transaction appears to be a low priority, spam transaction. Sending tiny amounts of bitcoins to yourself is a waste of network resources -- remember, you are asking every bitcoin node, all over the world, to validate and store your transaction. |
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Corallo
|
|
April 21, 2011, 12:17:05 AM |
|
I don't have an account with GitHub, so here goes:
UPnP doesn't seem to work. I checked "Map port using UPnP" and restarted the client but still stuck at 8 connections.
I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 32bit in VMware Fusion 3.1. utorrent UPnP works fine in the same environment.
Also, might be just me, but I think "Send" and "Cancel" buttons are too small in "Send Coins"
Would you mind grabbing a copy of http://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/files/download.php?file=upnpc-exe-win32-20110418.zip and running upnpc-static.exe -a YourInternalIPv4 8333 8333 tcp and posting the output? |
|
|
|
|
mewantsbitcoins
|
|
April 21, 2011, 01:47:21 AM |
|
Sorry about the delay. After seeing the error message I realized what happened. I had manually forwarded 8333 on my router to another computer running bitcoin client. I now deleted the rule and it works ok. C:\Users\peter>upnpc-static.exe -a 192.168.1.5 8333 8333 tcp
upnpc : miniupnpc library test client. (c) 2006-2011 Thomas Bernard
Go to http://miniupnp.free.fr/ or http://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/
for more information.
List of UPNP devices found on the network :
desc: http://192.168.1.1:5000/Public_UPNP_gatedesc.xml
st: urn:schemas-upnp-org:service:WANPPPConnection:1
Found valid IGD : http://192.168.1.1:5000/Public_UPNP_C3
Local LAN ip address : 192.168.1.5
ExternalIPAddress = 86.5.50.90
AddPortMapping(8333, 8333, 192.168.1.5) failed with code 718 (ConflictInMappingE
ntry)
GetSpecificPortMappingEntry() failed with code -1 (Miniupnpc Unknown Error) After: C:\Users\peter>upnpc-static.exe -a 192.168.1.5 8333 8333 tcp
upnpc : miniupnpc library test client. (c) 2006-2011 Thomas Bernard
Go to http://miniupnp.free.fr/ or http://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/
for more information.
List of UPNP devices found on the network :
desc: http://192.168.1.1:5000/Public_UPNP_gatedesc.xml
st: urn:schemas-upnp-org:service:WANIPConnection:1
Found valid IGD : http://192.168.1.1:5000/Public_UPNP_C3
Local LAN ip address : 192.168.1.5
ExternalIPAddress = *
InternalIP:Port = 192.168.1.5:8333
external *:8333 TCP is redirected to internal 192.168.1.5:8333 (duratio
n=0) After this I installed the new client on the other machine. When I turned "Map port using UPnP" the first machine's port forwarding was dropped by the router. How would I go about setting up multiple machines running bitcoin client behind 1 router? |
|
|
|
|
dishwara
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1855
Merit: 1016
|
|
April 21, 2011, 01:54:30 AM
Last edit: April 21, 2011, 02:52:18 AM by dishwara |
|
Also, might be just me, but I think "Send" and "Cancel" buttons are too small in "Send Coins"
+1, the buttons are very small. I suspect some fee problem when sending with a CIn like 0.01234567.
I've sent 0.01234567 to myself, waited for 10 confirmations and try to send 0.01234567 to myself again.
=> bitcoin GUI suggest me a 0.01 fee
This transaction is over the size limit. You can still send it for a fee of 0.01, which goes to the nodes that process your transaction and helps to support the network. Do you want to pay the fee?
I tried 7/8 times, same message appears. There shouldn't be a fee here ?
No, its not error or bug. Gavin mentioned it in first post itself. You can send coins less than 0.01, but you have to pay 0.01 as fees Sending and displaying arbitrary precision amounts of bitcoins (you can send exactly 1.0001 bitcoins if you like). Sending less than 0.01 bitcoins requires a 0.01 bitcoin fee, however.
i downloaded & ran it, here i got result with no bitcoin client running.
C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\upnpc-exe-win32-20110418>upnpc-static.exe -a 192.
168.1.2 8333 8333 tcp
upnpc : miniupnpc library test client. (c) 2006-2011 Thomas Bernard
Go to http://miniupnp.free.fr/ or http://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/
for more information.
List of UPNP devices found on the network :
desc: http://192.168.1.1:5431/dyndev/uuid:0000e0a8-20a0-00e0-20a0-488800f808e0
st: urn:schemas-upnp-org:device:InternetGatewayDevice:1
Found valid IGD : http://192.168.1.1:5431/uuid:0000e0a8-20a0-00e0-20a0-488802f86
048/WANPPPConnection:1
Local LAN ip address : 192.168.1.2
ExternalIPAddress = 122.164.210.213
InternalIP:Port = 192.168.1.2:8333
external 122.164.210.213:8333 TCP is redirected to internal 192.168.1.2:8333 (du
ration=0)
Then i ran bitcoin client with "map port using Upnp" i got this
C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\upnpc-exe-win32-20110418>upnpc-static.exe -a 192.
168.1.2 8333 8333 tcp
upnpc : miniupnpc library test client. (c) 2006-2011 Thomas Bernard
Go to http://miniupnp.free.fr/ or http://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/
for more information.
List of UPNP devices found on the network :
desc: http://192.168.1.1:5431/dyndev/uuid:0000e0a8-20a0-00e0-20a0-488800f808e0
st: urn:schemas-upnp-org:device:InternetGatewayDevice:1
Found valid IGD : http://192.168.1.1:5431/uuid:0000e0a8-20a0-00e0-20a0-488802f86
048/WANPPPConnection:1
Local LAN ip address : 192.168.1.2
ExternalIPAddress = 122.164.210.213
InternalIP:Port = 192.168.1.2:8333
external 122.164.210.213:8333 TCP is redirected to internal 192.168.1.2:8333 (du
ration=0)
Actually, i see both same & i don't understand anything. Can anyone explain why i got same thing both time or what is wrong in mine? |
|
|
|
|
|
