Satoshi client auto update

[teste]

Hi,

I see there is a pull to add auto update for Windows, so I would like to suggest:

1- If the update is only bug fixes the update process should go on background (the users will have NO option to deny the update) (something like how Google Chrome update works)
2- If the update has new features, the users will be asked to update but with option to not update.

Question: Any work on auto update for Linux?

[1715090108]

1715090108

[1715090108]

1715090108

[1715090108]

1715090108

[Stardust]

Hopefully not, I don't care about M$ Windows, but no auto update for Linux please.

[Realpra]

Really don't like that:

ONE break in or rogue programmer at the dev team HQ and all trust in bitcoin is destroyed + we loose millions.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[kneim]

Really don't like that:

ONE break in or rogue programmer at the dev team HQ and all trust in bitcoin is destroyed + we loose millions.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Yes, minor bugs only with affirmation, major version not.

Or yet better: A hint in the footer, the update as a button in the menu bar.

[ribuck]

Yes, minor bugs only with affirmation, major version not.

Yeah, like the rogue bad guy would push a "major version" rather than labelling it a "minor bug fix"!

Anyone who would run any type of Bitcoin software with auto-update enabled doesn't understand what they're dealing with.

[kokjo]

so you want someone, to be able to download and execute unknown code on my machine. FUCK NO!

if you want this less secure auto-update feature, you must fork the code. and i will not use your code.

[Garr255]

so you want someone, to be able to download and execute unknown code on my machine. FUCK NO!

if you want this less secure auto-update feature, you must fork the code. and i will not use your code.

+1

[Realpra]

Yes, minor bugs only with affirmation, major version not.

Yeah, like the rogue bad guy would push a "major version" rather than labelling it a "minor bug fix"!

Anyone who would run any type of Bitcoin software with auto-update enabled doesn't understand what they're dealing with.

I think he meant an update button was okay, but that you ACTUALLY had to press it yourself and that major updates were a no-go, no matter what.

[Pieter Wuille]

The binaries (at least for Windows and Linux) are built using gitian. This system performs the entire compilation process in a tightly controlled virtual machine, using a deterministic build process. This means that all developers (and others, if they like) can do the build themselves, and end up with the exact same binary (byte for byte identical). We then GPG sign the result, and upload it.

The (provisional) auto-update process uses these signatures (there have to be several) before installing an update.

[Realpra]

The (provisional) auto-update process uses these signatures (there have to be several) before installing an update.

Nifty, but why?

Even the oldest BTC client can send and receive BTC as I understand it.

Sure they aren't all safe and they may crash, but we can assume their users to some extent have taken their precautions.

What if the attacker hacks your admin passes/signatures or in another way corrupts the process?


Just not worth the risk to save 2 seconds in the update process (doing it yourself with a mouse click).

[ribuck]

The (provisional) auto-update process uses these signatures (there have to be several) before installing an update.

I understand what you're saying, but it's missing the point to think that an auto-update is OK because it securely guarantees an upgrade to a specific official binary.

If the auto-update somehow installs an official binary that has malicious behavior, it might reach 51% adoption very quickly. If people update by hand, the adoption rate is much slower and there's time for a frantic re-release if a catastrophic problem is discovered, before adoption reaches 51%.

[MatthewLM]

Why not have an update feature that prompts the user to update? "An update for bitcoin is available. Would you like to install it?" "Yes" "No" "Do not ask me again"

[theymos]

I don't like it. Having many different versions on the network prevents mistaken new rules (fee rules, anti-DoS rules, etc.) from doing a lot of damage. For example, there was a bug in the anti-DoS rules in the past which prevented nodes from uploading the full chain to anyone, but this didn't cause a lot of damage to the network because there were a lot of people using older versions without this bug. An auto-update dialog would increase adoption of new versions a lot.

Also, it's better for security to use the oldest version that's still safe and usable. New code hasn't been tested as much.

[Pieter Wuille]

I think I got carried away using the term "auto update" here. I certainly don't mean full automatic installation of new versions, merely a message warning for new versions, and only when enough signatures are available.

[ribuck]

I certainly don't mean full automatic installation of new versions, merely a message warning for new versions, and only when enough signatures are available.

Even that's not a good thing. If you issue a "message warning" to users every time there's an update available, users will soon get upgrade fatigue and may miss urgent updates.

By all means display a warning when a problem has been found and fixed. But an update notification should never be "in the user's face" if the update offers only increased functionality or cosmetic changes.

[Schleicher]

Did you ever see an update where no bugs had been fixed?

[Mike Hearn]

The idea that old software is inherently better is bogus. Software doesn't age like a fine wine. Unless a software project is completely hosed new versions are less buggy than old versions. Regressions happen, but they should be rare.

It's also worth remembering that even in the case of the worst bugs possible that completely break the network, you can issue another auto update that fixes things again. It's only if you break the software and the update mechanism simultaneously that problems start.

Bitcoin is a system where people need to upgrade from time to time for the good of the network, this is especially true for people who are mining or who could benefit from upgraded security features. Auto update is absolutely essential for these people.

[kokjo]

The idea that old software is inherently better is bogus. Software doesn't age like a fine wine. Unless a software project is completely hosed new versions are less buggy than old versions. Regressions happen, but they should be rare.

It's also worth remembering that even in the case of the worst bugs possible that completely break the network, you can issue another auto update that fixes things again. It's only if you break the software and the update mechanism simultaneously that problems start.

Bitcoin is a system where people need to upgrade from time to time for the good of the network, this is especially true for people who are mining or who could benefit from upgraded security features. Auto update is absolutely essential for these people.

the argument for not auto updating is that it gives a higher diversity in the network, which i think is good.
in my opinion does more diversity mean harder to attack, and new bugs have less impact.

that was theymos's point too.


people who mine or need security features, would naturally keep themselfs updated, they don't need auto-update, they are tech people.

[Deafboy]

Please no auto-update, or at least no auto-update for linux. Or if auto-update on linux, integrate it with existing PPA to avoid mess in packaging system.
But I don't like this idea at all.

[gweedo]

NO AUTO UPDATE FOR MAC OSX either please.