Help test: version 0.6.3 release candidate 1

[Gavin Andresen]

We're releasing 0.6.3 to fix two important issues (a serious potential denial-of-service attack, and to improve new-block propagation times for blocks containing lots of transactions).

If you can, please help do some sanity testing-- shutdown bitcoin, then download, install, and run 0.6.3 and let us know "works nicely for me running on 64-bit Ubuntu 10.04" by posting a quick reply to this thread.

Release notes:

Bitcoin version 0.6.3rc1 is now available for download at:
  http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.6.3/test/

This is a bug-fix release, with no new features.

CHANGE SUMMARY
==============

Fixed a serious denial-of-service attack that could cause the
bitcoin process to become unresponsive. Thanks to Sergio Lerner
for finding and responsibly reporting the problem. (CVE-2012-3789)

Optimized the process of checking transaction signatures, to
speed up processing of new block messages and make propagating
blocks across the network faster.

Fixed an obscure bug that could cause the bitcoin process to get
stuck on an invalid block-chain, if the invalid chain was
hundreds of blocks long.

Bitcoin-Qt no longer automatically selects the first address
in the address book (Issue #1384).

Fixed minimize-to-dock behavior of Bitcon-Qt on the Mac.

Added a block checkpoint at block 185,333 to speed up initial
blockchain download.


Thanks to everybody who contributed to this release:
====================================================

Chris Moore
Christian von Roques
Fordy
Gavin Andresen
Jeff Garzik
Luke Dashjr
Matt Corallo
Michael Hendricks
Peter Todd
Philip Kaufmann
Pieter Wuille
R E Broadley
Sergio Lerner
Wladimir J. van der Laan

[1715563730]

1715563730

[1715563730]

1715563730

[1715563730]

1715563730

[1715563730]

1715563730

[tiptopgemdotcom]

Any fix for this yet?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81910.0

[apetersson]

while downloading, i got the following warning from my paranoid virus scanner avast home free edition

http://imgur.com/G10mp

it wanted me to cancel the download

the warning means: this file is either very new or very rare..

after download when i started the file i got a similar message, and it wanted to sandbox the installer. i would bet the install would fail in a sandbox. i think its time to get a new virus scanner..

[AndrewBUD]

Thank's... I will give it a shot

[P_Shep]

Running in WinXP ok.

[justusranvier]

Working in Gentoo.

[Luke-Jr]

Any fix for this yet?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81910.0

Did you make sure it was reported?

[danieldaniel]

I would test this if there was a mac version. 

[AndrewBUD]

I installed this: Now I get an error when trying to open bitcoin-qt..


Please view screen shot: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/607/bitcoinerror.jpg/

[Luke-Jr]

I installed this: Now I get an error when trying to open bitcoin-qt..


Please view screen shot: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/607/bitcoinerror.jpg/

Can you use another site? That one resizes it (and has no way to view full size) and is popup-ad-infested.

[Luke-Jr]

FWIW, 0.4.7rc3, 0.5.6rc3, and 0.6.0.8rc3 are in-progress and will be available later tonight.

[jojkaart]

while downloading, i got the following warning from my paranoid virus scanner avast home free edition

http://imgur.com/G10mp

it wanted me to cancel the download

the warning means: this file is either very new or very rare..

after download when i started the file i got a similar message, and it wanted to sandbox the installer. i would bet the install would fail in a sandbox. i think its time to get a new virus scanner..

That's actually very sensible way for the scanner to operate. Afterall, this file _is_ brand new. Of course, in this case, you already knew it, so the warnings were just in the way. I'd expect in most cases that would be quite useful in shielding your system from new unknown threats.

[mcorlett]

Please view screen shot: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/607/bitcoinerror.jpg/

Can you use another site? That one resizes it (and has no way to view full size) and is popup-ad-infested.

It's readable if you zoom in. http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/2962/bitcoinerror.jpg

I transcribed it for you:

A fatal error occured. Bitcoin can no longer continue safely and will quit.

EXCEPTION: 11DbException
Db::get: DB_PAGE_NOTFOUND: Requested page not found
C:\Program Files (x86)\Bitcoin\bitcoin-qt.exe in Runaway exception

[pc]

Loaded and synchronizing blockchain fine on Mac OS X 10.6.8 64-bit.
(I haven't tried sending or receiving coins as I have none on this computer.)

[AndrewBUD]

A very helpful member helped me out...


Thank you... Works fine now

[EnergyVampire]

It was running fine when I first launced 0.6.3 and began downloading the blockchain from scratch.

I then quit before the entire block chain downloaded and moved a copy of these 3 files from 0.6.2 residing on another computer:

bitcoin.conf
blk0001.dat
blkindex.dat

Once I tried to relauch bitcoin-qt, I get this error:

Code:

Runaway exception

A fatal error occured. Bitcoin can no longer continue safely and will quit.

EXCEPTION: 11DbException
Db::open: Invalid argument
bitcoin in Runaway exception

OS: Xubuntu 11.04

[Gavin Andresen]

Before you copy the blk* files, you must run with the -detachdb option and make sure you shutdown bitcoin and wait for it to exit completely.  With 0.6.2, we change the default from "take a long time to shut down, but leave standalone .dat files" to "shutdown quickly, but leave .dat files that are tied to the database/log.* files".

Too many ordinary users were quitting bitcoin and then immediately powering off their systems, leaving the database in a bad state.

[fornit]

works on win7 64-bit.

[nomnomnom]

Seems to work fine here on slackware-current 64bit as well as kubuntu 12.04 64bit.
But it would be nice if gpg signatures could be included the next time 

[EnergyVampire]

Before you copy the blk* files, you must run with the -detachdb option and make sure you shutdown bitcoin and wait for it to exit completely.  With 0.6.2, we change the default from "take a long time to shut down, but leave standalone .dat files" to "shutdown quickly, but leave .dat files that are tied to the database/log.* files".

Too many ordinary users were quitting bitcoin and then immediately powering off their systems, leaving the database in a bad state.

Thanks for the info Gavin,

I followed these steps and now 0.6.3 is running fine on 64-bit Xubuntu 11.04.

Note 1: While waiting the 10 minutes or so to shutdown using the -detachdb option the GUI looks like it's not responding.
Note 2: Before I copied the blk* files, I needed ~1350 blocks to synchronize with the network but when I restarted 0.6.3 the count was only ~1050 blocks. After a couple of minutes, the count increased to ~1225.
Note 3: I was only able to connect to 8 nodes on 0.6.3 even though the bitcoin.conf hasn't changed and I normally connect to +100 nodes.

[Graet]

We're releasing 0.6.3 to fix two important issues (a serious potential denial-of-service attack, and to improve new-block propagation times for blocks containing lots of transactions).

If you can, please help do some sanity testing-- shutdown bitcoin, then download, install, and run 0.6.3 and let us know "works nicely for me running on 64-bit Ubuntu 10.04" by posting a quick reply to this thread.

Release notes:

Bitcoin version 0.6.3rc1 is now available for download at:
  http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.6.3/test/

This is a bug-fix release, with no new features.

CHANGE SUMMARY
==============

Fixed a serious denial-of-service attack that could cause the
bitcoin process to become unresponsive. Thanks to Sergio Lerner
for finding and responsibly reporting the problem. (CVE-2012-3789)

Optimized the process of checking transaction signatures, to
speed up processing of new block messages and make propagating
blocks across the network faster.

Fixed an obscure bug that could cause the bitcoin process to get
stuck on an invalid block-chain, if the invalid chain was
hundreds of blocks long.

Bitcoin-Qt no longer automatically selects the first address
in the address book (Issue #1384).

Fixed minimize-to-dock behavior of Bitcon-Qt on the Mac.

Added a block checkpoint at block 185,333 to speed up initial
blockchain download.


Thanks to everybody who contributed to this release:
====================================================

Chris Moore
Christian von Roques
Fordy
Gavin Andresen
Jeff Garzik
Luke Dashjr
Matt Corallo
Michael Hendricks
Peter Todd
Philip Kaufmann
Pieter Wuille
R E Broadley
Sergio Lerner
Wladimir J. van der Laan

Um releasing a testing version and announcing a potential vulnerability in the same thread??
I think you did better here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81749.0

as a pool operator I now feel in a bind, I must update to a RC (that you have asked ppl to test) because you announced a vulnerability
So I risk updating 6 or 7 nodes to find the test crashes or I wait for stable and hope no-one uses the vuln against my pool in meantime.

what can I say....

[Luke-Jr]

as a pool operator I now feel in a bind, I must update to a RC (that you have asked ppl to test) because you announced a vulnerability
So I risk updating 6 or 7 nodes to find the test crashes or I wait for stable and hope no-one uses the vuln against my pool in meantime.

The vulnerability itself is not disclosed still. I've finished tagging stable in git, the formal release is just waiting on binaries.

[check_status]

I experienced a problem with 0.6.2, DB_error. When I noticed this thread I tried it and still received the message below:

Code:

 fatal error occured. Bitcoin can no longer continue safely and will quit.

EXCEPTION: 22DbRunRecoveryException       
DbEnv::open: DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery       
bitcoin in Runaway exception 

I did an:

Code:

$ sudo rm -r .bitcoin

Mod edit: NEVER EVER DO THAT. YOU WILL PERMANENTLY DELETE YOUR BITCOINS!

Not a Fool edit: Why ADD Crud To My Post, Is this Really Necessary? All my coins are paper backups.

Everything is now downloading fine. In hindsight, I probably could've just zipped everything up and set it aside or pass it along to someone that couldv'e poked at it to see why.

[gmaxwell]

Fixed a serious denial-of-service attack that could cause the
bitcoin process to become unresponsive. Thanks to Sergio Lerner
for finding and responsibly reporting the problem. (CVE-2012-3789)

Um releasing a testing version and announcing a potential vulnerability in the same thread??
I think you did better here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81749.0

as a pool operator I now feel in a bind, I must update to a RC (that you have asked ppl to test) because you announced a vulnerability
So I risk updating 6 or 7 nodes to find the test crashes or I wait for stable and hope no-one uses the vuln against my pool in meantime.

what can I say....

Say "thank you for improving bitcoin"?   On IRC you seriously offended me with what I considered to be an entitled attitude and unjustified hostility.  I was particularly torqued after I said that I didn't agree that it was "critical" and wouldn't have personally described it that way and based on that you continued to repeat allegations that there were no standards and that the developers don't agree about vulnerabilities. I think I would know if I didn't agree with what Gavin posted.

I apologize if my willingness to argue back managed to keep us from effectively communicating. For all the trouble you'll have with your nodes keep in mind that we all work hard with Bitcoin too. I maintain more nodes than you do— though I do have the comfort of not handling a large flow of other people's money, I am  constantly dealing with juggling changes on them.

The issue at question is a (set of) DOS attacks, as described in the announcement.  They've been 'disclosed' for a month in git, and have been discussed in the abstract by class as long as a year ago.  We have not historically done embargoed releases and early warnings to major infrastructure on issues which didn't allow the theft of Bitcoin or ~O(1) knockout of the network, and I would stridently oppose beginning such a practice: We do not have the resources to manage that, and it would delay getting fixes into the hands of users.  This release announcement is not the first public mention of these issues, and standard best practices for node operation will generally protect you from DOS attacks.

You should handle this like you'd handle other testing releases: Upgrade one or two of your nodes and report issues. If you do not run testing version the release versions will likely not be of any higher quality. If by some crazy chance someone DOS attacks your other nodes, you at least have some that are working.

[Luke-Jr]

I experienced a problem with 0.6.2, DB_error. When I noticed this thread I tried it and still received the message below:

Code:

 fatal error occured. Bitcoin can no longer continue safely and will quit.

EXCEPTION: 22DbRunRecoveryException       
DbEnv::open: DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery       
bitcoin in Runaway exception 

I did an:

Code:

$ sudo rm -r .bit(seriously, don't do this)coin

Everything is now downloading fine. In hindsight, I probably could've just zipped everything up and set it aside or pass it along to someone that couldv'e poked at it to see why.

DO NOT DO THIS IF YOU HAVE BITCOINS, IT WILL DESTROY THEM IRRECOVERABLY

[gmaxwell]

I did an:

Code:

$ sudo rm -r      DO NOT DO THIS

Everything is now downloading fine. In hindsight, I probably could've just zipped everything up and set it aside or pass it along to someone that couldv'e poked at it to see why.

Doing this will delete your wallet.  Please edit your post to include some kind of warning so that if anyone else hits this they don't just blindly follow your instructions and lose coin.

My best guess on your issue is that you didn't shutdown cleanly before upgrading. Deleting your databases is one way to recover from that, but users with coin should take care to not delete their wallets in the process.

[Mobius]

proxy is not working

my log continues to show:

06/21/2012 03:16:19 ERROR: Proxy error: general failure

This is under both SOCKS4 and SOCKS5

[Graet]

well I am sorry you see it that way gmaxwell
let me look back over the (public) logs from that chanel

<Graet> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88734.20
<Graet>
some other conversation
<gmaxwell> Graet: "Meh" on that. It's getting called a serious vulnerability in part because of the preferences of the person who reported it. I wouldn't have called it that on my own, and it's of a class of DOS attacks that have been discussed in public before.
some other stuff not related
<Graet> well gmaxwell we need some (oh god again) standards - so ppls opinions have some meaning
<Graet> if a dev announcves a serious vuln - it shouldnt be a "matter of opinion"

"highly offensive" and "entitled" ?
Public channel logs: bit.ly/iPFi3X

Some people talk about getting standards in place - some don't seem to care so much, for over a year I have been idling in -dev and seen the "standards" topic come up over and again
if I have caused offence by asking for a standard I apologise. Maybe I shouldn't have "(oh god again)" but from an observers point....the topic comes up often.

I may not have said "thank you for improving bitcoin" in as many words, but many times i have told the devs "good work" with a smile or other meaning the same thing, and have said thanks when someone has helped me directly.

If we had some consensus from the devs already as to what is "severe" and a "critical" and a "trivial" rather than them choosing to announce levels based on individual opinion this discussion would never have occurred.

Thank you for the RC I look forward to the release version.

[Luke-Jr]

If we had some consensus from the devs already as to what is "severe" and a "critical" and a "trivial" rather than them choosing to announce levels based on individual opinion this discussion would never have occurred.

I try to gauge each vulnerability in an objective way for the classifications on the Bitcoin CVE list.

[check_status]

I experienced a problem with 0.6.2, DB_error. When I noticed this thread I tried it and still received the message below:

Code:

 fatal error occured. Bitcoin can no longer continue safely and will quit.

EXCEPTION: 22DbRunRecoveryException       
DbEnv::open: DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery       
bitcoin in Runaway exception 

I did an:

Code:

$ sudo rm -r .bit(seriously, don't do this)coin

Everything is now downloading fine. In hindsight, I probably could've just zipped everything up and set it aside or pass it along to someone that couldv'e poked at it to see why.

DO NOT DO THIS IF YOU HAVE BITCOINS, IT WILL DESTROY THEM IRRECOVERABLY

Is their any way I can 'rm -r .bitcoin' and still have access to all of my coins? Yes, of course their is. 1. Back-up wallet.dat 2. Make a paper back-up 3. Import the keys from another existing offline wallet.

[check_status]

My best guess on your issue is that you didn't shutdown cleanly before upgrading. Deleting your databases is one way to recover from that, but users with coin should take care to not delete their wallets in the process.

No I had problems before upgrading, you should check gmail.

[Maged]

Not a Fool edit: Why ADD Crud To My Post, Is this Really Necessary? All my coins are paper backups.

Most people are stupid, and they might not realize what that command does.

[finway]

Working fine on  Windows7 32bit.
btw, just updated zh-CN translations.

[Diapolo]

Working fine on  Windows7 32bit.
btw, just updated zh-CN translations.

Translation updates are no critical fixes, but new translations will be in 0.7.

Dia

[gmaxwell]

"highly offensive" and "entitled" ?

Yes, entitled,— where you expected to be contacted privately in advance of the "announcement". (Never mind that the stuff in question has been public for a while)

Some people talk about getting standards in place - some don't seem to care so much, for over a year I have been idling in -dev and seen the "standards" topic come up over and again

I have no clue what you're talking about there.  My grepfu fails me because I can't find anywhere where people have asked about that.  Also, I still don't understand how you think my personal preferences proves a lack of uniformity— preferences differ.  I also still don't understand your argument about about the classification being unclear since it was described specifically in the announcement instead of just being given a class.  ::shrugs::

[check_status]

It still has not finnished downloading the blockchain, started it 02:30:00 a.m. Thursday June 21, 2012 in GMT, current time 01:32:42 p.m. Thursday June 21, 2012 in GMT, with about a 1000 blocks left.

Computer is slugish, opening a terminal takes 20 seconds.

Some outputs of bitcoin-qt from ps with options -F v X s -l:

Code:

UID        PID  PPID  C    SZ   RSS PSR STIME TTY          TIME CMD
user     25359     1 10 201143 252020 2 Jun ?        01:06:50 /home/user/bitcoin-0.6.3rc1-linux/bin/64/bitcoin-qt

  PID TTY      STAT   TIME  MAJFL   TRS   DRS   RSS %MEM COMMAND
25359 ?        Sl    66:52   2285  7729 796838 251900 24.6 /home/user/bitcoin-0.6.3rc1-linux/bin/64/bitcoin-qt

  PID   STACKP      ESP      EIP TMOUT ALARM STAT TTY        TIME COMMAND
25359 97c861f0 97c85950 db750ae3     -     - Sl   ?         66:53 /home/user/bitcoin-0.6.3rc1-linux/bin/64/bitcoin-qt

F S   UID   PID  PPID  C PRI  NI ADDR SZ WCHAN  TTY          TIME CMD
0 S  1000 25359     1 10  80   0 - 201142 poll_s ?       01:07:02 bitcoin-qt

  UID   PID          PENDING          BLOCKED          IGNORED           CAUGHT STAT TTY        TIME COMMAND
 1000 25359 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000301200 0000000180014003 Sl   ?         67:03 /home/user/bitcoin-0.6.3rc1-linux/bin/64/bitcoin-qt

Top:

Code:

top - 08:38:23 up 1 day, 16:24,  5 users,  load average: 2.09, 2.10, 2.13
Tasks: 138 total,   1 running, 137 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu(s):  1.7%us,  1.7%sy,  0.3%ni, 89.0%id,  7.2%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.1%si,  0.0%st
Mem:   1021836k total,  1011456k used,    10380k free,     1680k buffers
Swap:  4192252k total,   150400k used,  4041852k free,   434444k cached

  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND                                         
23896 root      20   0  502m  34m  21m S    7  3.4  71:47.09 cgminer                                         
25359 user      20   0  785m 254m  43m S    3 25.5  65:36.62 bitcoin-qt                                      
  344 root      20   0     0    0    0 D    1  0.0   1:06.77 jbd2/sda1-8                                     
  362 root      20   0     0    0    0 D    1  0.0   1:26.02 flush-8:0                                       
22944 user      20   0 19352 1272  920 R    1  0.1   0:00.03 top

[Diapolo]

The Qt GUI gets sluggish on (slow) machines when initial blockchain download is running, this should be resolved or getting way better with 0.7.

Dia

[Sergio_Demian_Lerner]

well I am sorry you see it that way gmaxwell
<gmaxwell> Graet: "Meh" on that. It's getting called a serious vulnerability in part because of the preferences of the person who reported it. I wouldn't have called it that on my own, and it's of a class of DOS attacks that have been discussed in public before.
some other stuff not related
<Graet> well gmaxwell we need some (oh god again) standards - so ppls opinions have some meaning
<Graet> if a dev announcves a serious vuln - it shouldnt be a "matter of opinion"

Dear gmaxwell, Graet, and all,
 
 The fact that we do not have a standard to describe how severe a vuln is, is the source of the problem. I consider the vulnerability SERIUS (as any other vulnerability) as Gavin posted. But SERIUS is not the same as SEVERE. I don't consider the vuln severe.

I don't remember having pressed anyone to say the vuln had to be called in any way. I just asked for akwnoledgement!

I tried to establish a severity standard in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79830.0
But consensus was not reached.
I think I will formalize it to help the next time a vuln is found.

Nevertheless the page https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CVEs describes the vuln perfectly: "Attacker can disable some functionality, for example by crashing clients".

No more, no less.


Best regards!
And thanks Gavin and the dev team for fixing the vuln for the good of all of us.

[damnek]

Runs fine on Ubuntu 11.10.

There's one thing that I also noticed in 0.6.2: I can't access the menus (they don't show up when I point my mouse to the gray bar at the top of my screen). So I'm not able to encrypt my wallet..

[Diapolo]

Runs fine on Ubuntu 11.10.

There's one thing that I also noticed in 0.6.2: I can't access the menus (they don't show up when I point my mouse to the gray bar at the top of my screen). So I'm not able to encrypt my wallet..

Can you post a screenshot?

Dia

[damnek]

Runs fine on Ubuntu 11.10.

There's one thing that I also noticed in 0.6.2: I can't access the menus (they don't show up when I point my mouse to the gray bar at the top of my screen). So I'm not able to encrypt my wallet..

Can you post a screenshot?

Dia

Funny, I was about to make a screenshot of it and suddenly the menu was there.

[-ck]

Tested the qt client on 64 bit archlinux. Seems ok except that every time I switch virtual desktops and switch back it has minimised itself to the system tray without me doing anything.

[Graet]

been running 0.6.3rc1 on 4 mining nodes for over 12 hours
poolside we are seeing slightly lower stales
no issues so far
thanks devs

[Graet]

well I am sorry you see it that way gmaxwell
<gmaxwell> Graet: "Meh" on that. It's getting called a serious vulnerability in part because of the preferences of the person who reported it. I wouldn't have called it that on my own, and it's of a class of DOS attacks that have been discussed in public before.
some other stuff not related
<Graet> well gmaxwell we need some (oh god again) standards - so ppls opinions have some meaning
<Graet> if a dev announcves a serious vuln - it shouldnt be a "matter of opinion"

Dear gmaxwell, Graet, and all,
 
 The fact that we do not have a standard to describe how severe a vuln is, is the source of the problem. I consider the vulnerability SERIUS (as any other vulnerability) as Gavin posted. But SERIUS is not the same as SEVERE. I don't consider the vuln severe.

I don't remember having pressed anyone to say the vuln had to be called in any way. I just asked for akwnoledgement!

I tried to establish a severity standard in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79830.0
But consensus was not reached.
I think I will formalize it to help the next time a vuln is found.

Nevertheless the page https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CVEs describes the vuln perfectly: "Attacker can disable some functionality, for example by crashing clients".

No more, no less.


Best regards!
And thanks Gavin and the dev team for fixing the vuln for the good of all of us.

Thank you Sergio_Demian_Lerner you seem to understand my point

[Diapolo]

Tested the qt client on 64 bit archlinux. Seems ok except that every time I switch virtual desktops and switch back it has minimised itself to the system tray without me doing anything.

Let me guess, other apps that have a tray-option don't do that? Did you try older official releases, same behaviour?

Dia

[-ck]

Tested the qt client on 64 bit archlinux. Seems ok except that every time I switch virtual desktops and switch back it has minimised itself to the system tray without me doing anything.

Let me guess, other apps that have a tray-option don't do that? Did you try older official releases, same behaviour?

Dia

Right, this is new behaviour with .6.3rc1 only.

[John (John K.)]

Been using this client since yesterday on Win 7 32 and 64 bit with no problems at all.

[AndrewBUD]

same... ^

[piotr_n]

works nicely for me running on 64-bit Windows 7

[piotr_n]

works nicely for me running on 64-bit Windows 7

and the tray icon finally disappears after I exit the client using the main window's menu.
good job!

[Diapolo]

works nicely for me running on 64-bit Windows 7

and the tray icon finally disappears after I exit the client using the main window's menu.
good job!

I'm glad that patch works . But I thought it would get in 0.7 ^^.

Dia

[Nachtwind]

My Server shut down due to a hardware defect an hour ago and after getting its replacement i cant seem to start up bitcoind anymore:


************************
EXCEPTION: 11DbException
Db::get: DB_PAGE_NOTFOUND: Requested page not found
bitcoin in AppInit()

terminate called after throwing an instance of 'DbException'
  what():  Db::get: DB_PAGE_NOTFOUND: Requested page not found
Aborted



Any fix for that?
*edit*
i think it is fixed now.. addr.dat was corrupted..