Satoshi ↔ Nicholas Bohm Correspondence

NBQuote from: Nicholas Bohm on January 25, 2009, 10:17:52 AM UTC

I have had a couple of problems running bitcoin: is this an appropriate list for reporting them (with about 70kb of attachments)?

What’s the problem you’re having?

If you send me your debug.log file directly (best not to send attachments to the list), I can take a look at what’s happening.

Thanks (I realise lists don’t usually like attachments).

Bitcoin is mostly running fine, and has made good progress (as far as I can tell) - see screenshot of progress.

My first problem was finding it reported as a virus by NOD32 (from Eset)

• see screenshot of report. I have reported this to Eset as an error, and they are investigating. If other AV vendors’ products do likewise, this might be a barrrier to takeup.

My second problem occurred yesterday, and consisted of a number of crashes by Bitcoin (four or five). The program simply closed, with the usual MS error report. I attach the file generated by the error report. The Event viewer describes the incident as “Faulting application bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, faulting module bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, fault address 0x000bd598.”

and its data are:

0000: 41 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74   Applicat
0008: 69 6f 6e 20 46 61 69 6c   ion Fail
0010: 75 72 65 20 20 62 69 74   ure  bit
0018: 63 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65   coin.exe
0020: 20 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30   0.0.0.0
0028: 20 69 6e 20 62 69 74 63   in bitc
0030: 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65 20   oin.exe
0038: 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30 20   0.0.0.0
0040: 61 74 20 6f 66 66 73 65   at offse
0048: 74 20 30 30 30 62 64 35   t 000bd5
0050: 39 38 0d 0a          98..

(This is one example.)

The problem has not recurred, and I am not aware of any significant system changes before or after the crashes. (I get regular AV updates, but NOD32 still detects bitcoin as a virus both before and after the crashes.)

My system details are as follows:

Microsoft Windows XP
Professional
Version 2002

Service Pack 3

Hewlett-Packard
HP Compaq dc5750 Microtower

AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual
Core Processor 4200+

2.19 GHz, 1.87 GB of RAM
Physical Address Extension

I attach the debug.log.

Please let me know if there is more information that would be helpful.

Regards,

Nicholas Bohm

I had another crash in the early hours of this morning: from Event Viewer:

Event Type:     Error
Event Source:   Application Error
Event Category:      None
Event ID:  1000
Date:          26/01/2009
Time:          04:51:09
User:          N/A
Computer:      HP91914945127
Description:
Faulting application bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, faulting module
bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, fault address 0x000bd598.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 41 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74   Applicat
0008: 69 6f 6e 20 46 61 69 6c   ion Fail
0010: 75 72 65 20 20 62 69 74   ure  bit
0018: 63 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65   coin.exe
0020: 20 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30   0.0.0.0
0028: 20 69 6e 20 62 69 74 63   in bitc
0030: 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65 20   oin.exe
0038: 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30 20   0.0.0.0
0040: 61 74 20 6f 66 66 73 65   at offse
0048: 74 20 30 30 30 62 64 35   t 000bd5
0050: 39 38 0d 0a          98..

Would it be useful to send an updated copy of debug.log?

I have restarted Bitcoin, and it is running normally.

Regards,

Nicholas

Right, debug.log is what I need.

You’re using v0.1.3 right? What operating system are you using? I haven’t tested Vista yet but I’m getting a copy tomorrow. Several people have been running on XP since I released v0.1.3 without problems.

0x000bd598 isn’t a valid address. If it printed another address in the crash dialog, that would be useful.

Thanks,

Satoshi

I had another crash in the early hours of this morning: from Event Viewer:

Event Type:     Error
Event Source:   Application Error
Event Category:      None
Event ID:  1000
Date:          26/01/2009
Time:          04:51:09
User:          N/A
Computer:      HP91914945127
Description:
Faulting application bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, faulting module
bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, fault address 0x000bd598.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 41 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74   Applicat
0008: 69 6f 6e 20 46 61 69 6c   ion Fail
0010: 75 72 65 20 20 62 69 74   ure  bit
0018: 63 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65   coin.exe
0020: 20 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30   0.0.0.0
0028: 20 69 6e 20 62 69 74 63   in bitc
0030: 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65 20   oin.exe
0038: 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30 20   0.0.0.0
0040: 61 74 20 6f 66 66 73 65   at offse
0048: 74 20 30 30 30 62 64 35   t 000bd5
0050: 39 38 0d 0a          98..

Would it be useful to send an updated copy of debug.log?

I have restarted Bitcoin, and it is running normally.

Regards,

Nicholas

Right, debug.log is what I need.

Attached in latest version.

You’re using v0.1.3 right?

Yes.

What operating system are you using?

Windows XP Professional Version 2002 Service Pack 3

I haven’t tested Vista yet but I’m getting a copy tomorrow. Several people have been running on XP since I released v0.1.3 without problems.

0x000bd598 isn’t a valid address. If it printed another address in the crash dialog, that would be useful.

I’ve saved the Event Viewer data using words instead of bytes, in case that’s any more useful:

Event Type:     Error
Event Source:   Application Error
Event Category:      None
Event ID:  1000
Date:          26/01/2009
Time:          04:51:09
User:          N/A
Computer:      HP91914945127
Description:
Faulting application bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, faulting module
bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, fault address 0x000bd598.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 6c707041 74616369 206e6f69 6c696146
0010: 20657275 74696220 6e696f63 6578652e
0020: 302e3020 302e302e 206e6920 63746962
0030: 2e6e696f 20657865 2e302e30 20302e30
0040: 6f207461 65736666 30302074 35646230
0050: 0a0d3839

I notice this gives the same fault address, though. I don’t know where to find the crash dialog you mention (this is technically deep water by my modest standards - I’m just a humble lawyer).

NBQuote from: Nicholas Bohm on January 26, 2009, 10:34:00 AM UTC

I had another crash in the early hours of this morning: from Event Viewer:

Event Type:     Error
Event Source:   Application Error
Event Category:      None
Event ID:  1000
Date:          26/01/2009
Time:          04:51:09
User:          N/A
Computer:      HP91914945127
Description:
Faulting application bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, faulting module
bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, fault address 0x000bd598.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 41 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74   Applicat
0008: 69 6f 6e 20 46 61 69 6c   ion Fail
0010: 75 72 65 20 20 62 69 74   ure  bit
0018: 63 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65   coin.exe
0020: 20 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30   0.0.0.0
0028: 20 69 6e 20 62 69 74 63   in bitc
0030: 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65 20   oin.exe
0038: 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30 20   0.0.0.0
0040: 61 74 20 6f 66 66 73 65   at offse
0048: 74 20 30 30 30 62 64 35   t 000bd5
0050: 39 38 0d 0a          98..

Would it be useful to send an updated copy of debug.log?

I have restarted Bitcoin, and it is running normally.

Regards,

Nicholas

The latest crash (below) and debug.log attached (zipped).

Event Type:     Error
Event Source:   Application Error
Event Category:      None
Event ID:  1000
Date:          26/01/2009
Time:          21:16:01
User:          N/A
Computer:      HP91914945127
Description:
Faulting application bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, faulting module
bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, fault address 0x000bd598.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 41 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74   Applicat
0008: 69 6f 6e 20 46 61 69 6c   ion Fail
0010: 75 72 65 20 20 62 69 74   ure  bit
0018: 63 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65   coin.exe
0020: 20 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30   0.0.0.0
0028: 20 69 6e 20 62 69 74 63   in bitc
0030: 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65 20   oin.exe
0038: 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30 20   0.0.0.0
0040: 61 74 20 6f 66 66 73 65   at offse
0048: 74 20 30 30 30 62 64 35   t 000bd5
0050: 39 38 0d 0a          98..

Is it useful for me to continue sending these as they occur?

Regards,

Nicholas

Two further crashes yesterday at 21:16 and 23:59 (GMT). They seem to follow exactly the same pattern, and I don’t know if there is likely to be anything informative in the log, but I attach it in case.

Regards,

Nicholas

I have had no further problems since I ceased running a daily late evening scheduled operation consisting of a wipe of various folders containing temporary files using Eraser.

Whether this operation accounted for the crashes I don’t know, as Eraser has never had that effect before, and typically ignores any file it finds to be in use.

Regards,

Nicholas

Thanks for the update. There are many programs named Eraser, do you know where I could find it or the name of the company that makes it or a keyword to search on?

Satoshi

I have had no further problems since I ceased running a daily late evening scheduled operation consisting of a wipe of various folders containing temporary files using Eraser.

Whether this operation accounted for the crashes I don’t know, as Eraser has never had that effect before, and typically ignores any file it finds to be in use.

Regards,

Nicholas

Thanks for the update. There are many programs named Eraser, do you know where I could find it or the name of the company that makes it or a keyword to search on?

Sorry not to be more specific: it’s free software from www.heidi.ie/eraser/

Regards,

Nicholas

Bitcoin continues to run without failures since I stopped scheduled Eraser operations.

If you can tell me which temporary folders Bitcoin uses, I could try and replicate the fault by trying one-off operations.

(It would also be useful to know which files or folders I need to back up in order to preserve my accumulated hoard of bitcoins.)

Regards,

Nicholas

That would be great.

The directory is “%appdata%\Bitcoin” It has spaces in it so you need the quotes cd “%appdata%\bitcoin”

On XP it would typically be: C:\Documents and Settings\[username]\Application Data\Bitcoin

Backup that whole directory. All data files are in that directory. There are no temporary files.

It looks to me like other than unused space, Eraser only erases a few specific directories that it knows. Whatever “Windows Temporary Files” is and internet cookies. It would be strange for it to scan the disk guessing at files to delete.

I think I know what happened. It probably fills up the disk with a giant random data file to overwrite all the deleted space, and Bitcoin ran out of disk space.

Disk full checking is coming in the next release. It’s already in the bitcoin-0.1.4-debug.rar I sent you. You should definitely switch to that. If you run Eraser and Bitcoin gives you a disk full warning dialog, that would confirm what happened.

Certainly backup the %appdata%\Bitcoin directory before running Eraser again.

Satoshi

Bitcoin continues to run without failures since I stopped scheduled Eraser operations.

If you can tell me which temporary folders Bitcoin uses, I could try and replicate the fault by trying one-off operations.

(It would also be useful to know which files or folders I need to back up in order to preserve my accumulated hoard of bitcoins.)

Regards,

Nicholas

That would be great.

The directory is “%appdata%\Bitcoin” It has spaces in it so you need the quotes cd “%appdata%\bitcoin”

On XP it would typically be: C:\Documents and Settings\[username]\Application Data\Bitcoin

Backup that whole directory. All data files are in that directory. There are no temporary files.

It looks to me like other than unused space, Eraser only erases a few specific directories that it knows. Whatever “Windows Temporary Files” is and internet cookies. It would be strange for it to scan the disk guessing at files to delete.

I have scheduled Eraser to clear a list of specified directories (aimed at cookies, history, etc), but the only one under Application Data is C:\Documents and Settings\NB\Application Data\#ISW.FS#\Normal\, which is clearly nothing to do with Bitcoin.

I think I know what happened. It probably fills up the disk with a giant random data file to overwrite all the deleted space, and Bitcoin ran out of disk space.

Disk full checking is coming in the next release. It’s already in the bitcoin-0.1.4-debug.rar I sent you. You should definitely switch to that. If you run Eraser and Bitcoin gives you a disk full warning dialog, that would confirm what happened.

Unfortunately this hasn’t reached me (and I can’t find it in the quarantined spam either) - may I trouble you to send it again? I’ll then switch and run successive operations on the various directories to see if I can find which one or more causes the problem.

Certainly backup the %appdata%\Bitcoin directory before running Eraser again.

Most helpful, thank you.

Regards,

Nicholas

Unfortunately this hasn’t reached me (and I can’t find it in the quarantined spam either) - may I trouble you to send it again? I’ll then switch and run successive operations on the various directories to see if I can find which one or more causes the problem.

I sent it from satoshin@gmx.com because it’s a lot easier to send attachments from there. I’m resending it from there again.

Satoshi

I resent the 0.1.4 file in the previous e-mail. It also contained a bugfix for a bug that was dormant but I thought by process of elimination might have been what you had, but after you told me about Eraser I think it’s more likely to have been Eraser/disk space related.

I guess we are simultaneously trying to debug my e-mail.

Satoshi

I resent the 0.1.4 file in the previous e-mail. It also contained a bugfix for a bug that was dormant but I thought by process of elimination might have been what you had, but after you told me about Eraser I think it’s more likely to have been Eraser/disk space related.

I guess we are simultaneously trying to debug my e-mail.

We seem to be, as I can only find two messages from you, the one above and the one from vistomail, and neither has any attachments. (I have also again checked the spam quarantine.)

So something odd is happening.

Regards,

Nicholas

SNQuote from: Satoshi Nakamoto on January 30, 2009, 8:21:00 PM UTC

I resent the 0.1.4 file in the previous e-mail. It also contained a bugfix for a bug that was dormant but I thought by process of elimination might have been what you had, but after you told me about Eraser I think it’s more likely to have been Eraser/disk space related.

I guess we are simultaneously trying to debug my e-mail.

We seem to be, as I can only find two messages from you, the one above and the one from vistomail, and neither has any attachments. (I have also again checked the spam quarantine.)

So something odd is happening.

Regards,

Nicholas

Clearly one side or the other is stopping the ones with attachments. I sent you the same file attachment from vistomail about 15 minutes after I sent it from gmx (about 2 hours ago). I’ve successfully sent similar attachments to other people from vistomail many times before.

After this e-mail, which I’m sending without an attachment to make sure it gets through, I’ll try again with a different variation:

1. stripped debug info, reduces rar filesize from 7.8MB to 1.6MB.
2. renamed to bc014.rar, in case long filename or periods are the problem.
3. no gdb.exe.

After that I’ll send bc014a.rar, with bitcoin.exe renamed to bitcoin.dat in case it doesn’t like exe files.

And then I’ll send bc014.rar from vistomail.

Satoshi

I sent bc014.rar and bc014a.rar through gmx, now here’s bc014.rar attached from vistomail.

I sent bc014.rar and bc014a.rar through gmx and bc014.rar through vistomail. Did you get any of them?

In case all those failed (let me know), I also uploaded it to: http://www.upload.ae/file/14497/bc014-rar.html

Satoshi

1 Attachments problem

Although I successfully downloaded and ran bc014, I thought I had better report on the attachments.

I received the following messages from you yesterday 30th January, and only those messages, none of them with any attachments:

At 22.51 GMT

NBQuote from: Nicholas Bohm on January 30, 2009, 9:54:00 PM UTC

SNQuote from: Satoshi Nakamoto on January 30, 2009, 8:21:00 PM UTC

I resent the 0.1.4 file in the previous e-mail. It also contained a bugfix for a bug that was dormant but I thought by process of elimination might have been what you had, but after you told me about Eraser I think it’s more likely to have been Eraser/disk space related.

I guess we are simultaneously trying to debug my e-mail.

We seem to be, as I can only find two messages from you, the one above and the one from vistomail, and neither has any attachments. (I have also again checked the spam quarantine.)

So something odd is happening.

Regards,

Nicholas

Clearly one side or the other is stopping the ones with attachments. I sent you the same file attachment from vistomail about 15 minutes after I sent it from gmx (about 2 hours ago). I’ve successfully sent similar attachments to other people from vistomail many times before.

After this e-mail, which I’m sending without an attachment to make sure it gets through, I’ll try again with a different variation:

1. stripped debug info, reduces rar filesize from 7.8MB to 1.6MB.
2. renamed to bc014.rar, in case long filename or periods are the problem.
3. no gdb.exe.

After that I’ll send bc014a.rar, with bitcoin.exe renamed to bitcoin.dat in case it doesn’t like exe files.

And then I’ll send bc014.rar from vistomail.

Satoshi

At 23.04

I sent bc014.rar and bc014a.rar through gmx, now here’s bc014.rar attached from vistomail.

At 23.13

I sent bc014.rar and bc014a.rar through gmx and bc014.rar through vistomail. Did you get any of them?

In case all those failed (let me know), I also uploaded it to: http://www.upload.ae/file/14497/bc014-rar.html

Satoshi

…

This is very odd. I am successfully receiving email from others with attachments, and neither size nor filename seem to matter. NOD32 is no longer detecting Bitcoin as a virus (I assume as a result of an update to NOD32, of which I get one or two most days). Your mail is not in my anti-spam quarantine (though I have now whitelisted both addresses anyway). I’m baffled.

2 Bitcoin 014

The download was successful, and I simply replaced the old executable with the new. It runs without any problems.

3 Eraser

I ran all my normal Eraser tasks, and provoked no problem with Bitcoin.

Eraser might fill the disk in an operation to wipe free space, but this is very slow with two 150GB drives, and I don’t do it routinely. The wiping operations take less than 2 minutes, and I doubt if they use up all the disk space.

The only recent change to my system has been to rectify an apparent failure of the swapfile, whioch did not seem to be recognised by the system, but is now. With 2GB of RAM, though, would that have been a problem?

…

It seems we have to wait for further errors to accumulate!

Thanks for all your responses meanwhile. Do let me know if there are further tests you would like me to try.

Regards,

Nicholas

Another crash, not connected with Eraser (unless, which seems unlikely, running Eraser at 11.55 produced this failure four hours later). I attach the debug.log up to date.

Event Type:     Error
Event Source:   Application Error
Event Category:      None
Event ID:  1000
Date:          31/01/2009
Time:          15:56:28
User:          N/A
Computer:      HP91914945127
Description:
Faulting application bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, faulting module
bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, fault address 0x000be368.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 41 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74   Applicat
0008: 69 6f 6e 20 46 61 69 6c   ion Fail
0010: 75 72 65 20 20 62 69 74   ure  bit
0018: 63 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65   coin.exe
0020: 20 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30   0.0.0.0
0028: 20 69 6e 20 62 69 74 63   in bitc
0030: 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65 20   oin.exe
0038: 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30 20   0.0.0.0
0040: 61 74 20 6f 66 66 73 65   at offse
0048: 74 20 30 30 30 62 65 33   t 000be3
0050: 36 38 0d 0a          68..

Regards,

Nicholas

• Is there anything in db.log?
• What operating system are you using?
• When it crashes, does it put up any other message boxes that say anything else?
• What does it do when it crashes? Is the UI hung or is it still usable?

Satoshi

Good news! I pinpointed the bug. The bug could occur if a DNS lookup failed.

The fix is at: http://www.upload.ae/file/14540/bc015-rar.html

Thanks for all your help and patience with this!

Satoshi

I guess I’d better send this from here also in case there’s more e-mail problems.

Good news! I pinpointed the bug. The bug could occur if your computer had trouble doing a DNS lookup.

The fix is at: http://www.upload.ae/file/14540/bc015-rar.html

Thanks for all your help and patience with this.

Satoshi

I guess I’d better send this from here also in case there’s more e-mail problems.

I got this message safely from both addresses.

Good news! I pinpointed the bug. The bug could occur if your computer had trouble doing a DNS lookup.

Quite possible. I subscribe to NASA’s image of the day collection through Google Reader (an RSS reader), and for some time I have found that when I click the link for the NASA site, I get a Firefox error page saying “couldn’t find the server); but clicking “try again” gets me through each time. This might be a DNS lookup error, presumably.

The fix is at: http://www.upload.ae/file/14540/bc015-rar.html

I’ve downloaded it and am running 015.

Thanks for all your help and patience with this.

I pleased if it’s a help - there’s always some discomfort in being the bearer of bad tidings!

Just for completeness, I’ll answer the questions in your earlier message:

• Is there anything in db.log?

No

• What operating system are you using?

Windows XP Service Pack 3

• When it crashes, does it put up any other message boxes that say anything else?

See the two screenshots attached. I haven’t got the file mentioned there, e02_appcompat.txt - it is deleted by sending the error report, which I did before thinking to make a copy. However, I sent you the corresponding file for an earlier crash attached to my message of 25th January.

There is also the Event Viewer report, as follows:

First, probably when the crash occurs:

Event Type:     Error
Event Source:   Application Error
Event Category:      None
Event ID:  1000
Date:          01/02/2009
Time:          07:56:58
User:          N/A
Computer:      HP91914945127
Description:
Faulting application bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, faulting module
bitcoin.exe, version 0.0.0.0, fault address 0x000be368.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 41 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74   Applicat
0008: 69 6f 6e 20 46 61 69 6c   ion Fail
0010: 75 72 65 20 20 62 69 74   ure  bit
0018: 63 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65   coin.exe
0020: 20 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30   0.0.0.0
0028: 20 69 6e 20 62 69 74 63   in bitc
0030: 6f 69 6e 2e 65 78 65 20   oin.exe
0038: 30 2e 30 2e 30 2e 30 20   0.0.0.0
0040: 61 74 20 6f 66 66 73 65   at offse
0048: 74 20 30 30 30 62 65 33   t 000be3
0050: 36 38 0d 0a          68..

Second, when I send the error report:

Event Type:     Error
Event Source:   Application Error
Event Category:      None
Event ID:  1001
Date:          01/02/2009
Time:          10:30:12
User:          N/A
Computer:      HP91914945127
Description:
Fault bucket 1123899417.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 42 75 63 6b 65 74 3a 20   Bucket:
0008: 31 31 32 33 38 39 39 34   11238994
0010: 31 37 0d 0a          17..

• What does it do when it crashes? Is the UI hung or is it still usable?

See the first screenshot: the UI is still visible, and doesn’t close until the error report is sent. I’m not sure whether it’s usable, as I hadn’t thought to try.

I’ll let you know of course if I have anything further to report.

Regards,

Nicholas

I haven’t got the file mentioned there, e02_appcompat.txt - it is deleted by sending the error report, which I did before thinking to make a copy. However, I sent you the corresponding file for an earlier crash attached to my message of 25th January.

No worries, that only tells what program it was. There’s another useful dump report, but they keep the file locked so you can’t get it.

I eventually figured it out from 0x000be368 (fault address).

See the first screenshot: the UI is still visible, and doesn’t close until the error report is sent. I’m not sure whether it’s usable, as I hadn’t thought to try.

It’s probably still fully functional, in which case you could push the crash message off the screen and ignore it. The thread that crashed already did the main part of its job. You were still fully operational on the network and generating during the times you were crashed.

I’ll let you know of course if I have anything further to report.

Thanks.

BTW, I sent a transfer to your Bitcoin address in case you’re curious what that looks like. (It can only get “from” and comment info if you can receive incoming connections)

Satoshi

…

BTW, I sent a transfer to your Bitcoin address in case you’re curious what that looks like. (It can only get “from” and comment info if you can receive incoming connections)

Thank you! I now see:

35 blocks  01/02/2009 16:25    Received with: !Me
1CHE5JRfc5mr8ZtVUP7nnsS5HC4bWcXoc6  +100.00

It slowly begins to feel a little more real.

(And no further crashes yet.)

Regards,

Nicholas

No further trouble; but whereas the UI at first showed your transfer as:

35 blocks  01/02/2009 16:25    Received with: !Me
1CHE5JRfc5mr8ZtVUP7nnsS5HC4bWcXoc6  +100.00

it now (the morning after) shows:

98 blocks  01/02/2009 16:25    Received with: Satoshi Nakamoto
1CHE5JRfc5mr8ZtVUP7nnsS5HC4bWcXoc6                +100.00

Regards,

Nicholas

No further trouble; but whereas the UI at first showed your transfer as:

35 blocks 01/02/2009 16:25   Received with: !Me
1CHE5JRfc5mr8ZtVUP7nnsS5HC4bWcXoc6 +100.00

it now (the morning after) shows:

98 blocks 01/02/2009 16:25   Received with: Satoshi Nakamoto
1CHE5JRfc5mr8ZtVUP7nnsS5HC4bWcXoc6 +100.00

Everyone promptly presses “Change…” and labels their own address with my name.

I need to figure out some way to convey that it’s showing the address you received it with, in just one or two words

Maybe: “Receiving address: ” “Incoming address: ”

Or the way e-mail programs do it: “To: ” “Recipient: ”

Which one do you think would work best, or is it just too much to overcome the predisposition to expect it to say who it’s from no matter what it’s labelled?

This would probably work best: “From: unknown, To: Your Address 1cc…” or “From: anonymous, To: Your Address 1cc…”

Satoshi

NBQuote from: Nicholas Bohm on February 02, 2009, 11:27:00 AM UTC

No further trouble; but whereas the UI at first showed your transfer as:

35 blocks  01/02/2009 16:25    Received with: !Me
1CHE5JRfc5mr8ZtVUP7nnsS5HC4bWcXoc6  +100.00

it now (the morning after) shows:

98 blocks  01/02/2009 16:25    Received with: Satoshi Nakamoto
1CHE5JRfc5mr8ZtVUP7nnsS5HC4bWcXoc6  +100.00

Everyone promptly presses “Change…” and labels their own address with my name.

I hadn’t touched “Change” in case of bungling something. When I did, it showed your name against what I took to be my address - some sort of default?

By playing I see that I can have multiple addresses with different names; and if the idea is to use them to distinguish the origin of payments, I could of course name each with the name of the person I intend to give it to for payment purposes.

This seems a bit uncertain, though - presumably if I give person A my address for payments, nothing stops them giving it to Person B; and then I’ll think payments from Person B are from Person A. Or have I missed something?

I need to figure out some way to convey that it’s showing the address you received it with, in just one or two words

Maybe: “Receiving address: ” “Incoming address: ”

Or the way e-mail programs do it: “To: ” “Recipient: ”

Which one do you think would work best, or is it just too much to overcome the predisposition to expect it to say who it’s from no matter what it’s labelled?

This would probably work best: “From: unknown, To: Your Address 1cc…” or “From: anonymous, To: Your Address 1cc…”

Please treat my comments with caution, as my grasp of Bitcoin is pretty superficial, to put it mildly; but I hope naive comments may still be useful.

My preference is “From: unknown, to: your address 1cc…”

I prefer “unknown” because I assume the system truly does not know the source; “anonymous” suggests that it was the choice of the sender to conceal their name.

I would see some merit in keeping the record of well understood operations like receipts and payments on a separate page from the record of generation and maturity, which are operations quite different from those of ordinary bank accounts. (There could be separate tabs in the one pane, for example. Receipts and payments could have separate columns for the amount, like many conventional bank statements.)

Is it useful to keep forever lines such as:

0/unconfirmed    02/02/2009 04:21    Generated (not accepted)     0.00 ?

And I was initially baffled by legends like:

97 blocks      02/02/2009 19:23    Generated (50.00 matures in 23
blocks)

because I thought that if it required 23 blocks to mature and I already had 97, it ought surely to be mature already. (I worked it out in due course; but I would have understood at once if it had said “matures in 23 more blocks”.)

No doubt in due course a User Guide and FAQ will tackle a lot of things like this.

Regards,

Nicholas

I hadn’t touched “Change” in case of bungling something. When I did, it showed your name against what I took to be my address - some sort of default?

You’re the second person to tell me they don’t remember labelling their address with my name. Surely you must have entered ”!Me” at some point and then later replaced it with my name. The software doesn’t have my name coded into it anywhere and has no way to get it other than from the user.

I think I know what happened: if you copied the address, thinking it was my address, and entered it into your address book, it would have changed the label for your address. The entry would have failed to show up in the address book. I need to make it check the address when you enter a new address in the address book and if it’s yours, give an error explaining it’s one of yours.

The address labelling feature is inherently confusing. I’ve only stuck with it because it would be a necessity in advanced scenarios, but as an advanced feature it isn’t really needed until much later. I’m thinking I’ll hide it, at least for now. Let it be simple for as long as possible.

I’m still wavering between: “Received with address 18cc…” and “From: unknown, To: 18cc…”

But if “Received with: (something) 18cc…” left 2 out of 2 people thinking the address was the sender’s address, then “Received with address 18cc…” might not be different enough to overpower the natural expectation to see the sender’s address there. What do you think? From/To still better?

This seems a bit uncertain, though - presumably if I give person A my address for payments, nothing stops them giving it to Person B; and then I’ll think payments from Person B are from Person A. Or have I missed something?

True for e-mail, maybe less so when paying a bill. For instance, “send 9.95 to 18cc… to activate your account” or “please make payment for this invoice to 18cc…”.

Please treat my comments with caution, as my grasp of Bitcoin is pretty superficial, to put it mildly; but I hope naive comments may still be useful.

No, that’s exactly what I need, it’s very helpful. I don’t know how someone who doesn’t already know all about Bitcoin will interpret things. You only get once chance to see how something looks for the first time, and I already spent all of mine.

BTW, did you figure out that you could doubleclick on a transaction to open a details window?

but I would have understood at once if it had said “matures in 23 more blocks”.)

Good idea, definitely an improvement.

Satoshi

NBQuote from: Nicholas Bohm on February 03, 2009, 11:55:00 AM UTC

I hadn’t touched “Change” in case of bungling something. When I did, it showed your name against what I took to be my address - some sort of default?

You’re the second person to tell me they don’t remember labelling their address with my name. Surely you must have entered ”!Me” at some point and then later replaced it with my name. The software doesn’t have my name coded into it anywhere and has no way to get it other than from the user.

No, I truly hadn’t clicked the “Change” button until after I got your payment and read your remarks. As you know, I first found it reading ”!Me”; I then clicked “Change” and found your name against my address; I then went back to the main screen, and found your name instead of ”!Me”. So something odd is happening.

I think I know what happened: if you copied the address, thinking it was my address, and entered it into your address book, it would have changed the label for your address. The entry would have failed to show up in the address book. I need to make it check the address when you enter a new address in the address book and if it’s yours, give an error explaining it’s one of yours.

No, I’m sure that isn’t what I did.

The address labelling feature is inherently confusing. I’ve only stuck with it because it would be a necessity in advanced scenarios, but as an advanced feature it isn’t really needed until much later. I’m thinking I’ll hide it, at least for now. Let it be simple for as long as possible.

Yes, I agree - keep it simple and see what enhancements are demanded.

I’m still wavering between: “Received with address 18cc…” and “From: unknown, To: 18cc…”

But if “Received with: (something) 18cc…” left 2 out of 2 people thinking the address was the sender’s address, then “Received with address 18cc…” might not be different enough to overpower the natural expectation to see the sender’s address there. What do you think? From/To still better?

To me it does, yes.

This seems a bit uncertain, though - presumably if I give person A my address for payments, nothing stops them giving it to Person B; and then I’ll think payments from Person B are from Person A. Or have I missed something?

True for e-mail, maybe less so when paying a bill. For instance, “send 9.95 to 18cc… to activate your account” or “please make payment for this invoice to 18cc…”.

Yes, I can see the tracking works well there. Perhaps a Bitcoin netiquette will develop in which you treat a payment address I give you as setting up your account with me, which you don’t want other people paying into (though perhaps the incentive is the other way, as you potentially benefit if they do).

Please treat my comments with caution, as my grasp of Bitcoin is pretty superficial, to put it mildly; but I hope naive comments may still be useful.

No, that’s exactly what I need, it’s very helpful. I don’t know how someone who doesn’t already know all about Bitcoin will interpret things. You only get once chance to see how something looks for the first time, and I already spent all of mine.

True; and I think I can remain clueless for quite a while.

BTW, did you figure out that you could doubleclick on a transaction to open a details window?

No, a nice touch, especially if in due course the details become context-sensitive. I did try right-clicking, to see if that would get me a chance to delete the failed items, which I find mildly irritating.

but I would have understood at once if it had said “matures in 23 more blocks”.)

Good idea, definitely an improvement.

Perhaps we should try a payment by me to you, if you would let me have an address. I would be interested to see how it works if the payment is not bc50 or a multiple, for example.

Regards,

Nicholas

No, I’m sure that isn’t what I did.

Do you remember ever entering ”!Me” or my name into the program at any time?

SNQuote from: Satoshi Nakamoto on February 03, 2009, 4:42:00 PM UTC

BTW, did you figure out that you could doubleclick on a transaction to open a details window?

No, a nice touch, especially if in due course the details become context-sensitive. I did try right-clicking, to see if that would get me a chance to delete the failed items, which I find mildly irritating.

Despite the similarities to an e-mail program, it’s not obvious to doubleclick on transactions. There’s no critical info in there so it’s fine for now. I hadn’t thought of the context menu, I’ll plan to use that in the future.

Perhaps we should try a payment by me to you, if you would let me have an address. I would be interested to see how it works if the payment is not bc50 or a multiple, for example.

Sure, it’s 1GtkM4wviwohP192tec9g83hd9X5qtbk9j

I’ll send back +0.01 as a confirmation.

It looks just the same with any amount. If you want to see more details of what’s going on internally, run it as bitcoin -debug and it’ll show a debug print with the transaction details. It basically selects the closest combination of coins to the amount and writes a transaction with the change going back to yourself.

I uploaded bc015a.rar with the changes we’ve been discussing to: http://www.upload.ae/file/14702/bc015a-rar.html

I’m going to release 0.1.5 soon.

Satoshi

NBQuote from: Nicholas Bohm on February 03, 2009, 7:14:00 PM UTC

No, I’m sure that isn’t what I did.

Do you remember ever entering ”!Me” or my name into the program at any time?

No, I’m sure I didn’t.

SNQuote from: Satoshi Nakamoto on February 03, 2009, 4:42:00 PM UTC

BTW, did you figure out that you could doubleclick on a transaction to open a details window?

No, a nice touch, especially if in due course the details become context-sensitive. I did try right-clicking, to see if that would get me a chance to delete the failed items, which I find mildly irritating.

Despite the similarities to an e-mail program, it’s not obvious to doubleclick on transactions. There’s no critical info in there so it’s fine for now. I hadn’t thought of the context menu, I’ll plan to use that in the future.

Perhaps we should try a payment by me to you, if you would let me have an address. I would be interested to see how it works if the payment is not bc50 or a multiple, for example.

Sure, it’s 1GtkM4wviwohP192tec9g83hd9X5qtbk9j

I’ll send back +0.01 as a confirmation.

Fine, I’ll give it a try.

It looks just the same with any amount. If you want to see more details of what’s going on internally, run it as bitcoin -debug and it’ll show a debug print with the transaction details. It basically selects the closest combination of coins to the amount and writes a transaction with the change going back to yourself.

I uploaded bc015a.rar with the changes we’ve been discussing to: http://www.upload.ae/file/14702/bc015a-rar.html

I’m going to release 0.1.5 soon.

I’ll look out for it.

Regards,

Nicholas

Just to say the sending seemed very straightforward, as was the resulting entry.

And when you get used to the double-click, it’s actually simpler than a right-click and selecting from a menu. So perhaps it’s just a matter of user guidance.

Regards,

Nicholas

The bc19.01 came back pretty swiftly! It hadn’t in fact occurred to me that you could use hundredths, though it’s true that that is fairly conventional for currencies.

Regards,

Nicholas

Just to let you know that Bitcoin has generated no new packets today, although it typically generates 8 to 10 packets each day (although sometimes fewer), and the option to generate is ticked. Existing packets are proceedings towards maturity, or have matured, at about the usual rate. Progress to maturity takes around 21 to 23 hours.

I thought this was an anomaly that might be of interest.

regards,

Nicholas

A follow-up to my earlier message: today’s first packet has now been generated, at 16:54, and had accumulated 7 blocks within its first hour. Previous first packets of the day have usually been around 03:00.

Regards,

Nicholas

Could be something else is taking CPU. Run Task Manager (taskmgr) and check if bitcoin.exe is getting >90 CPU. If not, see what is. Sometimes a page will have a broken javascript that makes your browser waste most of the CPU.

If it already went back to normal, could be a fluke. Randomness bunches up sometimes.

Satoshi

Could be something else is taking CPU. Run Task Manager (taskmgr) and check if bitcoin.exe is getting >90 CPU. If not, see what is. Sometimes a page will have a broken javascript that makes your browser waste most of the CPU.

I’ve looked from time to time, and Bitcoin invariably gets exactly 50% of CPU, even when System Idle Process is getting the other 50%. I assumed this was set, and had it in mind to ask you whether the setting could be changed so that Bitcoin could be given its head (e.g. overnight).

If it already went back to normal, could be a fluke. Randomness bunches up sometimes.

Yes, one mustn’t read too much into it. There were 11 packets of 50 on the 8th, 8 on the 9th, 2 on the 10th and 4 down to 18.00 today. 2 seems quite a long way out of line, but it’s still the short run, no doubt.

Nicholas

I’ve looked from time to time, and Bitcoin invariably gets exactly 50% of CPU, even when System Idle Process is getting the other 50%. I assumed this was set, and had it in mind to ask you whether the setting could be changed so that Bitcoin could be given its head (e.g. overnight).

Do you have a dual core system, such as a Core 2 Duo? Bitcoin currently only launches one process to generate coins but it could easily launch one for each processor. It’s probably about time I implemented that.

Satoshi

NBQuote from: Nicholas Bohm on February 11, 2009, 5:55:00 PM UTC

I’ve looked from time to time, and Bitcoin invariably gets exactly 50% of CPU, even when System Idle Process is getting the other 50%. I assumed this was set, and had it in mind to ask you whether the setting could be changed so that Bitcoin could be given its head (e.g. overnight).

Do you have a dual core system, such as a Core 2 Duo? Bitcoin currently only launches one process to generate coins but it could easily launch one for each processor. It’s probably about time I implemented that.

I have a Hewlett-Packard HP Compaq dc5750 Microtower with an AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+ 2.19 GHz, 1.87 GB of RAM

So it looks as though I could run more processes; and it may be that Bitcoin is getting 100% of half the available CPU.

Nicholas

The bottom of the UI shows:

Generating      4 connections    4024 blocks    164 transactions

I understand “generating”; I assume I am connected to 4 other nodes; and I know I have recorded 164 transactions (including failed generation attempts). I’m not clear what the “blocks” figure describes. It’s much smaller than the total of all the blocks shown against all my transactions.

Regards,

Nicholas

It’s the total number of blocks in the block chain, meaning the network’s block chain, which everyone has a copy of. Every Bitcoin node displays the same number and it goes up about every 10 minutes whenever someone generates a block. When you haven’t had it running for a while, once you’re connected it spins up rapidly as it downloads what was generated while you were gone to catch up. I’m not sure exactly how to describe it (that would fit on the status bar in 1 word, maybe 2 words max), any ideas?

The blocks number in the status column next to your transactions is the number of blocks that have come after that transaction. Your transaction is essentially “in” that many blocks.

Satoshi

The bottom of the UI shows:

Generating      4 connections    4024 blocks    164 transactions

I understand “generating”; I assume I am connected to 4 other nodes; and I know I have recorded 164 transactions (including failed generation attempts). I’m not clear what the “blocks” figure describes. It’s much smaller than the total of all the blocks shown against all my transactions.

Regards,

Nicholas

It’s the total number of blocks in the block chain, meaning the network’s block chain, which everyone has a copy of. Every Bitcoin node displays the same number and it goes up about every 10 minutes whenever someone generates a block. When you haven’t had it running for a while, once you’re connected it spins up rapidly as it downloads what was generated while you were gone to catch up. I’m not sure exactly how to describe it (that would fit on the status bar in 1 word, maybe 2 words max), any ideas?

In one or two words I can’t think how to do it, I admit. Must it be that short? There seems to be a fair asmount of room in the status bar (especially if the window is sized so that the descriptive text for payment and receipt transactions isn’t truncated). How to say it best probably depends on the (future) user guide and FAQs, as it needs to link in sensibly with what they say. It sounds as though it should say ”**** blocks in network chain”.

The blocks number in the status column next to your transactions is the number of blocks that have come after that transaction. Your transaction is essentially “in” that many blocks.

I follow that.

Thanks,

Nicholas

Satoshi

NBQuote from: Nicholas Bohm on February 12, 2009, 5:52:00 PM UTC

The bottom of the UI shows:

Generating      4 connections    4024 blocks    164 transactions

I understand “generating”; I assume I am connected to 4 other nodes; and I know I have recorded 164 transactions (including failed generation attempts). I’m not clear what the “blocks” figure describes. It’s much smaller than the total of all the blocks shown against all my transactions.

Regards,

Nicholas

I’m having an unusual run of failures, and thought I’d let you know in case this was of any significance.

Regards,

Nicholas

What rate of not-accepted did you see? I didn’t see anything unusual on my end. If you had more than, say, 4 in a row, that would be abnormal and probably a loss of network communication. If it’s scattered and less than 25%, just random bad luck. It’s normal and harmless to randomly get some per cent of not-accepted, and of course randomness can sometimes bunch up and look like a pattern.

The idea of an option to View/Hide unaccepted blocks is a good one, as well as View/Hide all generated blocks so you can more easily see incoming transactions. Seeing the unaccepted blocks is just annoying and frustrating. Everyone faces the same rate of unaccepted, it’s just a part of the process. It would probably be best to default to hide unaccepted blocks, so as not to show giving and taking away something that never was, and not show new generated blocks at all until they have at least one confirmation. It would only mean finding out you have a generated block 15 minutes later than normal, and then you still have 119 blocks to go before it matures anyway. This is on the to-do list for v0.1.6.

Satoshi

I’m having an unusual run of failures, and thought I’d let you know in case this was of any significance.

Regards,

Nicholas

What rate of not-accepted did you see? I didn’t see anything unusual on my end. If you had more than, say, 4 in a row, that would be abnormal and probably a loss of network communication. If it’s scattered and less than 25%, just random bad luck. It’s normal and harmless to randomly get some per cent of not-accepted, and of course randomness can sometimes bunch up and look like a pattern.

This was the odd run (shown in context):

132 blocks      05/04/2009 09:19    Generated
168 blocks      05/04/2009 03:08    Generated
191 blocks      04/04/2009 22:08    Generated
193 blocks      04/04/2009 21:52    Generated
219 blocks      04/04/2009 16:52    Generated
230 blocks      04/04/2009 14:52    Generated
270 blocks      04/04/2009 05:48    Generated
311 blocks      03/04/2009 20:57    Generated
324 blocks      03/04/2009 18:01    Generated
330 blocks      03/04/2009 16:50    Generated
336 blocks      03/04/2009 15:54    Generated
0/unconfirmed    03/04/2009 10:10    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    03/04/2009 08:00    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    03/04/2009 04:43    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    02/04/2009 21:43    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    02/04/2009 19:09    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    02/04/2009 16:05    Generated (not accepted)
452 blocks      02/04/2009 14:46    Generated

It could be loss of connectivity, though I wasn’t aware of it at the time.

The idea of an option to View/Hide unaccepted blocks is a good one, as well as View/Hide all generated blocks so you can more easily see incoming transactions. Seeing the unaccepted blocks is just annoying and frustrating. Everyone faces the same rate of unaccepted, it’s just a part of the process. It would probably be best to default to hide unaccepted blocks, so as not to show giving and taking away something that never was, and not show new generated blocks at all until they have at least one confirmation. It would only mean finding out you have a generated block 15 minutes later than normal, and then you still have 119 blocks to go before it matures anyway. This is on the to-do list for v0.1.6.

Sounds good to me. I assume you still have plans for multi-processor support.

NBQuote from: Nicholas Bohm on April 03, 2009, 11:39:00 AM UTC

I’m having an unusual run of failures, and thought I’d let you know in case this was of any significance.

Regards,

Nicholas

Bitcoin continues to run smoothly, but I noticed an unusual event:

731 blocks      11/05/2009 15:58    Generated         +50.10

All prior and subsequent generated packers have been of exactly 50.

Just in case this is of interest!

Regards,

Nicholas

I notice a surprising number of “not accepted” at the moment:

0/unconfirmed    20/05/2009 15:09    Generated (not accepted)
29 blocks      20/05/2009 10:54    Generated (50.00 matures in 91
more blocks)
0/unconfirmed    20/05/2009 03:15    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    20/05/2009 03:06    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    19/05/2009 19:11    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    19/05/2009 12:47    Generated (not accepted)
133 blocks      19/05/2009 06:31    Generated
134 blocks      19/05/2009 06:31    Generated
0/unconfirmed    18/05/2009 23:08    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    18/05/2009 19:25    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    18/05/2009 15:18    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    18/05/2009 12:28    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    18/05/2009 11:31    Generated (not accepted)
257 blocks      18/05/2009 06:29    Generated
278 blocks      18/05/2009 01:51    Generated
285 blocks      18/05/2009 00:43    Generated
305 blocks      17/05/2009 20:53    Generated
313 blocks      17/05/2009 19:35    Generated
317 blocks      17/05/2009 18:51    Generated
326 blocks      17/05/2009 17:32    Generated
0/unconfirmed    17/05/2009 12:14    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    17/05/2009 08:49    Generated (not accepted)
395 blocks      17/05/2009 03:51    Generated
403 blocks      17/05/2009 02:09    Generated
0/unconfirmed    16/05/2009 21:49    Generated (not accepted)
431 blocks      16/05/2009 20:44    Generated
432 blocks      16/05/2009 20:42    Generated
0/unconfirmed    16/05/2009 20:20    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    16/05/2009 19:58    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    16/05/2009 15:18    Generated (not accepted)
0/unconfirmed    16/05/2009 15:10    Generated (not accepted)
503 blocks      16/05/2009 04:51    Generated
505 blocks      16/05/2009 04:42    Generated
510 blocks      16/05/2009 03:46    Generated
523 blocks      16/05/2009 01:50    Generated
0/unconfirmed    15/05/2009 21:12    Generated (not accepted)

Just in case it’s worthy of note.

Regards,

Nicholas

That’s the transaction fee feature. If you generate a block containing a transaction that includes a transaction fee, you earn the transaction fee in addition to the 50.00. Someone must have included a 0.10 fee with one of their transactions. The setting to do that is under options. Including a fee is completely optional, more of a donation to nodes for helping out.

Bitcoin continues to run smoothly, but I noticed an unusual event:

731 blocks      11/05/2009 15:58    Generated         +50.10

All prior and subsequent generated packers have been of exactly 50.

Just in case this is of interest!

Regards,

Nicholas

That’s the transaction fee feature. If you generate a block containing a transaction that includes a transaction fee, you earn the transaction fee in addition to the 50.00. Someone must have included a 0.10 fee with one of their transactions. The setting to do that is under options. Including a fee is completely optional, more of a donation to nodes for helping out.

NBQuote from: Nicholas Bohm on May 17, 2009, 10:11:00 AM UTC

Bitcoin continues to run smoothly, but I noticed an unusual event:

731 blocks      11/05/2009 15:58    Generated         +50.10

All prior and subsequent generated packers have been of exactly 50.

Just in case this is of interest!

Regards,

Nicholas

Thanks for the explanation. I’ve set a transaction fee of 0.07, just to see how it works out. (I feel I can afford it, as my balance is now over 35,000!)

Nicholas

There seems to be a high number of non acceptances recently, so I thought it might be helpful to report.

21 blocks        02/06/2009 11:30    Generated (50.00 matures in 99 more blocks)      0.00
0/unconfirmed    01/06/2009 22:00    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    01/06/2009 21:54    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
111 blocks       01/06/2009 07:18    Generated (50.00 matures in 9 more blocks)       0.00
112 blocks       01/06/2009 07:08    Generated (50.00 matures in 8 more blocks)       0.00
127 blocks       01/06/2009 03:59    You're welcome.                                 +0.01
128 blocks       01/06/2009 03:58    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    01/06/2009 02:02    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    31/05/2009 22:26    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    31/05/2009 20:02    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
198 blocks       31/05/2009 09:21    Generated                                      +50.00
213 blocks       31/05/2009 05:50    Generated                                      +50.00
221 blocks       31/05/2009 04:15    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    30/05/2009 22:44    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
296 blocks       30/05/2009 12:44    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    30/05/2009 09:33    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    30/05/2009 09:17    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
351 blocks       29/05/2009 22:43    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    29/05/2009 19:08    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
378 blocks       29/05/2009 17:01    Generated                                      +50.00
380 blocks       29/05/2009 16:42    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    29/05/2009 16:22    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    29/05/2009 14:08    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
430 blocks       29/05/2009 05:27    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    29/05/2009 01:12    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
493 blocks       28/05/2009 14:31    Generated                                      +50.00
503 blocks       28/05/2009 12:17    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    28/05/2009 12:03    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    28/05/2009 00:38    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
583 blocks       27/05/2009 17:19    Generated                                      +50.00
607 blocks       27/05/2009 12:33    Generated                                      +50.00
639 blocks       27/05/2009 06:09    Generated                                      +50.00
653 blocks       27/05/2009 03:13    Generated                                      +50.00
658 blocks       27/05/2009 01:38    Generated                                      +50.00
662 blocks       27/05/2009 01:12    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    26/05/2009 13:34    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
756 blocks       26/05/2009 07:57    Generated                                      +50.00
785 blocks       26/05/2009 01:14    Generated                                      +50.00
818 blocks       25/05/2009 18:53    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    25/05/2009 16:12    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    25/05/2009 15:50    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    25/05/2009 11:02    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    25/05/2009 10:44    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
875 blocks       25/05/2009 07:16    Generated                                      +50.00
890 blocks       25/05/2009 02:57    Generated                                      +50.00
913 blocks       24/05/2009 21:55    Generated                                      +50.00
928 blocks       24/05/2009 19:02    Generated                                      +50.00
929 blocks       24/05/2009 18:47    Generated                                      +50.00
946 blocks       24/05/2009 10:39    Generated                                      +50.00
975 blocks       24/05/2009 05:22    Generated                                      +50.00
976 blocks       24/05/2009 05:08    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    24/05/2009 00:18    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    22/05/2009 14:59    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
1034 blocks      22/05/2009 13:31    Generated                                      +50.00
1078 blocks      22/05/2009 03:30    Generated                                      +50.00
1084 blocks      22/05/2009 01:56    Generated                                      +50.00
1105 blocks      21/05/2009 21:28    Generated                                      +50.00
1142 blocks      21/05/2009 06:46    Generated                                      +50.00
1162 blocks      21/05/2009 02:48    Generated                                      +50.00
1168 blocks      21/05/2009 01:52    Generated                                      +50.00
1177 blocks      21/05/2009 00:01    Generated                                      +50.00
1189 blocks      20/05/2009 21:40    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    20/05/2009 21:09    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    20/05/2009 18:22    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
1219 blocks      20/05/2009 16:26    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    20/05/2009 15:09    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
1243 blocks      20/05/2009 10:54    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    20/05/2009 03:15    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    20/05/2009 03:06    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    19/05/2009 19:11    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    19/05/2009 12:47    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
1347 blocks      19/05/2009 06:31    Generated                                      +50.00
1348 blocks      19/05/2009 06:31    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    18/05/2009 23:08    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    18/05/2009 19:25    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    18/05/2009 15:18    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    18/05/2009 12:28    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    18/05/2009 11:31    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
1471 blocks      18/05/2009 06:29    Generated                                      +50.00
1492 blocks      18/05/2009 01:51    Generated                                      +50.00
1499 blocks      18/05/2009 00:43    Generated                                      +50.00
1519 blocks      17/05/2009 20:53    Generated                                      +50.00
1527 blocks      17/05/2009 19:35    Generated                                      +50.00
1531 blocks      17/05/2009 18:51    Generated                                      +50.00
1540 blocks      17/05/2009 17:32    Generated                                      +50.00
0/unconfirmed    17/05/2009 12:14    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00
0/unconfirmed    17/05/2009 08:49    Generated (not accepted)                         0.00

Regards,

Nicholas

I’ve installed a new router and cannot get Bitcoin to connect.

I’ve altered the firewall rule to allow inbound services via SMTP, which seems to be the name for port 25. Is that right? Should there be anything else I ought to do?

Regards,

Nicholas

I’ve achieved a connection to bitcoin through my new router, so whatever I did must have been right. Please disregard my last message.

Regards,

Nicholas

You should set your router to forward port 8333 so you can receive incoming connections. If you’re not set up to receive incoming connections and nobody else who’s online is, then you can’t connect. It would also help solve the “(not accepted)” issues.

Satoshi

I’ve achieved a connection to bitcoin through my new router, so whatever I did must have been right. Please disregard my last message.

Regards,

Nicholas

Bitcoin has failed to establish any connections for the last day or so, despite restarts. I’m not aware of having made any changes to my system, so this is puzzling. Can you suggest what I might check?

Regards,

Nicholas

Did your IP address change? And if so, what’s the new address? I run a node but I can’t accept incoming connections and if your IP address changed then I would have lost contact with you.

There may just not be anybody else running it right now. How many connections did you usually have before? If you keep your server running, if new users come along at least they’ll have someone to connect to, rather than get no connections and give up.

(btw, it’s better if you use my satoshin@gmx.com e-mail address)

Satoshi

Bitcoin has failed to establish any connections for the last day or so, despite restarts. I’m not aware of having made any changes to my system, so this is puzzling. Can you suggest what I might check?

Regards,

Nicholas

Did your IP address change? And if so, what’s the new address? I run a node but I can’t accept incoming connections and if your IP address changed then I would have lost contact with you.

My IP address is 217.146.110.206, and hasn’t changed for quite a time as far as I know.

There may just not be anybody else running it right now. How many connections did you usually have before?

It varied from 3 to 5 mostly.

If you keep your server running, if new users come along at least they’ll have someone to connect to, rather than get no connections and give up.

I’ll leave it running. No blocks of coins have matured since 15th July.

(btw, it’s better if you use my satoshin@gmx.com e-mail address)

OK

Regards,

Nicholas

NBQuote from: Nicholas Bohm on July 18, 2009, 8:59:00 AM UTC

Bitcoin has failed to establish any connections for the last day or so, despite restarts. I’m not aware of having made any changes to my system, so this is puzzling. Can you suggest what I might check?

Regards,

Nicholas

I guess something must be preventing you from receiving incoming connections. Mine has been trying to connect to your IP without success. I’m currently connected to 70.113.114.209 since yesterday. If you’re not at least connected to that one, then you can’t connect out either.

Satoshi

SNQuote from: Satoshi Nakamoto on July 19, 2009, 3:07:00 AM UTC

Did your IP address change? And if so, what’s the new address? I run a node but I can’t accept incoming connections and if your IP address changed then I would have lost contact with you.

My IP address is 217.146.110.206, and hasn’t changed for quite a time as far as I know.

There may just not be anybody else running it right now. How many connections did you usually have before?

It varied from 3 to 5 mostly.

If you keep your server running, if new users come along at least they’ll have someone to connect to, rather than get no connections and give up.

I’ll leave it running. No blocks of coins have matured since 15th July.

(btw, it’s better if you use my satoshin@gmx.com e-mail address)

OK

Regards,

Nicholas

I guess something must be preventing you from receiving incoming connections. Mine has been trying to connect to your IP without success. I’m currently connected to 70.113.114.209 since yesterday. If you’re not at least connected to that one, then you can’t connect out either.

I still had no connections, and couldn’t see why not; but I stopped and restarted bitcoin, and now have two connections. Although this is fewer than for some weeks, and I have a clutch of “not confirmed” blocks when for some weeks I had had none, at least it’s up and running again. Previous restarts made no difference, though.

Incidentally, I set the optional transaction fee at 0.07. I expected this to be visible as an outgoing (or as a deduction from blocks created), but so far I’ve seen nothing. Perhaps I’ve had no takers.

Regards,

Nicholas

NBQuote from: Nicholas Bohm on July 19, 2009, 9:23:00 AM UTC

SNQuote from: Satoshi Nakamoto on July 19, 2009, 3:07:00 AM UTC

Did your IP address change? And if so, what’s the new address? I run a node but I can’t accept incoming connections and if your IP address changed then I would have lost contact with you.

My IP address is 217.146.110.206, and hasn’t changed for quite a time as far as I know.

SNQuote from: Satoshi Nakamoto on July 19, 2009, 3:07:00 AM UTC

There may just not be anybody else running it right now. How many connections did you usually have before?

It varied from 3 to 5 mostly.

SNQuote from: Satoshi Nakamoto on July 19, 2009, 3:07:00 AM UTC

If you keep your server running, if new users come along at least they’ll have someone to connect to, rather than get no connections and give up.

I’ll leave it running. No blocks of coins have matured since 15th July.

SNQuote from: Satoshi Nakamoto on July 19, 2009, 3:07:00 AM UTC

(btw, it’s better if you use my satoshin@gmx.com e-mail address)

OK

Regards,

Nicholas

The transaction fee setting refers to the amount you give when you make a transaction, not the amount you demand from transactions you process. We’re a long way from the point where nodes will need to require a fee, but that can easily be implemented when needed.

SNQuote from: Satoshi Nakamoto on July 20, 2009, 3:05:00 PM UTC

I guess something must be preventing you from receiving incoming connections. Mine has been trying to connect to your IP without success. I’m currently connected to 70.113.114.209 since yesterday. If you’re not at least connected to that one, then you can’t connect out either.

I still had no connections, and couldn’t see why not; but I stopped and restarted bitcoin, and now have two connections. Although this is fewer than for some weeks, and I have a clutch of “not confirmed” blocks when for some weeks I had had none, at least it’s up and running again. Previous restarts made no difference, though.

Incidentally, I set the optional transaction fee at 0.07. I expected this to be visible as an outgoing (or as a deduction from blocks created), but so far I’ve seen nothing. Perhaps I’ve had no takers.

Regards,

Nicholas

The transaction fee setting refers to the amount you give when you make a transaction, not the amount you demand from transactions you process. We’re a long way from the point where nodes will need to require a fee, but that can easily be implemented when needed.

Thanks.

I hope my misunderstandings prove a useful contribution to the eventual “Bitcoin for Dummies”.

Regards,

Nicholas

NBQuote from: Nicholas Bohm on July 20, 2009, 3:31:00 PM UTC

SNQuote from: Satoshi Nakamoto on July 20, 2009, 3:05:00 PM UTC

I guess something must be preventing you from receiving incoming connections. Mine has been trying to connect to your IP without success. I’m currently connected to 70.113.114.209 since yesterday. If you’re not at least connected to that one, then you can’t connect out either.

I still had no connections, and couldn’t see why not; but I stopped and restarted bitcoin, and now have two connections. Although this is fewer than for some weeks, and I have a clutch of “not confirmed” blocks when for some weeks I had had none, at least it’s up and running again. Previous restarts made no difference, though.

Incidentally, I set the optional transaction fee at 0.07. I expected this to be visible as an outgoing (or as a deduction from blocks created), but so far I’ve seen nothing. Perhaps I’ve had no takers.

Regards,

Nicholas