I was told that there's a proposal from someone (I forget who!) to do multi-process bitcoin core, where some of the processes could be sandboxed (similar to firefox/chrome); does anyone know where I could learn more about this?
So actually I have saved one wallet.dat with all my bitcoins stored some years ago. Then when I want to use some bitcoin I just load one privat key into my new wallet.dat. I am somehow concerned loading my whole wallet with all my bitcoins stored evertime I want to move some bitcoins
it's not what bitcoin core was designed for
blockchain: bitcoin core now supports multiple wallets
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #11055: [wallet] [rpc] getreceivedbyaddress should return error if called with address not owned by the wallet (master...getreceivedbyaddress_error) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11055
bitcoin/master 95e14dc MarcoFalke: Merge #11055: [wallet] [rpc] getreceivedbyaddress should return error if called with address not owned by the wallet...
bitcoin/master 5e0ba8f John Newbery: [wallet] getreceivedbyaddress should return error if address is not mine
bitcoin/master ea0cd24 John Newbery: [tests] Tidy up receivedby.py...
[bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #11655: Explicitly state assumption that state.m_chain_sync.m_work_header != nullptr in ConsiderEviction(…) (master...m_chain_sync.m_work_header) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11655
[bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #11654: Initialize recently introduced non-static class member lastCycles to zero in constructor (master...uninitialized-members) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11654
bitcoin/master 3155fd2 Jonas Schnelli: CKeystore: move relevant implementation out of the header
jonasschnelli: heh, I'm not too worried, if they google any of us they'll find bitcoin faster than if they look at what companies we are connected to :p
BlueMatt: The ownership can have some sideeffects... I personally don't want to be in a register with my Name tied to a company that have "Bitcoin" in it's name. For travel purposes...
BlueMatt: people who want to look at the paperwork and then go "X controls bitcoin blarg" conspiracy
"Orginization which does not control Bitcoin. LLC"
DCI would be fine for me as well, though I prefer "Bitcoin Core Code Signing Assocation" over "DCI" (which is a private owned company) in the signing details
I would rather not use DCI simply because we really have suffered from people using that stupid message as proof BCF controls bitcoin. I'd rather the name be more benign. (the "foo code signing" sort).
but it's outside the scope of the bitcoin core project
Guys, if you are signing code, you are responsible for that code. If we are signing it in the name of Bitcoin Core we are all taking responsibility. Please let's limit this discussion to the code we all work on together
< * BlueMatt>
votes for someone to just create Bitcoin Core Code Signing, LLC
yes if it's a "bitoin core org" then it should be named "bitcoin core code signing key holding only and nothing else, llc."
Bitcoin Core Code Signing Key inc.
I'm happy to have an official Bitcoin Core org established if we want that, but it does seem like there are downsides to that
But plase... don't set up an orga called "Bitcoin Core"
Then bitcoin core really would be a company and you'd set off all the conspiracy theorists
BlueMatt: well the other option is that we just register a bitcoin core org someplace and have it get the key. But I wouldn't want to suggest that for a key that is expiring soon.
gmaxwell: so can I just legally change my name to Bitcoin Core, get a cert, and then change it back?
I think it's _really_ unfortunate to have any name except the project name on the binaries, causes a drama and stupidity. There are still people that think the bitcoin foundation controls bitcoin just because of that existing cert. :(
Apple is still the Bitcoin Foundatiomn, right?
andre1: this is the core dev channel, discussions are about developement and code. Can you please repaste that question to #bitcoin? I will answer there.
I started downloading the bitcoin core wallet since a couple of days and although I realize this might have been asked many times before I could find the answer on the web. Why does the download start in 2009 and works its way to today and not the other way round start with today and work back to 2009?
To answer my own q: once all linux versions finish building, it spits out a summary with hashes. You can compare that with e.g. gitian.sigs/0.15.1rc1-linux/laanwj/bitcoin-linux-0.15-build.assert
bitcoin core tends to stress CPUs far more than usual desktop software
I've got a i7-6700k. Never got these hardware errors before and I only get them once I start bitcoin core again
I'm running (or trying to run) bitcoin-core on arch linux but ever since v0.15 I get a CPU hardware error after a few minutes which causes the computer to reboot. I redownloaded the blockchain but a few seconds after it was complete I got the error again.
I guess it's pow? - I'm not entirely sure... apologies I'm learning. Miners generate the block hash to find one that satisfies the difficulty. I mean, where does bitcoin core check that this hash is actually valid (ie: hashing the block again results int he same hash)
Can anyone point to me where in the code bitcoin core checks if the block hash is valid? - I can see it checks POW in CheckBlockHeader