Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin's Software Gets Security Fixes, New Features
itwbennett (1594911) writes "The software driving Bitcoin's network was upgraded Wednesday, with security fixes addressing a problem that defunct bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox blamed for losing nearly half a billion dollars worth of bitcoins. The latest version of bitcoin's software, 0.9.0, contains more than a half dozen fixes for transaction malleability, according to the release notes for the software. Bitcoin Core also contains a new feature for payment requests. Previously, merchants couldn't attach a note describing an invoice, and people also could not supply a refund address to a merchant. The latest version automatically supplies a refund address."
This wouldn't have prevented the Mt. Gox implosion since they weren't using the reference implementation. The foundation also renamed the software to "Bitcoin Core" to avoid confusion between Bitcoin-the-network and Bitcoin-the-reference-implementation,
Are you fucking kidding me? Bug fixes for a currency?
I'd be real curious to see how many Bitcoin users are also Amway and Herbalife salesmen.
I don't respond to AC's.
Thanks, Dorian!
While I do agree calling it something like 0.9.0 is stupid would it make a difference if it was called 9.0? It's the same software.
Sure, why not?
Apparently we can't take FireFox seriously because it's at version 28(!) (nevermind that Chrome is at 33.0.1750.154 (dude what?)) either.
So, should everything just be labeled v1.0 eternally (or v2.0 for the people who never trust first releases) based on the psychological effects of a version number?
But... I assume you are in the US or Canada. Didn't your currency just get a bug fix update for anti counterfeiting? An update to the US $100 bill was released October 2013. Obviously, you can't trust that yet -- give it a few years.
As to being "regulated" by government, -- what is that, exactly? BTC is one possible crypto-currency, so it is of interest what you think this "regulation" should look like.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Do people expect someone to take seriously a piece of software to manage financial transactions with a version like that?
Apparently people do take it seriously, so it looks like the answer is yes.
Staying in the 0.x range for a long time is typical for open-source software -- a lot of packages don't go to 1.0 until they have been in use for many years. It doesn't necessarily imply anything bad (or good) about the reliability of the software.
If BitCoin was commercial software, no doubt it would be up to Version 7 Professional Platinum Collector's Edition now... but then again, if it was commercial software, it would probably be closed source, and therefore nobody would trust it enough to use it, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
The base Bitcoin technology is surprisingly good. Nobody has been able to double-spend yet. The "mallability" bug has to do with programs which incorrectly decide a transaction didn't go through and redo it.
Most of Bitcoin's problems aren't with the software. Bitcoin's irrevocable money sends to anonymous remote parties are the con man's dream. At last, you can rip people off without ever giving them enough info to find you. That's why Bitcoin is such a scumbag magnet.
Mt. Gox's problems stem from a combination of incompetence and criminal activity. They're not technical. Karpeles was running a business that handled a billion dollars a year without an accountant, a controller, an inside auditor, an outside auditor, or a compliance officer. You can't do that and succeed. You have to have enough separation of functions that no employee can steal without detection. Mt. Gox didn't have that. Probably so that Karpeles could steal.
The point of using such a version number is exactly to remind people that Bitcoin is new and experimental. It's quite possible to understand that something is a risky experiment, yet still take it seriously - these two things are not incompatible.
Banks and governments routinely have to upgrade banknotes and other forms of security on their own money, which you can see as "fixing bugs" in the sense that the ability to counterfeit is a bug. Development never really stops, so a 0.9 vs 1.0 is an entirely arbitrary line in the sand.
Because it is generally accepted that the three digit version number system works as major.minor.patch_level. A 0 major version level means the software is still in beta and not fit for production use.
Does that answer your question, Trolio?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Problem is, the value of BitCoins exceeds the market demand / use for them. This means it is well into "speculation" arena, and will remain so, until there is a large thawing of coins by the people currently hording them. As these people age, their goal of making a fortune will diminish as "unrealized" profit becomes lost to Bitcoin dustbin.
The problem with hording, is that the value is gone once the person who hid it is dead, and nobody knows it even existed. But unlike Gold, bitcoins burried will be lost forever if there is nobody to remember the password for the wallet.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/...
Once BitCoin starts to become viable alternative currency, actively traded for goods and services, then I'll become a believer in the value. The problem right now, the only people using BitCoins, are traders. It may end up being just a tool to hold accumulated wealth, and that would be a shame.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You can turn that around and make the same criticism of credit cards, from the sellers perspective. They're also a scumbag magnet. Trying to sell anything with credit cards is a fraud nightmare. Banks routinely approve transactions that are later reversed due to card detail theft, and the seller is just expected to suck it up. I've seen what big sellers have to do to control fraud. And sellers matter: it takes two to tango!
That said, Bitcoin can theoretically do dispute mediated transactions (where they could be reversed later in case of seller fraud). However the user interfaces and workflows for this are immature and so in practice it's not done much today. Perhaps this year we will see that change.