Looks like somebody's playing with a tweaked bitcoin-- if you trace back the inputs they're from a previous block that has the same odd pattern.

The standard coin selection algorithm in bitcoin would generate a one input / one output transaction.

Hal and theymos are right-- I misremembered how the coin selection algorithm works.

Updated Mac build is on Sourceforge, as is a PGP-signed README.txt.

I also just changed the links on the front page of the wiki; the links at bitcoin.org will be updated as soon as sirius and I are awake at the same time again 

SHA1-checksums for the binary files are:
7dfbc05b36112f59886a29f044cfd21c6c253169  bitcoin-0.3.20.01-linux.tar.gz
3fe4c5f2a5406322a2f116b30aefbd402b079940  bitcoin-0.3.20.01-win32-setup.exe
dffb709a90a7abcff08c2ef1e79d3f9b54751786  bitcoin-0.3.20.01-win32.zip
b540825d864e7561cc21465ad072fb299e0d817a  bitcoin-0.3.20.01.01-macosx.zip

Rumor has it he stole an Infinite Improbability Drive.

RE: a checklist:

For the next release, I will write a script that does all of the build/package steps.  I'll let the computer run the checklist for me... and the whole process should be much quicker, easier and smoother.

RE: 0.3.20.01

Fixed builds are at sourceforge, named 'bitcoin-0.3.20.01' to try to avoid confusion.
The mac build was 0.3.20.00 also; I am going to update that .zip when we get a .01 build, and I think I'll rename the
linux downloads to be consistent and, again, to try to avoid confusion.


SHA checksums:

3fe4c5f2a5406322a2f116b30aefbd402b079940  bitcoin-0.3.20.01-win32-setup.exe
dffb709a90a7abcff08c2ef1e79d3f9b54751786  bitcoin-0.3.20.01-win32.zip

The public Amazon AMI virtual machine image used to build them is:
 ami-7a21d213   982440761210/BitcoinMinGW

I'll be re-releasing updated windows .zip and .exe files later today to fix these issues.
And this time I'll triple-check versions on everything.

Did I put the wrong bitcoind.exe in the Windows exe and/or zip?

D'oh!

Companies I've worked for in the past had a rule-- programmers were not allowed to test their own code.  I'm still looking for people to volunteer to be dedicated quality assurance testers (and a quality assurance manager to organize them) to help keep this type of thing from slipping through.

First:  the bitcoin.org homepage links will be updated as soon as sirius has a chance to wake up, read his email, and make the changes.


A different skin for the Windows build is from upgrading the wxWidgets used to build (2.9.1 instead of 2.9.0).

Did anybody test the -nolisten with the GUI bitcoin on Windows?
I believe there is windows-specific code for checking to see if another bitcoin is running that looks at window titles; file an issue at github if -nolisten isn't doing what you expect.

Binaries for Bitcoin version 0.3.20.01 are available at:
  https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.20/

There were several changes and additions to the JSON remote-procedure-call interface;
there are no significant user interface changes.  See:
  http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3473.msg48839#msg48839
... for details.

This version does fix one significant denial-of-service attack (earlier versions of
bitcoin could be caused to crash due to running out of memory by a remote
attacker).

SHA1-checksums for the binary files are:
bitcoin-0.3.20-linux.tar.gz     7dfbc05b36112f59886a29f044cfd21c6c253169
bitcoin-0.3.20-win32-setup.exe  2a4affd92dd11e0b759f90a8fa4bead58bdbf7b4
bitcoin-0.3.20-win32.zip        7bf306554092e742d076d4157aaa077d95de6102
bitcoin-0.3.20-macosx.zip       47ca28454e7ea0b576b80905353d1cea024e53fe

Oops, sorry-- I forgot to change the admin password.  The correct pw for that instance is:
  penguinsrule

I change the password to match the MinGW VM and updated the AMI:
  ami-d621d2bf    982440761210/BitcoinVC10
Admin password:  bitcoin development

You should change the password as soon as you login or make sure you use a security group that only allows your IP address to access the virtual machine.

No.  You should expect the testnet to be reset, if for no other reason than to keep people from using it as a "real" currency.

Good idea.

Patches welcome, as long as they're nice and stable and have had a fair bit of testing...

CSV file with the private key and block numbers is a good idea, although for it to be a valid CSV file then it needs to have a fixed number of columns.

I'd modify the design slightly to be just:
base58 encoded privkey,block number
... where block number is the block number of the earliest input (that'll save rescanning time-- you probably always want to rescan from the earliest block number, anyway, in case more payments were sent after you exported the key).

Also what do you mean by "export" -- write and then remove the keys from the wallet?  Write a newly generated key and generate a payment-to-that-key for a given amount of coins?

I think any code that removes keys from the wallet (or generates payments to keys that are never added to the wallet) needs to be structured as two distinct steps:
1. Write the keys to <destination>
2. Read <destination> to make sure it is valid, and, if it is, delete the corresponding keys from the wallet (or generate the send-to-self txn).

Here's the public AMI for the dodgy 0.3.20 VC10 build:
  ami-d621d2bf    982440761210/BitcoinVC10

Bitcoin source is at c:\bitcoin
(all the other dependencies are in the root c:\, too).
Administrator password is:  bitcoin development

Yes, I have the VC10 VM.  I am hesitant to make it publicly available because it has a copy of Visual C++ 2010 Express installed, and I don't want Microsoft to sue me for redistributing their software without permission.

I'll uninstall it from the VM and then make the image public; you'll have to download and install (and agree to the license) Visual Studio Express yourself to get it working.

Can you post examples of requests/responses with the "old" JSON-RPC and your new JSON-RPC?

I'm still firmly against this change-- it seems to me you are "solving" a non-problem.

There are approximately 2¹⁶⁰ things higher on the development priority list.

1 petabyte is 10¹⁵ bytes.

There are 2¹⁶⁰ possible BTC addresses, each of which is 160 bits == 20 bytes long.

So to store all of them you need 2¹⁶⁰x20 bytes, which is 29,230,032,746,618,058,364,073,696,654,325,660 petabytes.

Yes, it is public Amazon ami-2edd2e47   named  982440761210/BitcoinMinGW

The linux32 and linux64 amis I used to build the linux releases are also public.

Did you get a debug alert with bitcoin 0.3.19 or earlier?
And could you post a screen snapshot (or, even better, file an issue at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues )?

Frankly, I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I absolutely positively want more scrutiny of both bitcoin's source code and the underlying cryptographic concepts.

However, I don't think offering a token amount of money (even in the form of bitcoins) is appropriate.

A real, professional security review of bitcoin would take a lot of time and a lot of money.  I understand that's not what is being asked, but asking Mr. Schneier to write about bitcoin is really an irrational "Appeal to Authority" -- I think he'd say that any cryptography-related technology is never proven secure, but only gains trust by having multiple people and groups of people look at it, imagine potential attacks, try to attack it, etc.

Or, in other words, if he writes an article about bitcoin now I think the summary would be "interesting new technology, doesn't appear to be a scam, worth keeping an eye on."   I think he'll write that article soon without any prompting from "the bitcoin community," just given the level of buzz bitcoin is generating the last month or two.  I don't think a few hundred bitcoins will motivate him to write the article any sooner.