Diff between ppcoin:HEAD and bitcoin:v6.3 https://github.com/kac-/tmp/blob/master/foo/ppc-btc6.0.3.diff, doesn’t look bad
Maybe we’ll fork bitcoin v9 and merge it line-by-line?
[quote=“bkchain, post:40, topic:1778”]I was wondering, is Bitcoin 0.8 merge still planned for this release?
Will that come maybe during apr. 5th release?
Current rc1 seem to just focus on protocol switch.
However, release candidates are supposed to be pretty close to final releases so I am not sure if all the 0.8 merge changes would still come before final 0.4 release?
It would be great to have up-to-date RPC calls.
If it’s not in the work, maybe that’s something that need to be started right away by the community?
(but as far as I remember, last time it was asked, it was said it might be part of 0.4 release so better not change anything yet before it comes).[/quote]
Well your guess is as best as mine’s but it doesn’t look good. It is not mentioned by Sunnyking or anywhere on the official Gihub repo. Actually I’m a bit disappointed about that and maybe ‘Kac-’ is right and should we produce something as a community. Although I’m hesitating a bit with that as I agree with SK that this is mission critical software and any changes must be tested very thoroughly before applied in the field. Not sure if we are up to that as a community, without some very serious bounties to attract professionals. Maybe we should just wait for v0.5 whenever that may be.
It would be nice to merge from 0.9 (maybe 0.8.6) because it is autotool’d and has some other changes that will make it easier to build on OSX 10.9. From a Q/A perspective, I think it makes a lot of sense to do what Sunny is doing: first do the protocol change and then once the dust has settled on that very disruptive change, merge from recent upstream bitcoin source.
+1
@Sunny: If you need a list of places where there is still PPCoin/old logo, please give me a ping. I guess the changes in Fuzzy´s branche should be a good starting point.
Some GUI developments are underway. Here is a teaser: http://i.imgur.com/mOvwZzu.png
Stay tuned. Soon to be released 8)
Looks good, is this going to be implemented in the official version?
I for my part will never use a wallet not provided by sunny for my productive environment
Posted using Tapatalk for Android.
[quote=“MUTO, post:46, topic:1778”]Looks good, is this going to be implemented in the official version?
I for my part will never use a wallet not provided by sunny for my productive environment
Posted using Tapatalk for Android.[/quote]
MUTO, what would need to happen for you to change your opinion on this? It’s a completely rational stance, that I understand, I’m just thinking about the future where it’s more likely that “better” wallets will not come from Sunny King. Sunny appears to care more about the protocol than the tools that are built on top of it (and that’s not a bad position for an architect, but problematic for the unofficial “team” trying to build adoption of the Peercoin protocol).
The same question goes out to everyone – What could be done to provide a trusted set of tools, validated by independent research, that are built on top of the reference client, but aren’t builds that Sunny King personally worked on?
[quote=“MUTO, post:46, topic:1778”]Looks good, is this going to be implemented in the official version?
I for my part will never use a wallet not provided by sunny for my productive environment
Posted using Tapatalk for Android.[/quote]
All my commits will eventually be submitted to sunny kings official ppcoin repo for review, once 0.4 is out and all upgraded I will start sending the pull requests. Just a little hint that the minting button image posted from cybnate is from me and will be making its way to the official repo at some point soon. I am in discussion with Sunny about my builds and peercoin code changes.
I feel this is especially important as Sunny King has stated he will not be making Qt code changes so it is up to us as the rest of the community to do the work. As I feel this is something that a number of people are looking for in the Peercoin development this is high up on my list of things to do.
Fuzzybear
Oh, I love the sound of that… So many altcoins have pretty wallets and features, but as soon as the network protocol runs into a problem, the coin forks and dies, or gets abandoned.
If Sunny continues to keep our network solid, then we can add developers to the qt wallet and other applications.
I like that…
Just to clarify: This is not because I assume someone to do evil things with the wallet. I just wann to be that extra percent secure.
To get me using the wallet it has to be more secure then sunny’s wallet. I doubt that will happen. But I think I am simply not part of the target group for this waltet. I am happy to have a incommodious and as secure as possible wallet. I am a IT person, not the avarage user.
Beside that I am very happy to have sunny have a look at the protocol and the community to build the wallet. This is a good strategy to go. It will us allow to have more and faster updates while keeping sunny having a look on critical parts . But this has to be communicated. Not by us, but by sunny himself
Posted using Tapatalk for Android.
Ohhh… Just read all these cool posts again!!!
And, wishing for the first time, in like forever, that I was a hard core coder!
So, I could be helping!
Coder envy here! What exciting times!!!
And, thanks to each and every one of you for your most valuable efforts!
I agree with Muto (also having some IT/security background) that the wallet on a PC is very insecure environment. It is unlikely that that will change anytime soon. All software build on consumer platforms is inheretly insecure. The only way improve security is to harden (simplify and extensively test) the operating system it runs on. There are some commercial variants out there but you still have to trust that party that they have done their work properly.
Another way is to reduce the OS to its very core functionality. With some good Linux skills I’m sure this is doable and to build an OS which only provides functionality to run the daemon (even without the QT). This make things a lot more secure and I would trust a reasonable amount of money to such an setup. However it is still not fail safe.
As we know we live in a world where fail-safe doesn’t exist. This is also true for fiat money. The only reason why most of us trust a bank is because they provide a guarantee that even when they loose it they will pay you back.
Conclusion, we can have a safer wallet then we have now with some reasonable effort, but I think the way to go is to explore ways where a distributed insurance company can insure your funds in the case you lost them assuming you are using a certified wallet in a certified environment at that time.
My apologies for the slightly off-topic post, but I thought it would provide a useful perspective on where to focus on regarding wallet development and why.
To get back to topic 
Did anybody mint PoS blocks ? I mined several PoW blocks. Didn’t have a testclient before. Does somebody need testcoins?
Did anyone find any bugs/problems beside the logo/naming?
Posted using Tapatalk for Android.
[quote=“MUTO, post:53, topic:1778”]To get back to topic
Did anybody mint PoS blocks ? I mined several PoW blocks. Didn’t have a testclient before. Does somebody need testcoins?
Did anyone find any bugs/problems beside the logo/naming?
Posted using Tapatalk for Android.[/quote]
I will install my first testnet system next weekend, for Peercoin on Ubuntu Linux. I will contact you the next days for testcoins.
Thanks for providing the eagerly awaited update!
Things I like:
[ul][li]an encrypted wallet that is unlocked for minting only can not be used for sending Peercoins anywhere without being asked for the password[/li]
[li]a debug console is integrated in the qt version[/li]
[li]rather cosmetic, but imho important: the new logo[/li][/ul]
But I’m curious about one recommendation in the initial post:
[quote=“Sunny King, post:1, topic:1778”][…]
Directly copying wallet.dat file is not a 100% safe backup.
[…][/quote]
So far I have made all my backups by copying the wallet.dat file (while the client application was properly shut down) and have not encountered any issues (on Windows and Linux).
Have I been just lucky?
Why is copying the wallet.dat file no 100% safe backup?
yes, I have. The tesnet faucet also has minted PoS blocks, and I’m sure several other people have as well.
Did anyone find any bugs/problems beside the logo/naming?
It’s not possible to mine (PoW) while having a locked wallet. This is not necessarily new or a bug, but it’s different from Bitcoin’s behavior. Still, how many people in this day and age are going to be mining using the wallet app 
You can mine (both PoW and PoS) with a wallet unlocked for minting.
MS Windows: Unlocking/locking your wallet using the debug windows is not immediately reflected in the main window. For example, if I unlock my wallet in the debug window using “walletpassphrase” it will still appear locked with the tooltip “wallet is encrypted and currently locked” for as long as a minute or more afterwards. Looks like a bug to me
Building on Mac OSX 10.9: I can build the daemon if I apply the changes to net.cpp and serialize.h in this pull request: Corrected a few Mac OS/X 10.9 build issues · Pull Request #24 · peercoin/peercoin · GitHub but I have not spent a lot of time testing it or tried to build the wallet app.
[quote=“whifmoi, post:54, topic:1778”][quote=“MUTO, post:53, topic:1778”]To get back to topic 
Did anybody mint PoS blocks ? I mined several PoW blocks. Didn’t have a testclient before. Does somebody need testcoins?
Did anyone find any bugs/problems beside the logo/naming?
Posted using Tapatalk for Android.[/quote]
I will install my first testnet system next weekend, for Peercoin on Ubuntu Linux. I will contact you the next days for testcoins.[/quote]
I’m running my first testnet client now. In ppcoin.conf I configured “testnet=1”. Is this enough for making it work?
For receiving some coins I use “http://testnet.peercoinfaucet.com/”, but after entering my receiving address and pushing “Receive testnet peercoins” I get this answer:
The change you wanted was rejected. Maybe you tried to change something you didn't have access to. If you are the application owner check the logs for more information.Any hint?
[quote=“whifmoi, post:57, topic:1778”]For receiving some coins I use “http://testnet.peercoinfaucet.com/”, but after entering my receiving address and pushing “Receive testnet peercoins” I get this answer:
The change you wanted was rejected. Maybe you tried to change something you didn't have access to. If you are the application owner check the logs for more information.Any hint?[/quote]
Looking at the logs, you may have cookies disabled. There’s a check that requires cookies.
I got several PoS Blocks today. I was kind of surprised since i mined this coins (PoW) 2 days ago :o
I assume there are different rules in the testnet?
@Whifmoi: Just drop your adress here or via PM
@Sunny/Fuzzy: Will there be updates between the diffrenet phases of 0.4 deployment? Do you plan to fix the PPCoin/Peercoin naming problem before releasing the wallet for non-testnet?
solved - I enabled cookies and scripting.
My 10 coins are arriving. Thanks to sigmike and MUTO.