Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.161.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-fx0-f47.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:28:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2vRq++uqu=23YG86uQ=9ZpwjYv_8hOinWRyrd9YLv_PQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] There will be a release candidate 6...
Precedence: list

I got email from a tester who gave this feedback:

> I think that user behaviour: encrypt wallet -> backup -> do some activity ->
> restore backup -> BOOM. Is perfectly natural user behaviour and it will
> happen. For example when generating a wallet on a secure computer and then
> moving it to an insecure one.

I agree that is likely to happen and, when it does, will be disastrous.
So I'll be reworking the wallet encrypt/rewrite code today and
creating a release candidate 6.

My previous attempt (encrypt, invalidating keypool, then unlock and write
a new keypool) resulted in unencrypted private keys in the new wallet.

I think this will work, I'll implement and test today.

Invalidate all the old keypool keys in the old wallet.Write new
keypool keys to the old wallet.Encrypt all the keys in the old
wallet.Rewrite the old wallet to create a new wallet.Shutdown/restart.
IF ANYBODY IS WILLING TO HELP:

There is still a mysterious problem with bdb throwing an exception
when dbenv.close(0) is called during shutdown. If you can compile
a -g version of bdb and then step through DbEnv::close in a debugger
and tell me why it is throwing an exception that would be
extremely helpful.
-- 
--
Gavin Andresen