*Sigh*. Of course, immediately after applying 1.24-hotfix1 to my machines, it's immediately followed by hotfix2/update2. Well, back to square one, I guess...
Do you experience any "upgrade" issue? I usually just "upgrade" the old version, reboot and that's it. Or is your mood because the fact that you once again need to update VC?
The latter. If one has lots of machines and VMs, and then thinks it's over... "Updating" from 2.4-hotfix1 to update2 is done through Repair/Reinstall, looks like the installer only differs between major revisions.
Well, on multiple machines I ditched VeraCrypt because it was too many effort. Whenever a KB or driver update breaks something on the boot configuration I had to use the recovery option to restore VC bootloader, which is a no-go.However, that's an MS issue because they are not going to work with the VC team together to resolve this. Sadly this prevents bigger Corps. from using VC, but that's the only issue.
Like my other projects recently this one is born out of solid self interest. I use DC since it was first released and for my use case its mode of operation is far superior to how VeraCrypt handles encrypted partitions. Hence since I need it myself, if no one else does, I will maintain it myself Why do I use DC over everything else, because it handles partitions transparently, VC does that only to the system partition. This allows me to expand and shrink partitions with windows on board disk management. I know VC added a volume expander in one of the later builds, but I would trust a transparent handling more than a 3rd party tool. The transparent handling of encrypted partition i.e. in place mounting and not as a new drive letter makes also for a much better compatibility with backup tools. Exempt system volume encryption Veracrypt breaks the Volume Shadow Service (VSS) what further limits the use of backup tools. So from a functional standpoint it behaves like BitLocker just that I don't need to trust MSFT but myself. And BitLocker is IMHO a catastrophe: It has provisions to backup your encryption keys to your MSFT account. It uses by default Hardware Encryption of SSD's which was shown on the 2018 CCC to be for most of the vendors completely broken. It wants when it can to use the TPM and also here some TPM's were shown to be not secure at all. And its of cause also not independently audited, its closed source, by a company that has to obey NSA-Letters. If one is crazy paranoid than I agree VeraCrypt is the way to go also because it supports Plausible deniability and Hidden Containers. But IMHO a open source disk encryption solution is more trustworthy than a proprietary MSFT product. So I see DiskCryptors place solidly between BitLocker and VeraCrypt. And I have a good background in applied cryptography. No I would not trust myself to invent a new secure cipher from scratch. But I trust me to use existing ciphers and cryptographic paradigms correctly and securely. About auditing, its open source, go for it