💬 samyan commented on issue "Regtest mode loses unspents after day":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1677053591)
> Is the best block the same? See the `getblockchaininfo` RPC.
The same happens with different transactions and addresses that I have been testing. The transactions exist but the unspent related to the said addresses do not. And that happens, after 1 day. Because right after performing the transaction, listunspent returns the inputs. The next day I try again and it no longer returns anything.
**Blockchain info:**
```bash
{
"chain": "regtest",
"blocks": 231,
"headers": 231,
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1677053591)
> Is the best block the same? See the `getblockchaininfo` RPC.
The same happens with different transactions and addresses that I have been testing. The transactions exist but the unspent related to the said addresses do not. And that happens, after 1 day. Because right after performing the transaction, listunspent returns the inputs. The next day I try again and it no longer returns anything.
**Blockchain info:**
```bash
{
"chain": "regtest",
"blocks": 231,
"headers": 231,
...
💬 samyan commented on issue "Make it very obvious to the new people that the Bitcoin Core program first needs to be installed and run on the "C" drive. ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28268#issuecomment-1677059161)
> > Anyways you can install the program in C and put the node database in other drive.
>
> That's exactly what I do. Because I don't want to use up all of the space on my computer's hard drive.
>
> Untill the price of SSDs come down, I will upgrade.
Well, I think you are doing something wrong because I have both windows and linux (debian 11) and it works perfectly.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28268#issuecomment-1677059161)
> > Anyways you can install the program in C and put the node database in other drive.
>
> That's exactly what I do. Because I don't want to use up all of the space on my computer's hard drive.
>
> Untill the price of SSDs come down, I will upgrade.
Well, I think you are doing something wrong because I have both windows and linux (debian 11) and it works perfectly.
💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Regtest mode loses unspents after day":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1677067743)
If the output was spent in the meantime, it won't be shown in listunspent. Can you confirm it wasn't spent?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1677067743)
If the output was spent in the meantime, it won't be shown in listunspent. Can you confirm it wasn't spent?
💬 samyan commented on issue "Regtest mode loses unspents after day":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1677089802)
> If the output was spent in the meantime, it won't be shown in listunspent. Can you confirm it wasn't spent?
No, it has not been spent. In fact, I've been doing several tests for 1 week to understand what the problem is. To test I simply send funds to wallet X, execute `listunspent`, it shows me the inputs. After 1 day, I execute `listunspent` to the same wallet again and it returns empty.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1677089802)
> If the output was spent in the meantime, it won't be shown in listunspent. Can you confirm it wasn't spent?
No, it has not been spent. In fact, I've been doing several tests for 1 week to understand what the problem is. To test I simply send funds to wallet X, execute `listunspent`, it shows me the inputs. After 1 day, I execute `listunspent` to the same wallet again and it returns empty.
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1677109798)
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 11:33:19PM -0700, John Carvalho wrote:
> > Do you have an actual example of a real-world online merchant that accepts unconfirmed transactions for something of value immediately? Please provide a URL so we can check. I _still_ have not found such an example. GAP600 has claimed to have such customers. But so far their claims have not checked out. Without such an example your claim that you "personally value onchain payment use cases" is not relevant.
>
> Many examples of
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1677109798)
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 11:33:19PM -0700, John Carvalho wrote:
> > Do you have an actual example of a real-world online merchant that accepts unconfirmed transactions for something of value immediately? Please provide a URL so we can check. I _still_ have not found such an example. GAP600 has claimed to have such customers. But so far their claims have not checked out. Without such an example your claim that you "personally value onchain payment use cases" is not relevant.
>
> Many examples of
...
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS 11.0 [gui, no tests] [jammy]" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293323904)
> Forgot to remove the Cirrus task?
It has been removed, no?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293323904)
> Forgot to remove the Cirrus task?
It has been removed, no?
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS 11.0 [gui, no tests] [jammy]" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293325046)
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/caching-dependencies-to-speed-up-workflows#usage-limits-and-eviction-policy:
> ... the total size of all caches in a repository is limited to 10 GB.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293325046)
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/caching-dependencies-to-speed-up-workflows#usage-limits-and-eviction-policy:
> ... the total size of all caches in a repository is limited to 10 GB.
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1677131261)
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 11:33:19PM -0700, John Carvalho wrote:
> There is also a community of other LSP-affiliated engineers creating specifications that include assumptions for optional 0conf flows, meaning there are many existing projects and businesses that hope to incorporate risk-managed 0conf acceptance into their products and services.
I should point out that if what you are claiming is true, we should be merging
this change now rather than later. We have clear technical consensus that
a
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1677131261)
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 11:33:19PM -0700, John Carvalho wrote:
> There is also a community of other LSP-affiliated engineers creating specifications that include assumptions for optional 0conf flows, meaning there are many existing projects and businesses that hope to incorporate risk-managed 0conf acceptance into their products and services.
I should point out that if what you are claiming is true, we should be merging
this change now rather than later. We have clear technical consensus that
a
...
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo (2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27596#issuecomment-1677134971)
Test failure for a66790c662d6516b9fec9ca2cc97e410a72fe899 on Ubuntu 23.04 (gcc 12.3.0)
```
$ src/test/test_bitcoin --run_test=validation_chainstatemanager_tests
Running 7 test cases...
node/blockstorage.cpp:307 LoadBlockIndex: Assertion `GetParams().AssumeutxoForBlockhash(*snapshot_blockhash)' failed.
unknown location(0): fatal error: in "validation_chainstatemanager_tests/chainstatemanager_loadblockindex": signal: SIGABRT (application abort requested)
test/validation_chainstatemanager_
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27596#issuecomment-1677134971)
Test failure for a66790c662d6516b9fec9ca2cc97e410a72fe899 on Ubuntu 23.04 (gcc 12.3.0)
```
$ src/test/test_bitcoin --run_test=validation_chainstatemanager_tests
Running 7 test cases...
node/blockstorage.cpp:307 LoadBlockIndex: Assertion `GetParams().AssumeutxoForBlockhash(*snapshot_blockhash)' failed.
unknown location(0): fatal error: in "validation_chainstatemanager_tests/chainstatemanager_loadblockindex": signal: SIGABRT (application abort requested)
test/validation_chainstatemanager_
...
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS 11.0 [gui, no tests] [jammy]" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293339107)
So every image will be re-built every week regardless of whether it changed?
Also, is the 10 GB enough to store all ccache + depends + image + ... stuff for all tasks?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293339107)
So every image will be re-built every week regardless of whether it changed?
Also, is the 10 GB enough to store all ccache + depends + image + ... stuff for all tasks?
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1677149238)
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 10:27:10PM -0700, Antoine Riard wrote:
> Aiming to roll the ball forward I do have few technical questions for the users running zero-conf in an economic fashion:
> - do you have already deployed “fire cut” thresholds if more than X of your incoming on-chain transaction traffic is double-spend ?
> - would you consider batch CPFP of incoming zero-conf transaction as enabled by package-relay to deter double-spend ?
> - have you privacy-preserving cryptographic proofs (see t
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1677149238)
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 10:27:10PM -0700, Antoine Riard wrote:
> Aiming to roll the ball forward I do have few technical questions for the users running zero-conf in an economic fashion:
> - do you have already deployed “fire cut” thresholds if more than X of your incoming on-chain transaction traffic is double-spend ?
> - would you consider batch CPFP of incoming zero-conf transaction as enabled by package-relay to deter double-spend ?
> - have you privacy-preserving cryptographic proofs (see t
...
💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Regtest mode loses unspents after day":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1677149944)
Can you reproduce with `-mocktime` or `setmocktime`?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1677149944)
Can you reproduce with `-mocktime` or `setmocktime`?
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS 11.0 [gui, no tests] [jammy]" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293347851)
> So every image will be re-built every week regardless of whether it changed?
Sorry, I don't follow. Why will it be re-built every week?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293347851)
> So every image will be re-built every week regardless of whether it changed?
Sorry, I don't follow. Why will it be re-built every week?
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Unified mixture of unnamed namespace and static.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28259#issuecomment-1677164168)
Thank you for your contribution. While this stylistic change makes sense on its own, it comes at a cost and risk for the project as a whole. The weak motivation for the change does not justify the burden that it places on the project. A burden could be any of the following:
* Time spent on review
* Accidental introduction of bugs
* (Silent) merge conflicts, either in the branch or a backport branch. Those conflicts demand further developer and reviewer time or introduce bugs.
For more in
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28259#issuecomment-1677164168)
Thank you for your contribution. While this stylistic change makes sense on its own, it comes at a cost and risk for the project as a whole. The weak motivation for the change does not justify the burden that it places on the project. A burden could be any of the following:
* Time spent on review
* Accidental introduction of bugs
* (Silent) merge conflicts, either in the branch or a backport branch. Those conflicts demand further developer and reviewer time or introduce bugs.
For more in
...
✅ MarcoFalke closed a pull request: "Unified mixture of unnamed namespace and static."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28259)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28259)
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Unified mixture of unnamed namespace and static.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28259#issuecomment-1677165010)
(Also the `refactor:` in the title was missing, according to the dev notes)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28259#issuecomment-1677165010)
(Also the `refactor:` in the title was missing, according to the dev notes)
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS 11.0 [gui, no tests] [jammy]" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293356505)
Ah, sorry, I assumed cache entries will be unconditionally deleted after 7 days. New question: So every image will be re-built regardless of whether it changed, given 10GB of non-image cache items (ccache+depends+...) have been created?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293356505)
Ah, sorry, I assumed cache entries will be unconditionally deleted after 7 days. New question: So every image will be re-built regardless of whether it changed, given 10GB of non-image cache items (ccache+depends+...) have been created?
💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: refactor: support sending funds with outpoint result":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28264#discussion_r1293357213)
SGTM to make it a more generic helper that supports multiple outputs / returns multiple UTXOs (need to use `send` instead of `sendtoaddress`, but that shouldn't matter). With that, even more instances of `find_vout_address` can be replaced. Moving the helper to TestNode wouldn't be a good fit, as the outpoints creations not only operate on TestNode objects, but in some instances also on `RPCOverloadWrapper`s (result from `get_wallet_rpc`). Moving it to TestFramework should work though.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28264#discussion_r1293357213)
SGTM to make it a more generic helper that supports multiple outputs / returns multiple UTXOs (need to use `send` instead of `sendtoaddress`, but that shouldn't matter). With that, even more instances of `find_vout_address` can be replaced. Moving the helper to TestNode wouldn't be a good fit, as the outpoints creations not only operate on TestNode objects, but in some instances also on `RPCOverloadWrapper`s (result from `get_wallet_rpc`). Moving it to TestFramework should work though.
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS 11.0 [gui, no tests] [jammy]" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293360199)
> New question: So every image will be re-built regardless of whether it changed...
If no changes were introduced, the image is built from the cached layers.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293360199)
> New question: So every image will be re-built regardless of whether it changed...
If no changes were introduced, the image is built from the cached layers.
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS 11.0 [gui, no tests] [jammy]" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293361403)
But the cached layers will be evicted after 10GB of (let's say) ccache items.
> the cache eviction policy will create space by deleting the oldest caches in the repository.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28265#discussion_r1293361403)
But the cached layers will be evicted after 10GB of (let's say) ccache items.
> the cache eviction policy will create space by deleting the oldest caches in the repository.