💬 fanquake commented on issue "./contrib/guix/guix-build does not work on riscv64":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845167698)
> then there is a bug in the time-machine, which seems unlikely.
I don't follow. This is failing in the same way, because time-machine is trying to use a container. So it is the same issue.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845167698)
> then there is a bug in the time-machine, which seems unlikely.
I don't follow. This is failing in the same way, because time-machine is trying to use a container. So it is the same issue.
📝 kashifs opened a pull request: "Make bitcoin-tx replaceable value optional, #fixes 28638"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29022)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29022)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...
💬 maflcko commented on issue "./contrib/guix/guix-build does not work on riscv64":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845171572)
I mean that `guix pull` likely won't fix this issue, because if this issue was fixed in a later version of guix, I could simply use the time-machine to run that version of guix. However, that didn't work.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845171572)
I mean that `guix pull` likely won't fix this issue, because if this issue was fixed in a later version of guix, I could simply use the time-machine to run that version of guix. However, that didn't work.
💬 fanquake commented on issue "./contrib/guix/guix-build does not work on riscv64":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845172844)
> I could simply use the time-machine to run that version of guix
You can't though. Because the guix binary itself, that is trying to run the container, for the time-machine, doesn't have the bug fixes from the future.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845172844)
> I could simply use the time-machine to run that version of guix
You can't though. Because the guix binary itself, that is trying to run the container, for the time-machine, doesn't have the bug fixes from the future.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#issuecomment-1845173418)
As much as I don't like having to go through half the PR again, I do think this is a nice simplification.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#issuecomment-1845173418)
As much as I don't like having to go through half the PR again, I do think this is a nice simplification.
💬 maflcko commented on issue "./contrib/guix/guix-build does not work on riscv64":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845190697)
Are you sure, because if new guix features are available in the the time-machine, then bug fixes should be as well?
Looking at the code, it seems more likely that someone forgot to add support for riscv64 somewhere, because the code looks mostly unchanged between 1.4 and master.
https://github.com/guix-mirror/guix/blame/v1.4.0/guix/build/syscalls.scm#L1109
https://github.com/guix-mirror/guix/blame/77386bdbfe6b0c649c05ab37f08051d1ab3e5074/guix/build/syscalls.scm#L1114
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845190697)
Are you sure, because if new guix features are available in the the time-machine, then bug fixes should be as well?
Looking at the code, it seems more likely that someone forgot to add support for riscv64 somewhere, because the code looks mostly unchanged between 1.4 and master.
https://github.com/guix-mirror/guix/blame/v1.4.0/guix/build/syscalls.scm#L1109
https://github.com/guix-mirror/guix/blame/77386bdbfe6b0c649c05ab37f08051d1ab3e5074/guix/build/syscalls.scm#L1114
💬 fanquake commented on issue "./contrib/guix/guix-build does not work on riscv64":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845195847)
> Are you sure, because if new guix features are available in the the time-machine, then bug fixes should be as well?
Yea, new Guix features could be compiled/available inside the time-machine, but if you can't even run a time-machine, because your guix 1.4 binary can't launch a container, you are still stuck.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845195847)
> Are you sure, because if new guix features are available in the the time-machine, then bug fixes should be as well?
Yea, new Guix features could be compiled/available inside the time-machine, but if you can't even run a time-machine, because your guix 1.4 binary can't launch a container, you are still stuck.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1418839247)
You could create a pre-v22 wallet, upgrade to master (which won't add the `tr()` descriptor) and then continue the test.
Although I don't think we care that deeply about downgrading that far, testing a wallet without a `tr()` descriptor is useful - for followup PR's that enable adding that desciptor.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1418839247)
You could create a pre-v22 wallet, upgrade to master (which won't add the `tr()` descriptor) and then continue the test.
Although I don't think we care that deeply about downgrading that far, testing a wallet without a `tr()` descriptor is useful - for followup PR's that enable adding that desciptor.
💬 maflcko commented on issue "./contrib/guix/guix-build does not work on riscv64":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845200103)
Ah ok. I forgot to clarify, the time-machine itself is working (so far). For example:
```
# guix time-machine --commit=77386bdbfe6b0c649c05ab37f08051d1ab3e5074 -- shell --pure hello
accepted connection from pid 3274252, user root
hint: Consider passing the `--check' option once to make sure your shell does not clobber environment variables.
# hello
Hello, world!
# exit
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845200103)
Ah ok. I forgot to clarify, the time-machine itself is working (so far). For example:
```
# guix time-machine --commit=77386bdbfe6b0c649c05ab37f08051d1ab3e5074 -- shell --pure hello
accepted connection from pid 3274252, user root
hint: Consider passing the `--check' option once to make sure your shell does not clobber environment variables.
# hello
Hello, world!
# exit
💬 fanquake commented on issue "./contrib/guix/guix-build does not work on riscv64":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845213666)
Ok, so then this seems to be a bug with just the usage `--container`, (on riscv64 hardware?) that likely still exists in Guix. We should report the minimal reproducer upstream.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29020#issuecomment-1845213666)
Ok, so then this seems to be a bug with just the usage `--container`, (on riscv64 hardware?) that likely still exists in Guix. We should report the minimal reproducer upstream.
📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "doc: add historical release notes for 26.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023)
Bins are now up, used for GH release etc.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023)
Bins are now up, used for GH release etc.
💬 kristapsk commented on pull request "wallet: No BDB creation, unless -deprecatedrpc=create_bdb":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28597#issuecomment-1845254045)
This should have had release notes.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28597#issuecomment-1845254045)
This should have had release notes.
💬 sgs2018 commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1845257078)
maybe is hard to define spam ,
it is very fuzzy .
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1845257078)
maybe is hard to define spam ,
it is very fuzzy .
💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "doc: add historical release notes for 26.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#issuecomment-1845259000)
We might want to add a release note for `-deprecatedrpc=create_bdb` as per : https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28597#issuecomment-1845254045
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#issuecomment-1845259000)
We might want to add a release note for `-deprecatedrpc=create_bdb` as per : https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28597#issuecomment-1845254045
⚠️ FacehuggerCZ opened an issue: "Obscure problem with sent transactions and wallet balance"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29024)
### Is there an existing issue for this?
- [X] I have searched the existing issues
### Current behaviour
Hello,
I need help explaining this problem:
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29024)
### Is there an existing issue for this?
- [X] I have searched the existing issues
### Current behaviour
Hello,
I need help explaining this problem:
...
💬 maflcko commented on issue "Obscure problem with sent transactions and wallet balance":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29024#issuecomment-1845296159)
A transaction may have a change output, if the amounts of all input coins is larger than the transaction fee and the transaction recipient outputs.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29024#issuecomment-1845296159)
A transaction may have a change output, if the amounts of all input coins is larger than the transaction fee and the transaction recipient outputs.
💬 MarnixCroes commented on issue "Obscure problem with sent transactions and wallet balance":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29024#issuecomment-1845296907)
@FacehuggerCZ
In Bitcoin Core the outgoing amount of a transaction is the amount you entered to send + mining fee.
So that's why you see on an explorer that the address received 0.1, but the outgoing tx amount in Bitcoin core is 0.10061201.
0.1 plus the fee add up to the tx outgoing amount.
The second questions "What are these addresses", those are the change addresses. It's how Bitcoin work
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29024#issuecomment-1845296907)
@FacehuggerCZ
In Bitcoin Core the outgoing amount of a transaction is the amount you entered to send + mining fee.
So that's why you see on an explorer that the address received 0.1, but the outgoing tx amount in Bitcoin core is 0.10061201.
0.1 plus the fee add up to the tx outgoing amount.
The second questions "What are these addresses", those are the change addresses. It's how Bitcoin work
...
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "wallet: No BDB creation, unless -deprecatedrpc=create_bdb":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28597#issuecomment-1845299642)
> This should have had release notes.
A label was added after merge, but it looks like no one went through those. Currently there are 4 tagged: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=label%3A%22Needs+release+note%22+is%3Aclosed
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28597#issuecomment-1845299642)
> This should have had release notes.
A label was added after merge, but it looks like no one went through those. Currently there are 4 tagged: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=label%3A%22Needs+release+note%22+is%3Aclosed
💬 Retropex commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1845301063)
The problem is that they use a diverted means to include data instead of using `OP_RETURN` which has been more or less adapted for this, in particular by not bloating the UTXOs set, that they have an unfair fee reduction compared to `OP_RETURN` and that they unbalance the incentives of miners.
Miners could, for example, start creating this kind of tx (BRC-20) to get richer than it will by mining normal financial txs.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1845301063)
The problem is that they use a diverted means to include data instead of using `OP_RETURN` which has been more or less adapted for this, in particular by not bloating the UTXOs set, that they have an unfair fee reduction compared to `OP_RETURN` and that they unbalance the incentives of miners.
Miners could, for example, start creating this kind of tx (BRC-20) to get richer than it will by mining normal financial txs.
💬 maflcko commented on issue "Obscure problem with sent transactions and wallet balance":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29024#issuecomment-1845308131)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base. General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or any other place that you feel is well suited.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29024#issuecomment-1845308131)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base. General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or any other place that you feel is well suited.