💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: add historical release notes for 26.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#issuecomment-1845335433)
Hmm. Looks like a few things [missed out on being added](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=label%3A%22Needs+release+note%22+). Generally we don't change the release notes after they've been finalized, and any updates we make here, wont be reflected on the website, in the 26.x branch, on the mailing list etc, but it might still be worth doing.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#issuecomment-1845335433)
Hmm. Looks like a few things [missed out on being added](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=label%3A%22Needs+release+note%22+). Generally we don't change the release notes after they've been finalized, and any updates we make here, wont be reflected on the website, in the 26.x branch, on the mailing list etc, but it might still be worth doing.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "BIP324 integration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28331#issuecomment-1845335825)
Removing label, as this got a release note.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28331#issuecomment-1845335825)
Removing label, as this got a release note.
🤔 Sjors reviewed a pull request: "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#pullrequestreview-1770044461)
Mostly happy with a86756aed266a1c7569dc3849f66f468f3810821.
Still need to re-review ea7a61ca94cc0d59cfe25307cd60fcda2aedec5f.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#pullrequestreview-1770044461)
Mostly happy with a86756aed266a1c7569dc3849f66f468f3810821.
Still need to re-review ea7a61ca94cc0d59cfe25307cd60fcda2aedec5f.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1418907338)
e67898f47152b756acc7ccafb654e2600b0e7a03 nit: could be its own commit?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1418907338)
e67898f47152b756acc7ccafb654e2600b0e7a03 nit: could be its own commit?
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1418884402)
e491e5c4e6eb2f9b9ec53f4c2df602a755178726: could make it more clear that this only needs to happen for _one_ descriptor: `if (!wallet_key && …`
Additionally, either here or elsewhere, it's useful to clarify the following:
```cpp
// Although at this point in the loading process we can't tell if a descriptor is active,
// checking inactive descriptors is necessary in any case. The private key for the active
// wallet master extended public key will initially be found in all active descript
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1418884402)
e491e5c4e6eb2f9b9ec53f4c2df602a755178726: could make it more clear that this only needs to happen for _one_ descriptor: `if (!wallet_key && …`
Additionally, either here or elsewhere, it's useful to clarify the following:
```cpp
// Although at this point in the loading process we can't tell if a descriptor is active,
// checking inactive descriptors is necessary in any case. The private key for the active
// wallet master extended public key will initially be found in all active descript
...
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1418940623)
a5ba1d83827475ef3f8f3851733007db5b8dc848: not a fan of touching legacy wallets even in the slightest if we don't have to… in that respect I prefer fca4584ad3.
It seems contradictory to the fact that we _always_ generate the global hd key field when migrating a legacy wallet, whether it was newly created or not. We _could_ set this field when creating a legacy wallet, but we (gladly) choose not to. It wouldn't do anything useful and would suffer from the same downgrade->encrypt->upgrade incorr
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1418940623)
a5ba1d83827475ef3f8f3851733007db5b8dc848: not a fan of touching legacy wallets even in the slightest if we don't have to… in that respect I prefer fca4584ad3.
It seems contradictory to the fact that we _always_ generate the global hd key field when migrating a legacy wallet, whether it was newly created or not. We _could_ set this field when creating a legacy wallet, but we (gladly) choose not to. It wouldn't do anything useful and would suffer from the same downgrade->encrypt->upgrade incorr
...
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1418924286)
6d7163d8e8127a18a299eaa1309bf7d613713d51: maybe assert that either `key` or `crypted_key` is provided
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1418924286)
6d7163d8e8127a18a299eaa1309bf7d613713d51: maybe assert that either `key` or `crypted_key` is provided
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1418893185)
e491e5c4e6eb2f9b9ec53f4c2df602a755178726: I thought about adding an additional warning here for the scenario where a user downgraded, encrypted and upgraded. However, for that we need to know if the descriptor is active, which this function (`LoadDescriptorWalletRecords`) doesn't know. The caller `LoadWallet` won't know it until `LoadActiveSPKMs`. So it would involve passing a bunch of information around.
Anyway, in principle we could count the number of active descriptors for which `pubkey =
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1418893185)
e491e5c4e6eb2f9b9ec53f4c2df602a755178726: I thought about adding an additional warning here for the scenario where a user downgraded, encrypted and upgraded. However, for that we need to know if the descriptor is active, which this function (`LoadDescriptorWalletRecords`) doesn't know. The caller `LoadWallet` won't know it until `LoadActiveSPKMs`. So it would involve passing a bunch of information around.
Anyway, in principle we could count the number of active descriptors for which `pubkey =
...
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: add historical release notes for 26.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#discussion_r1418994026)
nit: This is already mentioned above, no? `- Ensure the "Needs release note" label is removed from all relevant pull requests and issues.`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#discussion_r1418994026)
nit: This is already mentioned above, no? `- Ensure the "Needs release note" label is removed from all relevant pull requests and issues.`
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: add historical release notes for 26.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#discussion_r1418997032)
Ah, I guess it might be more useful in the section about writing the release notes.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#discussion_r1418997032)
Ah, I guess it might be more useful in the section about writing the release notes.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: add historical release notes for 26.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#discussion_r1418999090)
I'll just remove my addition. I guess the onus is on PR authors to make sure they write release notes for their changes.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#discussion_r1418999090)
I'll just remove my addition. I guess the onus is on PR authors to make sure they write release notes for their changes.
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "wallet: skip BnB when SFFO is enabled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28994#discussion_r1419002221)
I think @josibake is making a good point here. Algorithm and waste score by itself would probably still make it difficult to learn something about what went wrong (although they would be useful if the issue filer also provided the corresponding transaction). It might be better to also log the parameters for the coin selection attempt:
- feerate
- sffo (true/false)
- preset inputs (true/false)
- resulting input count (per type?)
- change created (true/false)
- algo that lead to solution
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28994#discussion_r1419002221)
I think @josibake is making a good point here. Algorithm and waste score by itself would probably still make it difficult to learn something about what went wrong (although they would be useful if the issue filer also provided the corresponding transaction). It might be better to also log the parameters for the coin selection attempt:
- feerate
- sffo (true/false)
- preset inputs (true/false)
- resulting input count (per type?)
- change created (true/false)
- algo that lead to solution
...
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: add historical release notes for 26.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#issuecomment-1845386299)
I've pinged a few people about writing up notes. I'll incorporate them here.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#issuecomment-1845386299)
I've pinged a few people about writing up notes. I'll incorporate them here.
✅ FacehuggerCZ closed an issue: "Obscure problem with sent transactions and wallet balance"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29024)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29024)
💬 FacehuggerCZ commented on issue "Obscure problem with sent transactions and wallet balance":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29024#issuecomment-1845388697)
Thanks for the replies, I just wanted to make sure that I didn't happen to have my bitcoin core hacked...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29024#issuecomment-1845388697)
Thanks for the replies, I just wanted to make sure that I didn't happen to have my bitcoin core hacked...
💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "doc: add historical release notes for 26.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#issuecomment-1845402519)
Here's one for #28507:
```md
Notable changes
===============
Contrib
-------
- Bash completion files have been renamed from `bitcoin*.bash-completion` to
`bitcoin*.bash`. This means completions can be automatically loaded on demand
based on invoked commands' names when they are put into the completion
directory (found with `pkg-config --variable=completionsdir
bash-completion`) without requiring renaming.
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29023#issuecomment-1845402519)
Here's one for #28507:
```md
Notable changes
===============
Contrib
-------
- Bash completion files have been renamed from `bitcoin*.bash-completion` to
`bitcoin*.bash`. This means completions can be automatically loaded on demand
based on invoked commands' names when they are put into the completion
directory (found with `pkg-config --variable=completionsdir
bash-completion`) without requiring renaming.
```
💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: skip BnB when SFFO is enabled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28994#discussion_r1419054827)
> it would be better to log information related to what options the user selected, such as logging that SFFO was selected (I did a quick grep and didn't see that this was being logged, but might have missed it). In general, I think it's always better to log the parameters that were used to start a process, rather than log the resulting algorithm internals.
That's not correct.
The wallet stores its own state linked to the inner node's state. Logging users' RPC command inputs only provides li
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28994#discussion_r1419054827)
> it would be better to log information related to what options the user selected, such as logging that SFFO was selected (I did a quick grep and didn't see that this was being logged, but might have missed it). In general, I think it's always better to log the parameters that were used to start a process, rather than log the resulting algorithm internals.
That's not correct.
The wallet stores its own state linked to the inner node's state. Logging users' RPC command inputs only provides li
...
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1419057454)
ea7a61ca94cc0d59cfe25307cd60fcda2aedec5f nit, keeping it closer to 80 characters wide, and drops "Any other candidates will be added as HD keys that have been rotated out.":
```
/**
* UpgradeToGlobalHDKey searches through the descriptors in a descriptor wallet
* and tries to find a CExtPubKey which is likely to be the most recent one used
* to generate all of the automatically generated descriptors. The automatically
* generated descriptors are guaranteed to be 2 p2pkh, 2 p2sh-segwit
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1419057454)
ea7a61ca94cc0d59cfe25307cd60fcda2aedec5f nit, keeping it closer to 80 characters wide, and drops "Any other candidates will be added as HD keys that have been rotated out.":
```
/**
* UpgradeToGlobalHDKey searches through the descriptors in a descriptor wallet
* and tries to find a CExtPubKey which is likely to be the most recent one used
* to generate all of the automatically generated descriptors. The automatically
* generated descriptors are guaranteed to be 2 p2pkh, 2 p2sh-segwit
...
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "contrib/bash-completions: use package naming conventions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28507#issuecomment-1845466985)
Release note to be added in #29023.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28507#issuecomment-1845466985)
Release note to be added in #29023.
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1845469595)
To be clear, OP_Return outputs are not added to the UTXO set. That's why we standardized OP_Return in the first place.
On December 7, 2023 2:00:19 PM GMT+01:00, "Léo Haf" ***@***.***> wrote:
>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.
>
>Mine
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1845469595)
To be clear, OP_Return outputs are not added to the UTXO set. That's why we standardized OP_Return in the first place.
On December 7, 2023 2:00:19 PM GMT+01:00, "Léo Haf" ***@***.***> wrote:
>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.
>
>Mine
...