⚠️ l0rinc opened an issue: "Fully validated AssumeUTXO starts revalidating after restart"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32029)
After fully validating the [recent update to AssumeUTXO until 880k](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#pullrequestreview-2658919045) in the background:
```bash
2025-03-08T09:58:19Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000001b5d3d95fe8153004c0a8e4f5fbd08e4fead4298897ff height=886840 version=0x246ea000 log2_work=95.483816 tx=1163409635 date='2025-03-08T09:58:50Z' progress=1.000000 cache=136.3MiB(966526txo)
2025-03-08T10:00:03Z [background validation] UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000000
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32029)
After fully validating the [recent update to AssumeUTXO until 880k](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#pullrequestreview-2658919045) in the background:
```bash
2025-03-08T09:58:19Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000000001b5d3d95fe8153004c0a8e4f5fbd08e4fead4298897ff height=886840 version=0x246ea000 log2_work=95.483816 tx=1163409635 date='2025-03-08T09:58:50Z' progress=1.000000 cache=136.3MiB(966526txo)
2025-03-08T10:00:03Z [background validation] UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000000
...
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "Add mainnet assumeutxo param at height 880,000":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#issuecomment-2712065213)
I can confirm that I got to [full background validation](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#pullrequestreview-2658919045), but restarting the node seems to restart it - opened an issue to clarify https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32029
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#issuecomment-2712065213)
I can confirm that I got to [full background validation](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#pullrequestreview-2658919045), but restarting the node seems to restart it - opened an issue to clarify https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32029
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "Refactor BnB tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#discussion_r1988151641)
nit - you can simplify this line slightly by using the default arguments instead of passing them explicitly.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#discussion_r1988151641)
nit - you can simplify this line slightly by using the default arguments instead of passing them explicitly.
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "Refactor BnB tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#discussion_r1988151782)
```suggestion
OutputGroup group = MakeCoin(input_amount);
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#discussion_r1988151782)
```suggestion
OutputGroup group = MakeCoin(input_amount);
```
💬 mzumsande commented on issue "Fully validated AssumeUTXO starts revalidating after restart":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32029#issuecomment-2712095682)
What do you mean with "[cancelled it]", did you abort bitcoind with Ctrl+C or similar?
As described in the [design document](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/design/assumeutxo.md), all traces of AssumeUtxo are only gone after the next restart. Not sure why the UTXO stats check is repeated, maybe to prevent circumventing the check by terminating before, or something similar.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32029#issuecomment-2712095682)
What do you mean with "[cancelled it]", did you abort bitcoind with Ctrl+C or similar?
As described in the [design document](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/design/assumeutxo.md), all traces of AssumeUtxo are only gone after the next restart. Not sure why the UTXO stats check is repeated, maybe to prevent circumventing the check by terminating before, or something similar.
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "Refactor BnB tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#issuecomment-2712097498)
Concept Ack to refactor the tests. `TestBnBSuccess` and `TestBnBFail` are much better and easier to read. Thanks!
> non-representative and effectuate counterintuitive behavior such as feerate = 0 or cost_of_change = 0
I'm still trying to sus out what the tests are doing now that's better than before. Most of the current tests use a cost_of_change = 0.5 * COIN, for [example](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/45719390a1434ad7377a5ed05dcd73028130cf2d/src/wallet/test/coinselector_test
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#issuecomment-2712097498)
Concept Ack to refactor the tests. `TestBnBSuccess` and `TestBnBFail` are much better and easier to read. Thanks!
> non-representative and effectuate counterintuitive behavior such as feerate = 0 or cost_of_change = 0
I'm still trying to sus out what the tests are doing now that's better than before. Most of the current tests use a cost_of_change = 0.5 * COIN, for [example](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/45719390a1434ad7377a5ed05dcd73028130cf2d/src/wallet/test/coinselector_test
...
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "Refactor BnB tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#discussion_r1988165735)
I spent a lot of time figuring out how `make_hard` works. Thanks for replacing it with a version that _actually_ explains itself instead of making it a mensa test.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#discussion_r1988165735)
I spent a lot of time figuring out how `make_hard` works. Thanks for replacing it with a version that _actually_ explains itself instead of making it a mensa test.
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "contrib: turn off compression of macOS SDK to fix determinism (across distros)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32009#issuecomment-2712132395)
> One slight problem is that Apple no longer makes XCode 15.0 available for download. They do have Xcode 15.0.1: https://download.developer.apple.com/Developer_Tools/Xcode_15.0.1/Xcode_15.0.1.xip
I'm still seeing it here: https://developer.apple.com/download/all/?q=Xcode%2015 , and with this download link: https://download.developer.apple.com/Developer_Tools/Xcode_15/Xcode_15.xip, it's labeled `Xcode 15` rather than `Xcode 15.0`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32009#issuecomment-2712132395)
> One slight problem is that Apple no longer makes XCode 15.0 available for download. They do have Xcode 15.0.1: https://download.developer.apple.com/Developer_Tools/Xcode_15.0.1/Xcode_15.0.1.xip
I'm still seeing it here: https://developer.apple.com/download/all/?q=Xcode%2015 , and with this download link: https://download.developer.apple.com/Developer_Tools/Xcode_15/Xcode_15.xip, it's labeled `Xcode 15` rather than `Xcode 15.0`.
💬 Aditbo commented on pull request "Add mainnet assumeutxo param at height 880,000":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#issuecomment-2712153241)
ok
Pada tanggal Sen, 3 Mar 2025 20.39, rkrux ***@***.***>
menulis:
> Well, this pull request is not completely unrelated to this topic but in
> order to have a more concrete discussion, I will create a Github issue for
> it & we can move the discussion there.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#issuecomment-2694412711>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BNU3IQBLQTFSNQIQMWO3VCT2
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#issuecomment-2712153241)
ok
Pada tanggal Sen, 3 Mar 2025 20.39, rkrux ***@***.***>
menulis:
> Well, this pull request is not completely unrelated to this topic but in
> order to have a more concrete discussion, I will create a Github issue for
> it & we can move the discussion there.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#issuecomment-2694412711>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BNU3IQBLQTFSNQIQMWO3VCT2
...
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "wallet: Replace "non-0" with "non-zero" in translatable error message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31987#discussion_r1988190791)
```suggestion
// and no pre-selected inputs. This will result in zero-input transaction, which is consensus-invalid anyways
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31987#discussion_r1988190791)
```suggestion
// and no pre-selected inputs. This will result in zero-input transaction, which is consensus-invalid anyways
```
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "ci: Test cross-built Windows executables on Windows natively":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31176#issuecomment-2712722396)
Tested ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/515c64c743d581f84b8be45e5d16968d02264389
Broke a unit test on windows and this branch [caught it](https://github.com/davidgumberg/bitcoin/actions/runs/13780098004/job/38538199806), broke a functional test and this branch [caught it](https://github.com/davidgumberg/bitcoin/actions/runs/13780115705/job/38538229660).
Unfortunate that there isn't a way to validate locally that changes won't break Windows builds, but the wine tests seem to h
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31176#issuecomment-2712722396)
Tested ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/515c64c743d581f84b8be45e5d16968d02264389
Broke a unit test on windows and this branch [caught it](https://github.com/davidgumberg/bitcoin/actions/runs/13780098004/job/38538199806), broke a functional test and this branch [caught it](https://github.com/davidgumberg/bitcoin/actions/runs/13780115705/job/38538229660).
Unfortunate that there isn't a way to validate locally that changes won't break Windows builds, but the wine tests seem to h
...
📝 xiaobei0715 opened a pull request: "chore: remove incorrect punctuation marks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32030)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32030)
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "cmake: Check for `makensis` and `zip` tools before using them for optional `deploy` targets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32019#discussion_r1988501276)
0~ This seems far too verbose/exposing implementation details, and we don't do this for any other dep.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32019#discussion_r1988501276)
0~ This seems far too verbose/exposing implementation details, and we don't do this for any other dep.
✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "chore: remove incorrect punctuation marks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32030)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32030)
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Update `secp256k1` subtree to latest master":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32028#issuecomment-2712912544)
> The latter is required for #31507.
If we are going to start bumping subtrees, can you at least add a PR description, given 31507 [still doesn't have one](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31507#issuecomment-2548249261).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32028#issuecomment-2712912544)
> The latter is required for #31507.
If we are going to start bumping subtrees, can you at least add a PR description, given 31507 [still doesn't have one](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31507#issuecomment-2548249261).
💬 saikiran57 commented on pull request "removed duplicate call to GetDescriptorScriptPubKeyMan":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32023#discussion_r1988607821)
your right CanUpdateToWalletDescriptor removed completely no need now. I've used UpdateWalletDescriptor only.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32023#discussion_r1988607821)
your right CanUpdateToWalletDescriptor removed completely no need now. I've used UpdateWalletDescriptor only.
💬 saikiran57 commented on pull request "removed duplicate call to GetDescriptorScriptPubKeyMan":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32023#discussion_r1988608454)
there is no issue.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32023#discussion_r1988608454)
there is no issue.
💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "net: replace manual reference counting of CNode with shared_ptr":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32015#discussion_r1988630364)
If that is the case I think Parent goes one step too far in redefining terms.
Returning an raw C pointer is not an okay design, as another thread could potentially come along and delete whatever the returned pointer is referencing, resulting in use-after-free. This is mitigated by `FindNode` being private and node deletion being done in a controlled fashion on master. But it's a loaded foot-gun IMO.
Adding `EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED()` would have been a different fix, forcing the caller to
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32015#discussion_r1988630364)
If that is the case I think Parent goes one step too far in redefining terms.
Returning an raw C pointer is not an okay design, as another thread could potentially come along and delete whatever the returned pointer is referencing, resulting in use-after-free. This is mitigated by `FindNode` being private and node deletion being done in a controlled fashion on master. But it's a loaded foot-gun IMO.
Adding `EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED()` would have been a different fix, forcing the caller to
...
💬 Sjors commented on issue "Fully validated AssumeUTXO starts revalidating after restart":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32029#issuecomment-2713078323)
From the logs it seems the background sync was finished and the node was cleanly shut down. But the error suggests something was missed in the shutdown sequence?
There's still some open issues related to AssumeUTXO that may or may not be relevant here: #31382, #30610, #30214.
cc @ryanofsky, @TheCharlatan
It seems very unlikely that this is related to the _new_ snapshot added in #31969.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32029#issuecomment-2713078323)
From the logs it seems the background sync was finished and the node was cleanly shut down. But the error suggests something was missed in the shutdown sequence?
There's still some open issues related to AssumeUTXO that may or may not be relevant here: #31382, #30610, #30214.
cc @ryanofsky, @TheCharlatan
It seems very unlikely that this is related to the _new_ snapshot added in #31969.
💬 Sjors commented on issue "RFC: when to drop testnet3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31975#issuecomment-2713086735)
@1440000bytes I can't see the X post without an account (or maybe they're still dealing with a DoS0. Can you quote it or post a screenshot?
Dropping testnet4 without first deprecating it, is not the usual way we do things. It also doesn't really simplify anything, compared to e.g. releasing testnet5, deprecating testnet4 and dropping testnet3 in one release, and then dropping testnet4 in the next release.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31975#issuecomment-2713086735)
@1440000bytes I can't see the X post without an account (or maybe they're still dealing with a DoS0. Can you quote it or post a screenshot?
Dropping testnet4 without first deprecating it, is not the usual way we do things. It also doesn't really simplify anything, compared to e.g. releasing testnet5, deprecating testnet4 and dropping testnet3 in one release, and then dropping testnet4 in the next release.