💬 blockdyor commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2888907334)
Concept NACK
Nodes shouldn’t relay arbitrary data on the network. Removing the cap on the default datacarriersize makes that easier. We’ve already seen a clear signal that people don’t want this, with a noticeable migration from Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Knots over the past three weeks. And since [PR #32359](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#event-17618932800) was closed by @glozow a few days ago, I’d expect this one to be closed too.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2888907334)
Concept NACK
Nodes shouldn’t relay arbitrary data on the network. Removing the cap on the default datacarriersize makes that easier. We’ve already seen a clear signal that people don’t want this, with a noticeable migration from Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Knots over the past three weeks. And since [PR #32359](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#event-17618932800) was closed by @glozow a few days ago, I’d expect this one to be closed too.
💬 Fraser052 commented on issue "Unusual "Wallet requires newer version" Error with wallet.dat on macOS, Even with Older Client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2888912141)
> ### Motivation
>
> I am encountering a persistent "Wallet requires newer version of Bitcoin Core (code -4)" error when trying to open my wallet.dat file on macOS. This issue occurs even when attempting to open the wallet with Bitcoin Core version 0.21.0.1, which the debug log from a later version (29.0) indicated was the last client version to interact with the wallet. Environment:
>
> * Operating System: macOS 15
> * Bitcoin Core Version Initially Used: 29.0
> * Bitcoin Core Version Tested
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2888912141)
> ### Motivation
>
> I am encountering a persistent "Wallet requires newer version of Bitcoin Core (code -4)" error when trying to open my wallet.dat file on macOS. This issue occurs even when attempting to open the wallet with Bitcoin Core version 0.21.0.1, which the debug log from a later version (29.0) indicated was the last client version to interact with the wallet. Environment:
>
> * Operating System: macOS 15
> * Bitcoin Core Version Initially Used: 29.0
> * Bitcoin Core Version Tested
...
💬 l3x3l commented on issue "Unusual "Wallet requires newer version" Error with wallet.dat on macOS, Even with Older Client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2888913648)
Hello,
I have opened the following issue in GitHub
On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 4:35 AM Fraser052 ***@***.***> wrote:
> *Fraser052* left a comment (bitcoin/bitcoin#32548)
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2888912141>
>
> Motivation
>
> I am encountering a persistent "Wallet requires newer version of Bitcoin
> Core (code -4)" error when trying to open my wallet.dat file on macOS. This
> issue occurs even when attempting to open the wallet with Bitcoin Co
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2888913648)
Hello,
I have opened the following issue in GitHub
On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 4:35 AM Fraser052 ***@***.***> wrote:
> *Fraser052* left a comment (bitcoin/bitcoin#32548)
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2888912141>
>
> Motivation
>
> I am encountering a persistent "Wallet requires newer version of Bitcoin
> Core (code -4)" error when trying to open my wallet.dat file on macOS. This
> issue occurs even when attempting to open the wallet with Bitcoin Co
...
💬 maflcko commented on issue "intermittent issue in rpc_signer.py (enumeratesigners timeout)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32524#issuecomment-2888967608)
The bt is:
```
Thread 9 (Thread 0x7f0973400640 (LWP 21341) "b-httpworker.5"):
#0 __GI___libc_read (nbytes=1024, buf=0x7f09733fb7f0, fd=30) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/read.c:26
#1 __GI___libc_read (fd=30, buf=0x7f09733fb7f0, nbytes=1024) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/read.c:24
#2 0x0000564d74731ba3 in subprocess::Popen::execute_process() ()
#3 0x0000564d74732b44 in subprocess::Popen::Popen<subprocess::input, subprocess::output, subprocess::error, subprocess::close_fds>(std::__cxx11::basic
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32524#issuecomment-2888967608)
The bt is:
```
Thread 9 (Thread 0x7f0973400640 (LWP 21341) "b-httpworker.5"):
#0 __GI___libc_read (nbytes=1024, buf=0x7f09733fb7f0, fd=30) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/read.c:26
#1 __GI___libc_read (fd=30, buf=0x7f09733fb7f0, nbytes=1024) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/read.c:24
#2 0x0000564d74731ba3 in subprocess::Popen::execute_process() ()
#3 0x0000564d74732b44 in subprocess::Popen::Popen<subprocess::input, subprocess::output, subprocess::error, subprocess::close_fds>(std::__cxx11::basic
...
🤔 tapcrafter reviewed a pull request: "rest: fetch spent transaction outputs by blockhash"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32540#pullrequestreview-2848945630)
tACK ffe571f461930b7a05a3cf9f7128e843ea9f7e2d
<details>
<summary>Test protocol</summary>
Running ffe571f461930b7a05a3cf9f7128e843ea9f7e2d:
```shell
$ ./build/bin/bitcoind -regtest -rpcallowip=::1 -rpcuser=u -rpcpassword=p -rest -txindex
# Invalid extension:
$ curl -v -g 'u:p@localhost:18443/rest/spentoutputs/4376e2f945afef224981b665778ec45ebe64745e7d768c2937a8e271b69d708a.json'
* Host localhost:18443 was resolved.
...
< HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
< Content-Type: text/plain
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32540#pullrequestreview-2848945630)
tACK ffe571f461930b7a05a3cf9f7128e843ea9f7e2d
<details>
<summary>Test protocol</summary>
Running ffe571f461930b7a05a3cf9f7128e843ea9f7e2d:
```shell
$ ./build/bin/bitcoind -regtest -rpcallowip=::1 -rpcuser=u -rpcpassword=p -rest -txindex
# Invalid extension:
$ curl -v -g 'u:p@localhost:18443/rest/spentoutputs/4376e2f945afef224981b665778ec45ebe64745e7d768c2937a8e271b69d708a.json'
* Host localhost:18443 was resolved.
...
< HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
< Content-Type: text/plain
...
💬 tapcrafter commented on pull request "rest: fetch spent transaction outputs by blockhash":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32540#discussion_r2094516153)
Is there a way to document the output of this REST method?
From the name alone I would've expected it to return a list of outpoints.
But it seems to return a list of transaction outputs (`CTxOut` or `Coin` depending on the context).
Which absolutely makes sense given the use case.
So perhaps a different name would help make that more clear? Perhaps `rest/spenttxouts`?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32540#discussion_r2094516153)
Is there a way to document the output of this REST method?
From the name alone I would've expected it to return a list of outpoints.
But it seems to return a list of transaction outputs (`CTxOut` or `Coin` depending on the context).
Which absolutely makes sense given the use case.
So perhaps a different name would help make that more clear? Perhaps `rest/spenttxouts`?
💬 Ashkar776 commented on pull request "rest: fetch spent transaction outputs by blockhash":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32540#issuecomment-2888998449)
Idoknow
On Sun, 18 May, 2025, 5:05 pm tapcrafter, ***@***.***> wrote:
> ***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
>
> tACK ffe571f
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ffe571f461930b7a05a3cf9f7128e843ea9f7e2d>
> Test protocol
>
> Running ffe571f
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ffe571f461930b7a05a3cf9f7128e843ea9f7e2d>
> :
>
> $ ./build/bin/bitcoind -regtest -rpcallowip=::1 -rpcuser=u -rpcpassword=p -rest -txindex
> # Invalid extension:
>
> $ curl -v -g
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32540#issuecomment-2888998449)
Idoknow
On Sun, 18 May, 2025, 5:05 pm tapcrafter, ***@***.***> wrote:
> ***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
>
> tACK ffe571f
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ffe571f461930b7a05a3cf9f7128e843ea9f7e2d>
> Test protocol
>
> Running ffe571f
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ffe571f461930b7a05a3cf9f7128e843ea9f7e2d>
> :
>
> $ ./build/bin/bitcoind -regtest -rpcallowip=::1 -rpcuser=u -rpcpassword=p -rest -txindex
> # Invalid extension:
>
> $ curl -v -g
...
📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "cmake: Add missed `SSE41_CXXFLAGS`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32550)
The missed flags were noticed when building with clang-cl on Windows.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32550)
The missed flags were noticed when building with clang-cl on Windows.
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "rest: fetch spent transaction outputs by blockhash":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32540#issuecomment-2889002779)
> Good idea - would it be OK to implement it in a separate PR?
Sure, as you wish. I'm no authority :)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32540#issuecomment-2889002779)
> Good idea - would it be OK to implement it in a separate PR?
Sure, as you wish. I'm no authority :)
💬 furszy commented on issue "Unusual "Wallet requires newer version" Error with wallet.dat on macOS, Even with Older Client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889007547)
Try sharing your debug.log file when loading v29. It will provide further information to debug your issue.
Also, please avoid pasting LLM-generated text. It adds unnecessary unhelpful noise.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889007547)
Try sharing your debug.log file when loading v29. It will provide further information to debug your issue.
Also, please avoid pasting LLM-generated text. It adds unnecessary unhelpful noise.
💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Replace libevent with our own HTTP and socket-handling implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32061#discussion_r2094541457)
I should have mentioned the initial test commits have been split off into https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32408 and the test as written here failed CI, so has been modified with `rpcservertimeout=2` and then expects a timeout between 1 and 4 seconds
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32061#discussion_r2094541457)
I should have mentioned the initial test commits have been split off into https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32408 and the test as written here failed CI, so has been modified with `rpcservertimeout=2` and then expects a timeout between 1 and 4 seconds
💬 sipa commented on issue "Unusual "Wallet requires newer version" Error with wallet.dat on macOS, Even with Older Client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889032183)
> last client version = 210201
This indicates that you need at least Bitcoin Core 0.21.2, but you're trying with Bitcoin Core 0.21.0.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889032183)
> last client version = 210201
This indicates that you need at least Bitcoin Core 0.21.2, but you're trying with Bitcoin Core 0.21.0.
📝 hebasto converted_to_draft a pull request: "cmake: Add missed `SSE41_CXXFLAGS`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32550)
The missed flags were noticed when building with clang-cl on Windows.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32550)
The missed flags were noticed when building with clang-cl on Windows.
💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "contrib: add xor-blocks tool to obfuscate blocks directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2094547839)
Unfortunately it does not. I fixed with `writer.into_inner()?.sync_data()?;`. The `into_inner` will flush the writer before returning.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2094547839)
Unfortunately it does not. I fixed with `writer.into_inner()?.sync_data()?;`. The `into_inner` will flush the writer before returning.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "contrib: add xor-blocks tool to obfuscate blocks directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2094550287)
are you sure this is always safe from an alignment perspective? (IIUC bytes don't have to be aligned, but u128 may have to). So it seems safer to make the storage u128 and then cast the other way (to u8)?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2094550287)
are you sure this is always safe from an alignment perspective? (IIUC bytes don't have to be aligned, but u128 may have to). So it seems safer to make the storage u128 and then cast the other way (to u8)?
📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "cmake: Remove `ENABLE_{SSE41,AVX2,X86_SHANI,ARM_SHANI}` from `bitcoin-build-config.h`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32551)
`ENABLE_{SSE41,AVX2,X86_SHANI,ARM_SHANI}` are already conditionally defined for the [`bitcoin_crypto`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/crypto/CMakeLists.txt) target, so defining them in `bitcoin-build-config.h` is redundant.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32551)
`ENABLE_{SSE41,AVX2,X86_SHANI,ARM_SHANI}` are already conditionally defined for the [`bitcoin_crypto`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/crypto/CMakeLists.txt) target, so defining them in `bitcoin-build-config.h` is redundant.
💬 l3x3l commented on issue "Unusual "Wallet requires newer version" Error with wallet.dat on macOS, Even with Older Client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889058033)
I am running on v 29.0
Debug.log
0000036781cb1d4bf34243ea67e83890d5195e750e5a0b756 height=896702
version=0x2000e000 log2_work=95.608193 tx=1190303817
date='2025-05-14T17:33:55Z' progress=0.999321 cache=131.9MiB(930821txo)
2025-05-16T18:12:31Z UpdateTip: new
best=000000000000000000021a5d9bd590b972464287a60646800ba8d12def9a86dd
height=896703 version=0x32a70000 log2_work=95.608205 tx=1190307478
date='2025-05-14T17:55:27Z' progress=0.999326 cache=133.2MiB(940110txo)
2025-05-16T18:
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889058033)
I am running on v 29.0
Debug.log
0000036781cb1d4bf34243ea67e83890d5195e750e5a0b756 height=896702
version=0x2000e000 log2_work=95.608193 tx=1190303817
date='2025-05-14T17:33:55Z' progress=0.999321 cache=131.9MiB(930821txo)
2025-05-16T18:12:31Z UpdateTip: new
best=000000000000000000021a5d9bd590b972464287a60646800ba8d12def9a86dd
height=896703 version=0x32a70000 log2_work=95.608205 tx=1190307478
date='2025-05-14T17:55:27Z' progress=0.999326 cache=133.2MiB(940110txo)
2025-05-16T18:
...
💬 l3x3l commented on issue "Unusual "Wallet requires newer version" Error with wallet.dat on macOS, Even with Older Client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889059597)
Debug.log
https://pastebin.com/xPDJUepN
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889059597)
Debug.log
https://pastebin.com/xPDJUepN
💬 sipa commented on issue "Unusual "Wallet requires newer version" Error with wallet.dat on macOS, Even with Older Client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889060955)
Ok, now I understand. It is Bitcoin Core 29.0 which complains that the wallet requires a newer version, even though the wallet file indicates a version of 210201.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889060955)
Ok, now I understand. It is Bitcoin Core 29.0 which complains that the wallet requires a newer version, even though the wallet file indicates a version of 210201.
💬 l3x3l commented on issue "Unusual "Wallet requires newer version" Error with wallet.dat on macOS, Even with Older Client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889064710)
Yes. Is this something that can has happened in the past?
On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 9:40 AM Pieter Wuille ***@***.***>
wrote:
> *sipa* left a comment (bitcoin/bitcoin#32548)
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889060955>
>
> Ok, now I understand. It is Bitcoin Core 29.0 which complains that the
> wallet requires a newer version, even though the wallet file indicates a
> version of 210201.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https:/
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889064710)
Yes. Is this something that can has happened in the past?
On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 9:40 AM Pieter Wuille ***@***.***>
wrote:
> *sipa* left a comment (bitcoin/bitcoin#32548)
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889060955>
>
> Ok, now I understand. It is Bitcoin Core 29.0 which complains that the
> wallet requires a newer version, even though the wallet file indicates a
> version of 210201.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https:/
...