💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: Remove workaround for resolved MSVC bug":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32552#issuecomment-2889148808)
I have also tried the same in: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31991#issuecomment-2724946307
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32552#issuecomment-2889148808)
I have also tried the same in: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31991#issuecomment-2724946307
💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "contrib: add xor-blocks tool to obfuscate blocks directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2094599201)
@1440000bytes thanks for testing! Unfortunately this tool will only work for mainnet. It looks like I also have to rename `Local` to `Roaming` in the Windows default datadir.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2094599201)
@1440000bytes thanks for testing! Unfortunately this tool will only work for mainnet. It looks like I also have to rename `Local` to `Roaming` in the Windows default datadir.
💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "contrib: add xor-blocks tool to obfuscate blocks directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2094601966)
I think new bitcoin core versions use `local` for data directory. So, you will have to support both `local` and `roaming` in this tool.
Yes, it works for mainnet. I re-tested.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2094601966)
I think new bitcoin core versions use `local` for data directory. So, you will have to support both `local` and `roaming` in this tool.
Yes, it works for mainnet. I re-tested.
💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "contrib: add xor-blocks tool to obfuscate blocks directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2094602422)
@1440000bytes do you know which version switched to `Local`? If it was 28 or 29 then we only have to support `Roaming`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2094602422)
@1440000bytes do you know which version switched to `Local`? If it was 28 or 29 then we only have to support `Roaming`.
📝 achow101 opened a pull request: "wallet: Fix logging of wallet version"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32553)
The wallet's version (in the minversion record) needs to be logged only after we have read it from disk. Otherwise, we always log the lowest version number of 10500 which is incorrect. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to log the last client version number if the record didn't exist. This is a regression caused by #26021.
The wallet file version logging is moved inside of `LoadMinVersion` so that it is logged after the record is read. It will also log unconditionally if a version is read so
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32553)
The wallet's version (in the minversion record) needs to be logged only after we have read it from disk. Otherwise, we always log the lowest version number of 10500 which is incorrect. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to log the last client version number if the record didn't exist. This is a regression caused by #26021.
The wallet file version logging is moved inside of `LoadMinVersion` so that it is logged after the record is read. It will also log unconditionally if a version is read so
...
🤔 tapcrafter reviewed a pull request: "node: cap `-maxmempool` and `-dbcache` values for 32-bit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32530#pullrequestreview-2849067709)
tACK e88056ba323da9127775a41db92835378600d9fc
<details>
<summary>Test protocol</summary>
# Restrictions on 32-bit machine
Running on a `linux-armv7l` machine, the `-maxmempool` option is correctly validated on startup:
```shell
$ uname -a
Linux debian 6.1.0-35-armmp-lpae #1 SMP Debian 6.1.137-1 (2025-05-07) armv7l GNU/Linux
$ ./bitcoind -regtest -maxmempool=4096
Error: -maxmempool is set to 4096 but can't be over 500 MB on 32-bit systems
```
However, the `-dbcache` v
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32530#pullrequestreview-2849067709)
tACK e88056ba323da9127775a41db92835378600d9fc
<details>
<summary>Test protocol</summary>
# Restrictions on 32-bit machine
Running on a `linux-armv7l` machine, the `-maxmempool` option is correctly validated on startup:
```shell
$ uname -a
Linux debian 6.1.0-35-armmp-lpae #1 SMP Debian 6.1.137-1 (2025-05-07) armv7l GNU/Linux
$ ./bitcoind -regtest -maxmempool=4096
Error: -maxmempool is set to 4096 but can't be over 500 MB on 32-bit systems
```
However, the `-dbcache` v
...
💬 tapcrafter commented on pull request "node: cap `-maxmempool` and `-dbcache` values for 32-bit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32530#discussion_r2094603515)
Should we unify the behavior with the `-maxmempool` option and error out instead of silently truncating the value?
Or is the rationale that the DB cache only affects performance while the mempool size will have an impact on the operation of the node and therefore is more important to notify the user?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32530#discussion_r2094603515)
Should we unify the behavior with the `-maxmempool` option and error out instead of silently truncating the value?
Or is the rationale that the DB cache only affects performance while the mempool size will have an impact on the operation of the node and therefore is more important to notify the user?
💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "contrib: add xor-blocks tool to obfuscate blocks directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2094604563)
v28.0 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27064
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2094604563)
v28.0 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27064
💬 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-2889167371)
How can I execute the pywallet Option?
On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 12:36 PM Ava Chow ***@***.***> wrote:
> *achow101* left a comment (bitcoin/bitcoin#32548)
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889145174>
>
> From your debug.log, it looks like it was opened successfully on
> 2025-05-18T09:23:00Z, but failed to open at the next run at
> 2025-05-18T09:23:59Z. Did you do anything to the wallet between these 2
> runs of Bitcoin Core? There's less than a minute b
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889167371)
How can I execute the pywallet Option?
On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 12:36 PM Ava Chow ***@***.***> wrote:
> *achow101* left a comment (bitcoin/bitcoin#32548)
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889145174>
>
> From your debug.log, it looks like it was opened successfully on
> 2025-05-18T09:23:00Z, but failed to open at the next run at
> 2025-05-18T09:23:59Z. Did you do anything to the wallet between these 2
> runs of Bitcoin Core? There's less than a minute b
...
💬 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-2889175014)
I would like to download Bitcoin Core Version 30.0 this month.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889175014)
I would like to download Bitcoin Core Version 30.0 this month.
💬 pinheadmz 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-2889183588)
@l3x3l we release new major versions twice a year and 29 just came out. You opened your issue, please be patient now and work with the contributors until we have an answer.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889183588)
@l3x3l we release new major versions twice a year and 29 just came out. You opened your issue, please be patient now and work with the contributors until we have an answer.
💬 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-2889184446)
Ok, thank you.
How do I use pywallet to recover my wallet?
On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 2:04 PM Matthew Zipkin ***@***.***>
wrote:
> *pinheadmz* left a comment (bitcoin/bitcoin#32548)
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889183588>
>
> @l3x3l <https://github.com/l3x3l> we release new major versions twice a
> year and 29 just came out. You opened your issue, please be patient now and
> work with the contributors until we have an answer.
>
> —
> Reply to
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889184446)
Ok, thank you.
How do I use pywallet to recover my wallet?
On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 2:04 PM Matthew Zipkin ***@***.***>
wrote:
> *pinheadmz* left a comment (bitcoin/bitcoin#32548)
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2889183588>
>
> @l3x3l <https://github.com/l3x3l> we release new major versions twice a
> year and 29 just came out. You opened your issue, please be patient now and
> work with the contributors until we have an answer.
>
> —
> Reply to
...
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Remove workaround for resolved MSVC bug":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32552#issuecomment-2889188342)
> > The MSVC bug was [fixed](https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/t/consteval-conversion-function-fails/1579014) in Visual Studio version 17.11, and the Bitcoin Core project now requires Visual Studio version [17.13](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32525) or later.
>
> It's still broken in 17.14.0. Going to submit another bug report.
https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/t/Bogus-C7595-error-on-valid-C20-code/10906093
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32552#issuecomment-2889188342)
> > The MSVC bug was [fixed](https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/t/consteval-conversion-function-fails/1579014) in Visual Studio version 17.11, and the Bitcoin Core project now requires Visual Studio version [17.13](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32525) or later.
>
> It's still broken in 17.14.0. Going to submit another bug report.
https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/t/Bogus-C7595-error-on-valid-C20-code/10906093
📝 l0rinc opened a pull request: "RFC: bench: replace embedded raw block with configurable block generator"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32554)
This is an alternative to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32457 which replaces the [current benchmark block 413567](https://mempool.space/block/413567) from 2016 with [block 784588](https://mempool.space/block/784588) from 2023.
Based on the feedback we rather want a generator, please let me know if this is a better approach so I can close either of the PRs.
----
Added `bench/block_generator.{h,cpp}` that builds a fully valid block at runtime and exposes a serialized and an in-mem
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32554)
This is an alternative to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32457 which replaces the [current benchmark block 413567](https://mempool.space/block/413567) from 2016 with [block 784588](https://mempool.space/block/784588) from 2023.
Based on the feedback we rather want a generator, please let me know if this is a better approach so I can close either of the PRs.
----
Added `bench/block_generator.{h,cpp}` that builds a fully valid block at runtime and exposes a serialized and an in-mem
...
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "bench: replace benchmark block with more representative one (413567 → 784588)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32457#issuecomment-2889225869)
Added a random block generator in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32554 - let me know if it makes sense so I can close this one.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32457#issuecomment-2889225869)
Added a random block generator in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32554 - let me know if it makes sense so I can close this one.
🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: Fix logging of wallet version"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32553#pullrequestreview-2849107295)
It would also be worth testing this in the compat test — mainly to create wallets on previous releases and verify that their version and last client are properly reported when opened by the latest release.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32553#pullrequestreview-2849107295)
It would also be worth testing this in the compat test — mainly to create wallets on previous releases and verify that their version and last client are properly reported when opened by the latest release.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Fix logging of wallet version":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32553#issuecomment-2889277192)
> It would also be worth testing this in the compat test — mainly to create a wallet on a previous release and verify that their version and last client are properly reported when opened by the latest release.
With legacy wallets removed, this wouldn't really be possible to test as descriptor wallets all are version 169900.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32553#issuecomment-2889277192)
> It would also be worth testing this in the compat test — mainly to create a wallet on a previous release and verify that their version and last client are properly reported when opened by the latest release.
With legacy wallets removed, this wouldn't really be possible to test as descriptor wallets all are version 169900.
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "[EXPERIMENTAL] Schnorr batch verification for blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29491#issuecomment-2889288127)
> It seems you were referring to the command I ran. I used ConnectBlockAllSchnorr microbenchmark. Run it with build/bin/bench_bitcoin -filter=ConnectBlockAllSchnorr . For IBD benchmarking, I'm doing bitcoind -assumevalid=0 -par={par} -stopatheight=880000(I'm testing 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 threads) with Benchkit.
I couldn't figure out how to test the different thread configurations for the microbench with Benchkit. Are you using Benchkit there as well or are you just setting `worker_threads_num` in
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29491#issuecomment-2889288127)
> It seems you were referring to the command I ran. I used ConnectBlockAllSchnorr microbenchmark. Run it with build/bin/bench_bitcoin -filter=ConnectBlockAllSchnorr . For IBD benchmarking, I'm doing bitcoind -assumevalid=0 -par={par} -stopatheight=880000(I'm testing 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 threads) with Benchkit.
I couldn't figure out how to test the different thread configurations for the microbench with Benchkit. Are you using Benchkit there as well or are you just setting `worker_threads_num` in
...
🤔 algreenofficial reviewed a pull request: "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#pullrequestreview-2849264922)
Support deposit payment
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#pullrequestreview-2849264922)
Support deposit payment
💬 bitcoin31888 commented on pull request "correct wrong assumptions in the contrib linearize data script":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31888#issuecomment-2889473592)
Consider the following bash script
`while true;do ./linearize-hashes.py linearize.cfg > hashlist.txt; ./linearize-data.py linearize.cfg; sleep 120; done`
This will continuously write out the bootstrap files, without this patch the files will continuously be truncated to zero length and then overwritten, that behavior is undesirable.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31888#issuecomment-2889473592)
Consider the following bash script
`while true;do ./linearize-hashes.py linearize.cfg > hashlist.txt; ./linearize-data.py linearize.cfg; sleep 120; done`
This will continuously write out the bootstrap files, without this patch the files will continuously be truncated to zero length and then overwritten, that behavior is undesirable.