## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Many objects created and functions called by passing `const
std::unique_ptr<Obj>& obj` instead directly passing `Obj& obj`
In some cases it is indeed needed, but in most cases it is just extra
complexity that is better to avoid.
Motivation:
- providing reference to object instead `unique_ptr` is giving warranty
that there's no `nullptr` and no need to keep it in mind
- value inside unique_ptr by reference can be changed externally and
instead `nullptr` it can turn to real object later (or in opposite)
- code is shorter but cleaner
Based on that this refactoring is useful as it reduces mental load when
reading or writing code.
`std::unique` should be used ONLY for owning object, but not for passing
it everywhere.
## What was done?
Replaced most of usages `std::unique_ptr<Obj>& obj` to `Obj& obj`.
Btw, in several cases implementation assumes that object can be nullptr
and replacement to reference is not possible.
Even using raw pointer is not possible, because the empty
std::unique_ptr can be initialized later somewhere in code.
For example, in `src/init.cpp` there's called `PeerManager::make` and
pass unique_ptr to the `node.llmq_ctx` that would be initialized way
later.
That is out of scope this PR.
List of cases, where reference to `std::unique_ptr` stayed as they are:
- `std::unique_ptr<LLMQContext>& llmq_ctx` in `PeerManagerImpl`,
`PeerManager` and `CDSNotificationInterface`
- `std::unique_ptr<CDeterministicMNManager>& dmnman` in
`CDSNotificationInterface`
Also `CChainState` have 3 references to `unique_ptr` that can't be
replaced too:
- `std::unique_ptr<llmq::CChainLocksHandler>& m_clhandler;`
- `std::unique_ptr<llmq::CInstantSendManager>& m_isman;`
- `std::unique_ptr<llmq::CQuorumBlockProcessor>&
m_quorum_block_processor;`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes, all of these changes - are internal APIs for Dash
Core developers only.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
b5795a788639305bab86a8b3f6b75d6ce81be083 Wallet: Add warning comments and assert to CWallet::DelAddressBook (Luke Dashjr)
6d2905f57aaeb3ec3b63d31043f7673ca10003f2 Wallet: Avoid unnecessary/redundant m_address_book lookups (Luke Dashjr)
c751d886f499257627b308b11ffaa51c22db6cc0 Wallet: Avoid treating change-in-the-addressbook as non-change everywhere (Luke Dashjr)
8e64b8c84bcbd63caea06f3af087af1f0609eaf5 Wallet: New FindAddressBookEntry method to filter out change entries (and skip ->second everywhere) (Luke Dashjr)
65b6bdc2b164343ec3cc3d32a0297daff9e24fec Wallet: Add CAddressBookData::IsChange which returns true iff label has never been set (Luke Dashjr)
144b2f85da4d51bf7d72b987888ddcaf5b429eed Wallet: Require usage of new CAddressBookData::setLabel to change label (Luke Dashjr)
b86cd155f6f661052042048aa7cfc2a397afe4f7 scripted-diff: Wallet: Rename mapAddressBook to m_address_book (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
In many places, our code assumes that presence in the address book indicates a non-change key, and absence of an entry in mapAddressBook indicates change.
This no longer holds true after #13756 (first released in 0.19) since it added a "used" DestData populated even for change addresses. Only avoid-reuse wallets should be affected by this issue.
Thankfully, populating DestData does not write a label to the database, so we can retroactively fix this (so long as the user didn't see the change address and manually assign it a real label).
Fixing it is accomplished by:
* Adding a new bool to CAddressBookData to track if the label has ever been assigned, either by loading one from the database, or by assigning one at runtime.
* `CAddressBookData::IsChange` and `CWallet::FindAddressBookEntry` are new methods to assist in excluding change from code that doesn't expect to see them.
* For safety in merging, `CAddressBookData::name` has been made read-only (the actual data is stored in `m_label`, a new private member, and can be changed only with `setLabel` which updates the `m_change` flag), and `mapAddressBook` has been renamed to `m_address_book` (to force old code to be rebased to compile).
A final commit also does some minor optimisation, avoiding redundant lookups in `m_address_book` when we already have a pointer to the `CAddressBookData`.
ACKs for top commit:
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK b5795a788639305bab86a8b3f6b75d6ce81be083. Pretty clever and nicely implemented fix!
jonatack:
ACK b5795a788639305bab86a8b3f6b75d6ce81be083 nice improvements -- code review, built/ran tests rebased on current master ff53433fe4ed06893d7c4 and tested manually with rpc/cli
jnewbery:
Good fix. utACK b5795a788.
Tree-SHA512: 40525185a0bcc1723f602243c269499ec86ecb298fecb5ef24d626bbdd5e3efece86cdb1084ad7eebf7eeaf251db4a6e056bcd25bc8457b417fcbb53d032ebf0
d3bc18408146e91b3836f72360ff6fa2420b6887 doc: update release notes with getaddressinfo label deprecation (Jon Atack)
72af93f36479dc12d795f1d05fa3d8fbd9b293bd test: getaddressinfo label deprecation test (Jon Atack)
d48875fa20d0b71b978cb3d1f85dd9ec14e664cc rpc: deprecate getaddressinfo label field (Jon Atack)
dc0cabeda49a7edbfa71df22846721b6f6224aea test: remove getaddressinfo label tests (Jon Atack)
c7654af6f830577a54df12b5d65df93532db0dc2 doc: address pr17578 review feedback (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
This PR builds on #17578 (now merged) and deprecates the rpc getaddressinfo `label` field. The deprecated behavior can be re-enabled by starting bitcoind with `-deprecatedrpc=label`.
See http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2019-11-22.html#l-622 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17283#issuecomment-554458001 for more context.
Reviewers: This PR may be tested manually by building, then running bitcoind with and without the `-deprecatedrpc=label` flag while verifying the rpc getaddressinfo output and help text.
Next step: add support for multiple labels.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK d3bc18408146e91b3836f72360ff6fa2420b6887
laanwj:
ACK d3bc18408146e91b3836f72360ff6fa2420b6887
meshcollider:
utACK d3bc18408146e91b3836f72360ff6fa2420b6887
Tree-SHA512: f954402884ec54977def332c8160fd892f289b0d2aee1e91fed9ac3220f7e5b1f7fc6421b84cc7a5c824a0582eca4e6fc194e4e33ddd378c733c8941ac45f56d
fa5c6622c8ecf1954e7177888ad8c97a77b16fb7 doc: Use proper RPC help syntax in importmulti (MarcoFalke)
fab63111bec73859597e6ce0986f76e5e9959091 doc: Remove duplicate "comment" from listsinceblock RPC help (MarcoFalke)
fa04cd6cfc0330b62058ed169d621e08108dc87e doc: Properly document proxy_randomize_credentials as bool in getnetworkinfo (MarcoFalke)
fa9dec7c395897e8dbbb6de7a16ec5185a609d41 doc: Fix syntax error (trailing square bracket) in finalizepsbt (MarcoFalke)
faff5a60ed328d4c5fdef253e8935a351cb57bd0 doc: Fix syntax error (trailing square bracket) in walletprocesspsbt (MarcoFalke)
fa0545901daad32b09511cc61c4af1400c48088d doc: Add missing "optional" to "long" estimaterawfee RPC help (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This fixes documentation of the following RPCs:
* estimaterawfee (hidden)
* https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/0.19.0/rpc/wallet/walletprocesspsbt/
* https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/0.19.0/rpc/rawtransactions/finalizepsbt/
* https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/0.19.0/rpc/network/getnetworkinfo/
* https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/0.19.0/rpc/wallet/listsinceblock/
* https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/0.19.0/rpc/wallet/importmulti/
<!-- Also, it comes with a scripted diff to normalize whitespace and type names. (Previous attempts: #14601 and #14459)
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fa5c6622c8ecf1954e7177888ad8c97a77b16fb7
Tree-SHA512: 5a10956e12f8ce23e93a2ce8bafd6cae759d8a21658f79397e3bfce3e4aabd9658bdbd40acde49323dca958a9befee7166654994208c182dd60f483109621e17
3e32499909ca8127baaa9b40ad113b25ee151bbd Change example addresses to bech32 (Yusuf Sahin HAMZA)
Pull request description:
This is a follow-up PR to #18197 that fixes RPCExamples.
Fixes#18185.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 3e32499909ca8127baaa9b40ad113b25ee151bbd
jonatack:
ACK 3e32499
Tree-SHA512: c7a6410ef8b6e169016c2c5eac3e6b9501caabd0e8a0871ec31e56bfc44589f056d3f5cb55b5a13bba36f6c15136c2352f883e30e4dcc0997ffd36b27f9173b9
rpc: update validateaddress RPCExamples to bech32
also contains the following changes:
- rpc: factor out example bech32 address for RPCExamples
- doc: update developer notes wrt RPCExamples addresses
(mention the EXAMPLE_ADDRESS constant as an example for an invalid bech32
address suitable for RPCExamples help documentation)
3dc27a15242a22b5301904375e5880372e9b7f4d doc: Add internal interface conventions to developer notes (Russell Yanofsky)
1dca9dc4c772fa0a4ec52c4d88b7cd3d243aea7b refactor: Change createWallet, fillPSBT argument order (Russell Yanofsky)
96dfe5ced64979e51649d20555aa182defc80119 refactor: Change Chain::broadcastTransaction param order (Russell Yanofsky)
6ceb21909ce66b7b4762a855889acd46bb6b77f3 refactor: Rename Chain::Notifications methods to be consistent with other interfaces methods (Russell Yanofsky)
1c2ab1a6d29f2c6c065dae4f4a4e2ad1286311b3 refactor: Rename Node::disconnect methods (Russell Yanofsky)
77e4b0657298c715c835d8d2eb11e173852e6815 refactor: Get rid of Wallet::IsWalletFlagSet method (Russell Yanofsky)
Pull request description:
This PR is part of the [process separation project](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/10).
This PR doesn't change behavior at all, it just cleans up code in [`src/interfaces`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/src/interfaces) to simplify #10102, and [documents](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/blob/pr/ipc-conv/doc/developer-notes.md#internal-interface-guidelines) coding conventions there better
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
re-ACK 3dc27a15242a22b5301904375e5880372e9b7f4d, the only change since the [previous](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18278#pullrequestreview-372582146) review is rebasing.
MarcoFalke:
ACK 3dc27a15242a22b5301904375e5880372e9b7f4d 🕍
Tree-SHA512: 62e6a0f2488e3924e559d2074ed460b92e7a0a5d98eab492221cb20d59d04bbe32aef2a8aeba5e4ea9168cfa91acd5bc973dce6677be0180bd7a919354df53ed
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Dash does not have `sethdseed`, but the help mentioned it.
## What was done?
Switched to `upgradetohd`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
10efc0487c442bccb0e4a9ac29452af1592a3cf2 Templatize ValidationState instead of subclassing (Jeffrey Czyz)
10e85d4adc9b7dbbda63e00195e0a962f51e4d2c Remove ValidationState's constructor (Jeffrey Czyz)
0aed17ef2892478c28cd660e53223c6dd1dc0187 Refactor FormatStateMessage into ValidationState (Jeffrey Czyz)
Pull request description:
This removes boilerplate code in the subclasses which otherwise only
differ by the result type.
The subclassing was introduced in a27a295.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 10efc0487c442bccb0e4a9ac29452af1592a3cf2 🐱
ajtowns:
ACK 10efc0487c442bccb0e4a9ac29452af1592a3cf2 -- looks good to me
jonatack:
ACK 10efc048 code review, build/tests green, nice cleanup
Tree-SHA512: 765dd52dde7d49b9a5c6d99d97c96f4492673e2aed0b0604faa88db0308fa4500a26bf755cca0b896be283874096c215932e1110a2d01dc012cd36a5fce58a42
e09c701e0110350f78366fb837308c086b6503c0 scripted-diff: Bump copyright of files changed in 2020 (MarcoFalke)
6cbe6209646db8914b87bf6edbc18c6031a16f1e scripted-diff: Replace CCriticalSection with RecursiveMutex (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
`RecursiveMutex` better clarifies that the mutex is recursive, see also the standard library naming: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/recursive_mutex
For that reason, and to avoid different people asking me the same question repeatedly (e.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15932#pullrequestreview-339175124 ), remove the outdated alias `CCriticalSection` with a scripted-diff
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
pls see individual commits
fixes an issue (reported by @strophy recently) where mixing wouldn't
start in a fresh new wallet
not 100% sure but
[99867eb](99867eb769)
might also fix#5350 reported by @splawik21 so this could also be a v19
backport candidate
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
mixing on testnet
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
8925df86c4df16b1070343fef8e4d238f3cc3bd1 doc: update release notes (Jon Atack)
8bb405bbadf11391ccba7b334b4cfe66dc85b390 test: getaddressinfo labels purpose deprecation test (Jon Atack)
60aba1f2f11529add115d963d05599130288ae28 rpc: simplify getaddressinfo labels, deprecate previous behavior (Jon Atack)
7851f14ccf2bcd1e9b2ad48e5e08881be06d9d21 rpc: incorporate review feedback from PR 17283 (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
This PR builds on #17283 (now merged) and is followed by #17585.
It modifies the value returned by rpc getaddressinfo `labels` to an array of label name strings and deprecates the previous behavior of returning an array of JSON hash structures containing label `name` and address `purpose` key/value pairs.
before
```
"labels": [
{
"name": "DOUBLE SPEND",
"purpose": "receive"
}
```
after
```
"labels": [
"DOUBLE SPEND"
]
```
The deprecated behavior can be re-enabled by starting bitcoind with `-deprecatedrpc=labelspurpose`.
For context, see:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17283#issuecomment-554458001
- http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2019-12-13.html#l-425 (lines 425-427)
- http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2019-11-22.html#l-622
Reviewers: This PR may be tested manually by building, then running bitcoind with and without the `-deprecatedrpc=labelspurpose` flag while verifying the rpc getaddressinfo help text and `labels` output.
Next steps: deprecate the rpc getaddressinfo `label` field (EDIT: done in #17585) and add support for multiple labels per address. This PR will unblock those.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
reACK 8925df8
promag:
Code review ACK 8925df86c4df16b1070343fef8e4d238f3cc3bd1.
meshcollider:
Code review ACK 8925df86c4df16b1070343fef8e4d238f3cc3bd1
Tree-SHA512: c2b717209996da32b6484de7bb8800e7048410f9ce6afdb3e02a6866bd4a8f2c730f905fca27b10b877b91cf407f546e69e8c4feb9cd934325a6c71c166bd438
eadd1304c81e0b89178e4cc7630bd31650850c85 tests: Add a test for funding with sufficient preset inputs and subtractFeeFromOutputs (Andrew Chow)
ff330badd45067cb520b1cfa1844f60a4c9f2031 Default to bnb_used = false as there are many cases where BnB is not used (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
#17290 introduced a bug where, when we had preset inputs that covered the amount being sent and subtractFeeFrromOutputs was being used, transaction funding would result in a `Fee exceeds maximum configured by -maxtxfee` error. This was happening because we weren't setting `bnb_used = false` when the preset inputs were used as it should have been. This resulted in a too high fee because the change would go to fees accidentally.
Apparently this particular case doesn't have a test, so I've added one as well.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
ACK eadd130. I can't get this new test to fail on macOS (without this PR). It passes whether or not I compile with `--enable-debug`. It does fail on Ubuntu. Yay undefined behavior... Anyway, it's a useful test.
fanquake:
ACK eadd1304c81e0b89178e4cc7630bd31650850c85
instagibbs:
utACK eadd1304c8
Tree-SHA512: 7286c321f78666eea558cc591174630d210263594df41cab1065417510591ee514ade0e1d0cec8af09a785757da68de82592b013e8fe8d4966cec3254368706e
b007efdf1910db1d38671d6435d2f379bbf847d2 Allow BnB when subtract fee from outputs (Andrew Chow)
db15e71e79b24601853703bebd1c92f4b523fd5f Use BnB when preset inputs are selected (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Currently we explicitly disable BnB when there are preset inputs selected or when the subtract fee from outputs option is enabled. This PR enables BnB for both cases.
Kind of an alternative to #17246 (implements the subtract fee from outputs part of it) and borrows a test from there too.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
reACK b007efdf19
Sjors:
re-ACK b007efdf1910db1d38671d6435d2f379bbf847d2
Tree-SHA512: 933276b09b2fa2ab43db7f0b98762f06f6f5fa8606195f96aca9fa1cb71ae4ee7156028dd482b1cada82ddd0996a9daf12ea5c152589fdf192cd96cbc51e99df
33f5fc32e5bfbe1e89c4d20ce455bcc6dc194151 test: add rpc getaddressinfo labels test coverage (Jon Atack)
0f3539ac6d772fc646b5f184fa1efe77bf632f6a test: add listlabels test in wallet_labels.py (Jon Atack)
1388de83900eaced906d369fe9e8887ae74b2dcf rpc: add getaddressinfo code documentation (Jon Atack)
2ee0cb3330ccf70f0540cb42370796e32eff1569 rpc: update getaddressinfo RPCExamples to bech32 (Jon Atack)
8d1ed0c263f8cdff7189f02040b5d02238d93da0 rpc: clarify label vs labels in getaddressinfo RPCHelpman (Jon Atack)
5a0ed850700dfb19167d40b38f80313bd5e427ca rpc: improve getaddressinfo RPCHelpman content (Jon Atack)
70cda342cd20d0e0cd9f28405457544036968f2d rpc: improve getaddressinfo RPCHelpman formatting (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
This PR is a continuation of the work in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12892.
Main motivations:
- There is currently no test coverage for the getaddressinfo `labels` response. Coverage here is a prerequisite before deprecating the `label` response or adding multiple labels per address.
- `bitcoin-cli help getaddressinfo` returns a few content errors, difficult-to-read formatting, and no explanation why it returns both `label` and `labels` and how they relate, which can be confusing for application developers.
Changes by order of commits:
- [x] improve/fix getaddressinfo RPCHelpman layout formatting
- [x] improve/fix getaddressinfo RPCHelpman content
- [x] clarify the `label` and `labels` fields in getaddressinfo RPCHelpman
- [x] update getaddressinfo RPCExamples addresses to bech32
- [x] add getaddressinfo code docs
- [x] add a `listlabels` test assertion in wallet_labels.py
- [x] add missing getaddressinfo `labels` test coverage and improve the existing `label` tests
Here are gists of the CLI help output:
[`bitcoin-cli help getaddressinfo` before this PR](https://gist.github.com/jonatack/022af5221a85c069780359a22643c810)
[`bitcoin-cli help getaddressinfo` after this PR](https://gist.github.com/jonatack/4ee5f6abc62a3d99269570206a5f90ba)
It seems we ought to begin a deprecation process for the getaddressinfo `label` field? If yes, I have a follow-up ready. _--> EDIT: Deprecation follow-ups #17578 and #17585 now build on this PR._
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
Re-ACK 33f5fc32e5bfbe1e89c4d20ce455bcc6dc194151
jnewbery:
ACK 33f5fc32e5bfbe1e89c4d20ce455bcc6dc194151.
Tree-SHA512: a001aa863090ec2566a31059477945b1c303ebeb430b33472f8b150e420fa5742fc33bca9d95571746395b607f43f6078dd5b53e238ac1f3fc648b51c8f79a07
4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527 Expand on wallet_balance.py comment from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16766\#issuecomment-527563982 (Jeremy Rubin)
91f3073f08aff395dd813296bf99fd8ccc81bb27 Update release notes to mention changes to IsTrusted and impact on wallet (Jeremy Rubin)
8f174ef112199aa4e98d756039855cc561687c2e Systematize style of IsTrusted single line if (Jeremy Rubin)
b49dcbedf79613f0e0f61bfd742ed265213ed280 update variable naming conventions for IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin)
5ffe0d144923f365cb1c2fad181eca15d1668692 Update comment in test/functional/wallet_balance.py (Jeremy Rubin)
a550c58267f50c59c2eea1d46edaa5019a8ad5d8 Update wallet_balance.py test to reflect new behavior (Jeremy Rubin)
5dd7da4ccd1354f09e2d00bab29288db0d5665d0 Reuse trustedParents in looped calls to IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin)
595f09d6de7f1b94428cdd1310777aa6a4c584e5 Cache tx Trust per-call to avoid DoS (Jeremy Rubin)
dce032ce294fe0d531770f540b1de00dc1d13f4b Make IsTrusted scan parents recursively (Jeremy Rubin)
Pull request description:
This slightly modifies the behavior of IsTrusted to recursively check the parents of a transaction. Otherwise, it's possible that a parent is not IsTrusted but a child is. If a parent is not trusted, then a child should not be either.
This recursive scan can be a little expensive, so ~it might be beneficial to have a way of caching IsTrusted state, but this is a little complex because various conditions can change between calls to IsTrusted (e.g., re-org).~ I added a cache which works per call/across calls, but does not store the results semi-permanently. Which reduces DoS risk of this change. There is no risk of untrusted parents causing a resource exploitation, as we immediately return once that is detected.
This is a change that came up as a bug-fix esque change while working on OP_SECURETHEBAG. You can see the branch where this change is important here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...JeremyRubin:stb-with-rpc?expand=1. Essentially, without this change, we can be tricked into accepting an OP_SECURETHEBAG output because we don't properly check the parents. As this was a change which, on its own, was not dependent on OP_SECURETHEBAG, I broke it out as I felt the change stands on its own by fixing a long standing wallet bug.
The test wallet_balance.py has been corrected to meet the new behavior. The below comment, reproduced, explains what the issue is and the edge cases that can arise before this change.
# Before `test_balance()`, we have had two nodes with a balance of 50
# each and then we:
#
# 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01
# 2) Sent 60 from node B to node A with fee 0.01
#
# Then we check the balances:
#
# 1) As is
# 2) With transaction 2 from above with 2x the fee
#
# Prior to #16766, in this situation, the node would immediately report
# a balance of 30 on node B as unconfirmed and trusted.
#
# After #16766, we show that balance as unconfirmed.
#
# The balance is indeed "trusted" and "confirmed" insofar as removing
# the mempool transactions would return at least that much money. But
# the algorithm after #16766 marks it as unconfirmed because the 'taint'
# tracking of transaction trust for summing balances doesn't consider
# which inputs belong to a user. In this case, the change output in
# question could be "destroyed" by replace the 1st transaction above.
#
# The post #16766 behavior is correct; we shouldn't be treating those
# funds as confirmed. If you want to rely on that specific UTXO existing
# which has given you that balance, you cannot, as a third party
# spending the other input would destroy that unconfirmed.
#
# For example, if the test transactions were:
#
# 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01
# 2) Sent 10 from node B to node A with fee 0.01
#
# Then our node would report a confirmed balance of 40 + 50 - 10 = 80
# BTC, which is more than would be available if transaction 1 were
# replaced.
The release notes have been updated to note the new behavior.
ACKs for top commit:
ariard:
Code Review ACK 4671fc3, maybe extend DoS protection in a follow-up PR.
fjahr:
Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527. Changes since last review: 2 new commits adding suggested release note and python test comment, also a clean rebase with no changes to the earlier commits. The PR description is more comprehensive now, too. Looks good!
promag:
Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e669da8b8781f0cbefee43cb9acd527.
Tree-SHA512: 6b183ff425304fef49724290053514cb2770f4a2350dcb83660ef24af5c54f7c4c2c345b0f62bba60eb2d2f70625ee61a7fab76a7f491bb5a84be5c4cc86b92f
fa37e798b2660d8e44e31c944a257b55aeef5de2 wallet: Replace confusing getAdjustedTime() with GetTime() (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Setting `nTimeReceived` to the adjusted time has several issues:
* `m_best_block_time` is set to the "unadjusted" time, thus a comparison of the two times is like comparing apples to oranges. In the worst case this opens up an attack vector where remote peers can force a premature re-broadcast of wallet txs.
* The RPC documentation for `"timereceived"` doesn't mention that the network adjusted time is used, possibly confusing users when the time reported by RPC is off by a few seconds compared to their local timestamp.
Fix all issues by replacing the call with `GetTime()`. Also a style fix: Use non-narrowing integer conversion in the RPC method.
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
Code-review ACK fa37e798b2660d8e44e31c944a257b55aeef5de2
shaavan:
crACK fa37e798b2660d8e44e31c944a257b55aeef5de2
Tree-SHA512: 8d020ba400521246b7aed4b6c41319fc70552e8c69e929a5994500375466a9edac02a0ae64b803dbc6695df22276489561a23bd6e030c44c97d288f7b9b2b3fa
cd68594dcdadc195bd2ea9394fa04edfdbdf1149 Only check the hash of transactions loaded from disk (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
It feels unnecessary to do a full `CheckTransaction` for every transaction saved in the wallet. It should not be possible for an invalid transaction to get into the wallet in the first place, and if there is any disk corruption, the hash check will catch it.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK cd68594dcdadc195bd2ea9394fa04edfdbdf1149
laanwj:
ACK cd68594dcdadc195bd2ea9394fa04edfdbdf1149
promag:
ACK cd68594dcdadc195bd2ea9394fa04edfdbdf1149, AFAICT the check is not needed, hash comparison gives data integrity.
Tree-SHA512: 5b2e719f76097cfbf125392db6cc6c764355c81f0b7a5b60aee4b06af1afcca80cfd38a3cf5307fd9e2c1afc405f8321929a4552943099a8161e6762965451fb
ea4cc3a7b36a9c77dbf0aff439da3ef0ea58e6e4 Truly decouple wallet from chainparams for -fallbackfee (Jorge Timón)
Pull request description:
Before it was 0 by default for main and 20000 for test and regtest.
Now it is 0 by default for all chains, thus there's no need to call Params().
Also now the default for main is properly documented.
Suggestion for release notes:
-fallbackfee was 0 (disabled) by default for the main chain, but 20000 by default for the test chains. Now it is 0 by default for all chains. Testnet and regtest users will have to add fallbackfee=20000 to their configuration if they weren't setting it and they want it to keep working like before.
Should I propose them to the wiki for the release notes or only after merge?
For more context, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16402#issuecomment-515701042
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK ea4cc3a7b36a9c77dbf0aff439da3ef0ea58e6e4
Tree-SHA512: fdfaba5d813da4221e405e0988bef44f3856d10f897a94f9614386d14b7716f4326ab8a6646e26d41ef3f4fa61b936191e216b1b605e9ab0520b0657fc162e6c
----
Co-Authored-By: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
eb7b78165966f2c79da71b993c4c4d793e37297f modify p2p_feefilter test to catch rounding error (Gregory Sanders)
6a51f7951716d6d6fc0f9b56028f3a0dd02b61c8 Disallow implicit conversion for CFeeRate constructor (Gregory Sanders)
8e59af55aaf1b196575084bce2448af02d97d745 feefilter: Compute the absolute fee rather than stored rate to match mempool acceptance logic (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
This means we will use the rounding-down behavior in `GetFee` to match both mempool acceptance and wallet logic, with minimal changes.
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16499
Replacement PR for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16500
ACKs for top commit:
ajtowns:
ACK eb7b78165966f2c79da71b993c4c4d793e37297f code review only
naumenkogs:
utACK eb7b78165966f2c79da71b993c4c4d793e37297f
achow101:
re ACK eb7b78165966f2c79da71b993c4c4d793e37297f
promag:
ACK eb7b78165966f2c79da71b993c4c4d793e37297f.
Tree-SHA512: 484a11c8f0e825f0c983b1f7e71cf6252b1bba6858194abfe4c088da3bae8a418ec539ef6c4181bf30940e277a95c08d493595d59dfcc6ddf77c65b05563dd7e
d44a261acff40c1c8727d3cc0106bde65a6416d0 Fix issues when `walletdir` is root directory (unknown)
Pull request description:
+ Remove one character less from wallet path
+ After testing lot of random strings with special chars in `wallet_name`, I found that the issue was not related to special characters in the name. Reviewing PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21907 helped me resolve the issue.
**Real issue**: If the path mentioned in `walletdir` is a root directory, first character of the wallet name or path is removed
**Solution**: `if` statement to check `walletdir` is a root directory
Fixes: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21510https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21501
Related PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20080
Consider the wallet directories `w1` and `w2` saved in `D:\`. Run `bitcoind.exe -walletdir=D:\`, Results for `bitcoin-cli.exe listwalletdir`:
Before this PR:
```
{
"wallets": [
{
"name": "1"
},
{
"name": "2"
}
]
}
```
After this PR:
```
"wallets": [
{
"name": "w1"
},
{
"name": "w2"
}
]
}
```
ACKs for top commit:
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK d44a261acff40c1c8727d3cc0106bde65a6416d0
meshcollider:
utACK d44a261acff40c1c8727d3cc0106bde65a6416d0
Tree-SHA512: b09b00f727407e3771c8694861dae1bfd29d97a0d51ddcb5d9c0111dc618b3fff2f75829cbb4361c54457ee564e94fcefd9e2928262a1c918a2b6bbad724eb55
5e146022daa4336de94447e5b8e5418296286927 wallet: fix scanning progress calculation for single block range (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
If the blockchain is rescanned for a single block (i.e. start and stop hashes are equal, and with that also the estimated start/stop verification progress values) the progress calculation could lead to a NaN value caused by a division by zero (0.0/0.0), resulting in an invalid JSON result for the `getwalletinfo` RPC. This PR fixes this behaviour by setting the progress to zero in that special case. Fixes#20297.
The behaviour can easily be reproduced by continuously running single block rescans in an endless loop, e.g. via
```bash
#!/bin/bash
while true
do
bitcoin-cli rescanblockchain $(bitcoin-cli getblockcount)
done
```
and at the same time perform some `getwalletinfo` RPCs.
On the master branch, this leads to frequent invalid responses (tested on mainchain):
```
$ bitcoin-cli getwalletinfo
error: couldn't parse reply from server
$ curl --user `cat ~/.bitcoin/.cookie` --data-binary '{"jsonrpc": "1.0", "id": "curltest", "method": "getwalletinfo", "params": []}' -H 'content-type: text/plain;' http://127.0.0.1:8332/
{"result":{"walletname":"","walletversion":169900,"format":"bdb","balance":0.00000000,"unconfirmed_balance":0.00000000,"immature_balance":0.00000000,"txcount":0,"keypoololdest":1603677276,"keypoolsize":1000,"hdseedid":"3196e33ecb47c7130e6ca60f2f895f9259860dca","keypoolsize_hd_internal":1000,"paytxfee":0.00000000,"private_keys_enabled":true,"avoid_reuse":false,"scanning":{"duration":0,"progress":},"descriptors":false},"error":null,"id":"curltest"}
```
(note that missing value for "progress" in the JSON result).
On the PR branch, the behaviour doesn't occur anymore.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 5e146022daa4336de94447e5b8e5418296286927
promag:
Core review ACK 5e146022daa4336de94447e5b8e5418296286927.
Tree-SHA512: f0e6aad5a6cd08b36c5fe820fff0ef26663229b39169a4dbe757f3c795a41cf5c69c9dc90efe7515675ae1059307f8971123781a0514d10704123a6f28b125ab
29c9e2c2d2015ade47ed4497926363dea3f9c59b wallet: Do not iterate a directory if having an error while accessing it (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
On Windows when `ListDatabases` tries to iterate any system folder, e.g., "System Volume Information", it falls into an infinite loop.
This PR fixes this bug. Now the `debug.log` contains:
```
2021-05-12T09:07:53Z ListDatabases: Access is denied D:/System Volume Information -- skipping.
```
An easy way to reproduce the bug and test this PR is to pass the `-walletdir=D:\` command-line option, and run the `listwalletdir` RPC, or File -> Open Wallet in the GUI menu.
Fixes#20081.
Fixes#21136.
Fixes#21904.
Also https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/99243/listwalletdir-access-is-denied-d-system-volume-information
ACKs for top commit:
prayank23:
ACK 29c9e2c2d2
promag:
Code review ACK 29c9e2c2d2015ade47ed4497926363dea3f9c59b.
meshcollider:
Code review ACK 29c9e2c2d2015ade47ed4497926363dea3f9c59b
Tree-SHA512: b851c88e6d09626f4cb81acc2fa59a563b2aee64582963285715bf785c64b872e8bf738aa6b27bdbaf4c3e5c8565c2dc2c802135f9aa1f48b4b913435bc5d793
804ac106313eb52d3a86f42c681b42acf90974c8 remove unnecessary newline from initWarning() argument (Larry Ruane)
Pull request description:
Run: `src/bitcoind -wallet=nosuchfile`
Without this patch, `debug.log` contains:
```
2021-03-23T21:19:16Z init message: Verifying wallet(s)...
2021-03-23T21:19:16Z Warning: Skipping -wallet path that doesn't exist. Failed to load database path '/home/larry/.bitcoin/wallets/nosuchfile'. Path does not exist.
2021-03-23T21:19:16Z init message: Loading banlist...
```
With this patch, the empty line isn't present. This PR fixes a similar problem with `src/bitcoind -conf=nosuchfile`
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
cr ACK 804ac106313eb52d3a86f42c681b42acf90974c8: patch looks correct!
jarolrod:
tACK 804ac106313eb52d3a86f42c681b42acf90974c8, nice catch!
theStack:
Code-review ACK 804ac106313eb52d3a86f42c681b42acf90974c8
Tree-SHA512: dfcbaaa72ca24ac40233ac56840cfba8827853711d3df6e229ce940686f2ebf8bf0560bafcaa73a4d82d179a5050af0d3cabdc47b3b1dfd6aaadf718a6635f11
ad57fb756b1c2df625790bd9c296ec28daa93740 wallet: Add BerkeleyDB version sanity check at init time (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
Pull request description:
Detect version conflicts between the run-time BerkeleyDB library and the one used during compilation.
This is very unsafe (can result in anything from crashes to corruption) so shut down when one is detected.
ACKs for top commit:
decryp2kanon:
utACK ad57fb7
achow101:
ACK ad57fb756b1c2df625790bd9c296ec28daa93740
theStack:
utACK ad57fb756b1c2df625790bd9c296ec28daa93740
meshcollider:
Code review ACK ad57fb756b1c2df625790bd9c296ec28daa93740
Tree-SHA512: 99cd7d836bffbdeb3d4e14053f7139cc85a6d42e631a3f9a3058a848042446b364faee127500f5acb374616e6a61ab2bedebfac1ba9bc993b4d6227114c2a6c2
e1e1442f3eadc1d139380e71c1b60b86d8d6bdee Activate no-privkey -> ISMINE_WATCH_ONLY behavior for LegacySPKM only (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
Slight cleanup following https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16944
This should allow future scriptpubkeymans to transparently work, since the current plan is to have ismine always be spendable.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK e1e1442f3eadc1d139380e71c1b60b86d8d6bdee
Sjors:
Code review ACK e1e1442f3eadc1d139380e71c1b60b86d8d6bdee
meshcollider:
Code review ACK e1e1442f3eadc1d139380e71c1b60b86d8d6bdee
Tree-SHA512: c0a86587d33b8b1646494a5cb0bf8681ee4a88e6913918157746943a0996b501903e0e6ee954cf04154c1e0faee0cbb375c74ca789f46ba9244eb5296632b042
This backports also includes extra changes that were missing from bitcoin#14711
They are required, otherwise impossible to remove validaion.h dependency as it meant in #17138
b96ed0396294fc4fa89d83ceab6bc169dd09f002 [wallet] Remove pruning check for -rescan option (John Newbery)
eea462de9c652dca556ad241d2126b10790f67f8 [wallet] Remove package limit config access from wallet (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
Removes wallet access to `-limitancestorcount`, `-limitdescendantcount` and `-prune`:
- `-limitancestorcount` and `-limitdescendantcount` are now accessed with a method `getPackageLimits` in the `Chain` interface.
- `-prune` is not required. It was only used in wallet component initiation to prevent running `-rescan` when pruning was enabled. This check is not required.
Partially addresses #17137.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
Tested ACK b96ed0396294fc4fa89d83ceab6bc169dd09f002
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK b96ed0396294fc4fa89d83ceab6bc169dd09f002
promag:
Code review ACK b96ed0396294fc4fa89d83ceab6bc169dd09f002.
ariard:
ACK b96ed03, check there isn't left anymore wallet access to node arguments.
Tree-SHA512: 90c8e3e083acbd37724f1bccf63dab642cf9ae95cc5e684872a67443ae048b4fdbf57b52ea47c5a1da6489fd277278fe2d9bbe95e17f3d4965a1a0fbdeb815bf
19a354b11f85a3c6c81ff83bf702bf7a40cf5046 Output a descriptor in createmultisig and addmultisigaddress (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Give a descriptor from `createmultisig` and `addmultisigaddress`.
Extracted from #16528 with `addmultisgaddress` and tests added.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
tACK 19a354b11f85a3c6c81ff83bf702bf7a40cf5046
MarcoFalke:
ACK 19a354b11f85a3c6c81ff83bf702bf7a40cf5046
promag:
Code review ACK 19a354b11f85a3c6c81ff83bf702bf7a40cf5046.
meshcollider:
utACK 19a354b11f85a3c6c81ff83bf702bf7a40cf5046
Tree-SHA512: e813125fbbc358ea8d45b1748de16a29a94efd83175b748fb8fa3b0bfc8e783ed36b6c554d84f5d4ead1ba252a83a3e937b6c3f75da7b8d3b4e55f94d6013771
1b41c2c8a126ef4be183e1d800a17d85cab8837b test: improve gettransaction test coverage (Jon Atack)
0f34f54888f680bfbe7a29ac278636d7178a99bb rpc: fix regression in gettransaction (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
Closes#16872.
PR #16866 renamed the `decode` argument in gettransaction to `verbose` to make it more consistent with other RPC calls like getrawtransaction. However, it inadvertently overloaded the "details" field when `verbose` is passed. The result is that the original "details" field is no longer returned correctly, which seems to be a breaking API change.
This PR:
- takes the simplest path to restoring the "details" field by renaming the decoded one back to "decoded" while leaving the `verbose` argument for API consistency, which was the main intent of #16866,
- addresses [this comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16185#discussion_r320740413) by mentioning in the RPC help that the new decoded field is equivalent to decoderawtransaction, and
- updates the help, functional test, and release note.
Reviewers, to test this manually, build and run `bitcoin-cli help gettransaction` and `bitcoin-cli gettransaction <wallet txid> false true`, and verify that the command returns both `details` and `decoded` fields.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
tACK 1b41c2c8a126ef4be183e1d800a17d85cab8837b
Tree-SHA512: 287edd5db7ed58fe8b548975aba58628bd45ed708b28f40174f10a35a455d89f796fbf27430aa881fc376f47aabda8803f74d4d100683bd86577a02279091cf3
7dee8f48088c75ab0e51be60679505f8ce570919 [wallet] Rename 'decode' argument in gettransaction method to 'verbose' (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
This makes the RPC method consistent with other RPC methods that have a
'verbose' option.
Change the name of the return object from 'decoded' to details.
Update help text.
ACKs for top commit:
promag:
ACK 7dee8f48088c75ab0e51be60679505f8ce570919.
meshcollider:
Code review ACK 7dee8f48088c75ab0e51be60679505f8ce570919
0xB10C:
ACK 7dee8f48088c75ab0e51be60679505f8ce570919: reviewed code
Tree-SHA512: a3a62265c8e6e914591f3b3b9f9dd4f42240dc8dab9cbac6ed8d8b8319b6cc847db2ad1689d5440c162e0698f31e39fc6b868ed918b2f62879d61b9865cae66b
9965940e35c445ccded55510348af228ff22f0e9 doc: Add release note for the new gettransaction argument (darosior)
b8b3f0435a2837d3897e9e232ef6ca839ce74eb8 tests: Add a new functional test for gettransaction (darosior)
7f3bb247a811582d1aa4805d8e601c19808dc7ba gettransaction: add an argument to decode the transaction (darosior)
Pull request description:
This PR adds a new parameter to the `gettransaction` call : `decode`. If set to `true`, it will add a new `decoded` field to the response. This mimics the behavior of `getrawtransaction`'s `verbose` argument to avoid using 2 calls if we want to decode a wallet transaction (`gettransaction` then `decoderawtransaction`).
Fix#16181 .
ACKs for top commit:
meshcollider:
re-utACK 9965940e35c445ccded55510348af228ff22f0e9
Tree-SHA512: bcb6b4bd252b3488d6afc77659c499c2ad99fd58661eb24b6a2e17014c74f22e47fde70e00fedb4f4754915786622ad02483b2cf2c4dea0ab0eb4ac8276dbeee
0fb2e69815 CreateTransaction: Assume minimum p2sh-p2wpkh spend size for unknown change (Gregory Sanders)
b06483c96a Remove stale comment in CalculateMaximumSignedInputSize (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
This is triggered anytime a fundraw type call(psbt or legacy) is used with a change output address that the wallet doesn't know how to sign for.
This regression was added in 6a34ff5335 since BnB coin selection actually cares about this.
The fix is to assume the smallest typical spend, a P2SH-P2WPKH, which is calculated using a "prototype" dummy signature flow. Future work could generalize this infrastructure to get estimated sizes of inputs for a variety of types.
I also removed a comment which I believe is stale and misleading.
Tree-SHA512: c7e2be189e524f81a7aa4454ad9370cefba715e3781f1e462c8bab77e4d27540191419029e3ebda11e3744c0703271e479dcd560d05e4d470048d9633e34da16
5eb20f81d9 Consistently use ParseHashV to validate hash inputs in rpc (Ben Woosley)
Pull request description:
ParseHashV validates the length and encoding of the string and throws
an informative RPC error on failure, which is as good or better than
these alternative calls.
Note I switched ParseHashV to check string length first, because
IsHex tests that the length is even, and an error like:
"must be of length 64 (not 63, for X)" is much more informative than
"must be hexadecimal string (not X)" in that case.
Split from #13420
Tree-SHA512: f0786b41c0d7793ff76e4b2bb35547873070bbf7561d510029e8edb93f59176277efcd4d183b3185532ea69fc0bbbf3dbe9e19362e8017007ae9d51266cd78ae
b7b9f6e4cee262004643e2fe03d56cb47fdbf5c2 Remove p2pEnabled from Chain interface (Antoine Riard)
Pull request description:
RPC server starts in warmup mode, it can't process yet calls, then follows connection manager initialization and finally RPC server get out of warmup mode. RPC calls shouldn't be able to get P2P disabled errors because once we initialize g_connman it's not unset until shutdown, after RPC server has been stopped.
@mzumsande comment in #15713 let me thought that `p2pEnabled` was maybe useless, `g_connman` is always initialized before RPC server is getting out of warmup. These checks against P2P state were introduced in 5b446dd5b1.
ACKs for top commit:
promag:
ACK b7b9f6e4cee262004643e2fe03d56cb47fdbf5c2
jnewbery:
ACK b7b9f6e4cee262004643e2fe03d56cb47fdbf5c2
Tree-SHA512: 4de2b9fc496bf8347ff5cc645848a5a44c8ca7596cd134f17f3088f5f8262d1d88b8e2a052df93e309ec9a81956a808df17a9eb9f10d4f4d693c95d607fe3561
80ba4241a6773590f6b2c18dae758097b5adc02e extract min & max depth onto coin control (Amiti Uttarwar)
Pull request description:
- Refactor `AvailableCoins` to pull min & max depths from coin control.
- Add `m_max_depth` to coin control to support this.
- Addresses issue https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15823, see thread for further details.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 80ba4241a6773590f6b2c18dae758097b5adc02e
Tree-SHA512: 8f7c0aa90b3bc3667baf6741b1da2829f3919e1df92ae097d86c6b239f0c024eb410d7100e6251ea8fc49d022fb5a1214bf79b0f8b0014945b7784b2311647d1
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
RPC help has a wrongly generated RPC help output in CLI and online help:
https://dashcore.readme.io/docs/core-api-ref-remote-procedure-calls-wallet#getwalletinfo
New version:
```
...
"hdaccounts" : [ (json array)
{ (json object)
"hdaccountindex" : n, (numeric) the index of the account
"hdexternalkeyindex" : n, (numeric) current external childkey index
"hdinternalkeyindex" : n (numeric) current internal childkey index
},
...
],
...
```
against old version:
```
...
"" : [ (json array)
{ (json object)
"hdaccountindex" : n, (numeric) the index of the account
"hdexternalkeyindex" : n, (numeric) current external childkey index
"hdinternalkeyindex" : n (numeric) current internal childkey index
},
...
],
...
```
## What was done?
Add a missing name `hdaccounts` for that key for `getwalletinfo` RPC
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run a command `help getwalletinfo` for old and for new versions.
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes. It doesn't change rpc, only change text description
(help).
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
914923d125f5d17b39b4dc05f666d130e80a68b2 Add setting as known type (Peter Bushnell)
Pull request description:
When loading old wallets I get "Unknown wallet records" showing up in the log file. The key that is adding to the unknown record count is "setting", this is a known key removed in the 0.6 release of Bitcoin in the commit linked below. The "setting" key is not known to the wallet anymore, like "acentry" which is not added as an unknown record, but the "setting" key was used in previous versions of Bitcoin.
972060ce0e (diff-8094838580e1bb7a3bb8fc78dcebc733)
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 914923d125f5d17b39b4dc05f666d130e80a68b2, this code change is straightforward enough and I don't think it makes sense to warn about this key being present.
meshcollider:
ACK 914923d125f5d17b39b4dc05f666d130e80a68b2
Tree-SHA512: 6346690c05cebae2dcd868512322bf5250f6fbd07abb5e747065444185d3f69e19e1a99e3f38d6e34535ffd6979b2297100ba9c7da8e45ca792598eded5ae0d3
