Incidentally, I do agree with you that some of the processes around Bitcoin Core are broken at the moment. There are a small number of developers doing very important and very good work (including people that you regularly attack), but sadly that good work is often drowned out by interminable PRs and irc discussions about politics instead of code.
It's striking that neither of the two people making the accusations or pushing for vasild to become maintainer have made *any* meaningful contributions to Bitcoin Core. And yet they make incessent demands on contributors' and maintainers' time and attention and then demand justification when they don't get that attention.
michaelfolkson: I haven't been involved with Brink or Bitcoin Core for over a year, and yet I continue to get tagged in PRs and irc with accusations that I've deliberately broken code, been "aggressive" or am involved in some shady cabal that controls Bitcoin Core.
bytes1440000: I haven't been involved in day-to-day Bitcoin Core development for over a year. The only reason I commented on #25923 was that I was tagged by vasild with the comment "a bug is a bug, even if it was done on purpose.". My response was to correct several mistakes made by both vasild and jonatack in their comments on that PR.
I will consider Bitcoin Core a project where fanquake and glozow can make whatever decisions they want without communicating why from now on. I didn't think it was that way but apparently it is
You're probably much better off using other software to parse the blocks directly, instead of issuing an RPC to Bitcoin Core for every transaction.
If one were to need to perform getrawtransaction on every transaction within the timechain. Where would the bottleneck arise? My current solution set rpcthreads=n where n is the number of CPU cores. From there I threaded my script to make multiple batch calls to Bitcoin Core with each batch containing [getrawtransaction(0), ... getrawtransaction(1000)]. This process still seems like it will takes several days.
hey guys, just to let you guys known that the bitcoin-qt 24.0.1 running on wayland is 'loosing' the gui, while the client survives for a while it silently dies and there is no error whatsoever. Running Ubuntu 22.04.1 LTS.
[gui] john-moffett opened pull request #696: Switch RPCConsole wallet selection to the one most recently opened/restored/created (master...2023_01_SwitchRPCConsoleToOpenedWallet) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/696
[bitcoin] achow101 closed pull request #26841: tests: Allow tests to use a loopback address other than 127.0.0.1 for more test runner parallelism (master...tests-allow-other-locahost) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26841
[bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #26841: tests: Allow tests to use a loopback address other than 127.0.0.1 for more test runner parallelism (master...tests-allow-other-locahost) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26841
[bitcoin] KolbyML opened pull request #26840: refactor: importpubkey, importprivkey, importaddress, importmulti, and importdescriptors rpc (master...refactor-imports) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26840
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #26823: refactor: Work around Werror=free-nonheap-object in AssumeCalculateMemPoolAncestors (master...2301-s390x-refactor-gcc-bug-📧) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26823
bitcoin/master 2cfe379 MarcoFalke: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#26823: refactor: Work around Werror=free-nonheap-obj...
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #26823: refactor: Work around Werror=free-nonheap-object in AssumeCalculateMemPoolAncestors (master...2301-s390x-refactor-gcc-bug-📧) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26823