Update chainparams for 24.0 release by ux3257 · Pull Request #25946 · bitcoin/bitcoin

ux3257 · 2022-08-28T17:34:14Z

Update chain parameters for upcoming major release.
See doc/release-process.md and #24418 for review instructions.

fixes #25921

src/chainparams.cpp

DrahtBot · 2022-08-29T07:29:47Z

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

#24737 (Remove taproot chain param by MarcoFalke)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

ekzyis · 2022-08-30T16:50:57Z

Approach ACK 0d3f35de4211287efb8e547fd32f74ea5d41fcfe

Compared chain params with my local chains:

main

Compared m_assumed_blockchain_size and m_assumed_chain_state_size: ?

Details

$ du -sh *
4,0K	banlist.dat
4,0K	banlist.json
4,0K	bitcoin.conf
4,0K	bitcoind.pid
450G	blocks
4,8G	chainstate
11M	debug.log
244K	fee_estimates.dat
7,0M	mempool.dat
4,0K	onion_v3_private_key
3,0M	peers.dat
4,0K	settings.json
$ python -c "print(450 * 1.1)"
495.00000000000006
$ python -c "print(4.8 * 1.1)"
5.28

Not sure where the difference of 1 to 496 for m_assumed_blockchain_size comes from but close, I guess.

Rounding 5.28 up would lead to 6 for m_assumed_chain_state_size.

Compared ChainTxData: OK

Details

$ bitcoin-cli getchaintxstats 4096 00000000000000000009c97098b5295f7e5f183ac811fb5d1534040adb93cabd
{
  "time": 1661697692,
  "txcount": 760120522,
  "window_final_block_hash": "00000000000000000009c97098b5295f7e5f183ac811fb5d1534040adb93cabd",
  "window_final_block_height": 751565,
  "window_block_count": 4096,
  "window_tx_count": 6886667,
  "window_interval": 2353770,
  "txrate": 2.925802860942233
}

Compared nMinimumChainWork: OK

Details

$ bitcoin-cli getblockheader 00000000000000000009c97098b5295f7e5f183ac811fb5d1534040adb93cabd
{
  "hash": "00000000000000000009c97098b5295f7e5f183ac811fb5d1534040adb93cabd",
  "confirmations": 310,
  "height": 751565,
  "version": 541065216,
  "versionHex": "20400000",
  "merkleroot": "d221de9319a48dc8556d7df26a4904fe187606c79609264bd66acbbbef1b94bf",
  "time": 1661697692,
  "mediantime": 1661693980,
  "nonce": 1083113272,
  "bits": "1709ed88",
  "difficulty": 28351606743493.77,
  "chainwork": "00000000000000000000000000000000000000003404ba0801921119f903495e",
  "nTx": 1404,
  "previousblockhash": "00000000000000000000f88dbf90c562b384e38b2df2b75c53f47d6abfd74781",
  "nextblockhash": "00000000000000000008ae3601b900bf442c108ccee05e8ddacb1c2fcc3f2928"
}

testnet3

Compared m_assumed_blockchain_size and m_assumed_chain_state_size: ?

Details

$ du -sh testnet3/
32G	testnet3/
$ python -c "print(32 * 1.1)"
35.2
$ du -sh testnet3/chainstate/
1,5G	testnet3/chainstate/
$ python -c "print(1.5 * 1.1)"
1.6500000000000001

Why 42 for m_assumed_blockchain_size? I would have set it to 35 or 36. But maybe there is something wrong with my node, since the previous value was already 40. I did IBD from test net yesterday.

2 for m_assumed_chain_state_size is okay due to rounding up.

Compared ChainTxData: OK

Details

$ bitcoin-cli getchaintxstats 4096 0000000000000004877fa2d36316398528de4f347df2f8a96f76613a298ce060
{
  "time": 1661705221,
  "txcount": 63531852,
  "window_final_block_hash": "0000000000000004877fa2d36316398528de4f347df2f8a96f76613a298ce060",
  "window_final_block_height": 2344474,
  "window_block_count": 4096,
  "window_tx_count": 122163,
  "window_interval": 1132062,
  "txrate": 0.1079119341520164
}

Compared nMinimumChainWork: OK

Details

$ bitcoin-cli getblockheader 0000000000000004877fa2d36316398528de4f347df2f8a96f76613a298ce060
{
  "hash": "0000000000000004877fa2d36316398528de4f347df2f8a96f76613a298ce060",
  "confirmations": 306,
  "height": 2344474,
  "version": 754475008,
  "versionHex": "2cf86000",
  "merkleroot": "3455093eee84e11b115e724df0eb032fe7c50bf21c95a0b294cbac93713632d3",
  "time": 1661705221,
  "mediantime": 1661701618,
  "nonce": 773522042,
  "bits": "1939f2c0",
  "difficulty": 74116169.84175669,
  "chainwork": "00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000076f6e7cbd0beade5d20",
  "nTx": 73,
  "previousblockhash": "000000000000002dd614890d5ef76b5b9c43dda7b1b7689325545bf768f55a08",
  "nextblockhash": "0000000000000032370212d9daeafb6e6db7728716e53b2e273421b68240bf09"
}

jonatack · 2022-08-31T12:23:55Z

Don't forget that this update should be reviewed with reindex-chainstate and assumevalid=0 to catch any issue causing rejection of blocks in the past history. I did it that for the last release and it took around 10 days on my laptop (2 x 2500 GHz), so if anyone plans to do it, don't hesitate to get started ;)

Sjors

tACK 767d825

Verified data using existing nodes and ran a full sync with -assumevalid=0 -minimumchainwork=00000000000000000000000000000000000000003404ba0801921119f903495e on a recent version of master now (and without checkpoints, for good measure, see #25725). Update, note to self: don't forget to set -dbcache to some big number if you don't want to wait forever.

Also ran a full sync on signet and testnet.

Sjors · 2022-08-31T14:41:47Z

src/chainparams.cpp

        nDefaultPort = 8333;
        nPruneAfterHeight = 100000;
-        m_assumed_blockchain_size = 460;
+        m_assumed_blockchain_size = 496;


Between three machine I get 449, 451 and 459 GB for the blocks dir, using du -h (blocks + chainstate dir). Multiplied by 1.1 that would make between 494 and 505 GB. So based on the methodology used in 23.0 your pick of 496 looks correct to me.

The instructions are outdated compared to what @laanwj did last time.

Sjors · 2022-08-31T14:46:59Z

src/chainparams.cpp

-            /* nTxCount */ 712531200,
-            /* dTxRate  */ 2.891036496010309,
+            // Data from RPC: getchaintxstats 4096 00000000000000000009c97098b5295f7e5f183ac811fb5d1534040adb93cabd
+            .nTime    = 1661697692,


That's indeed a nicer way to format this.

achow101

utACK 767d825

achow101 · 2022-08-31T20:24:10Z

src/chainparams.cpp

        nDefaultPort = 18333;
        nPruneAfterHeight = 1000;
-        m_assumed_blockchain_size = 40;
+        m_assumed_blockchain_size = 42;


On my node, it's only 32 GB. With 10% buffer, that's only 35.2, so this probably doesn't need to updated?

$ du -h --exclude=wallets --exclude=indexes testnet3/ 04:23:29 PM 188K testnet3/database 335M testnet3/blocks/index 30G testnet3/blocks 1.5G testnet3/chainstate 32G testnet3/

I also get 29G for the blocks, plus 0.5 for blocks/index. That's on a freshly synced node. Perhaps a node that went through many reorgs uses a bit more.

maflcko reviewed Aug 29, 2022

View reviewed changes

src/chainparams.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

maflcko added this to the 24.0 milestone Aug 29, 2022

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Aug 29, 2022

Remove taproot chain param #24737

Closed

ux3257 force-pushed the chainparams24 branch from 0d3f35d to 9f7752e Compare August 31, 2022 12:15

Update chainparams for 24.0 release

767d825

ux3257 force-pushed the chainparams24 branch from 9f7752e to 767d825 Compare August 31, 2022 12:32

Sjors approved these changes Aug 31, 2022

View reviewed changes

achow101 reviewed Aug 31, 2022

View reviewed changes

sipa mentioned this pull request Aug 31, 2022

Add headerssync tuning parameters optimization script to repo #25970

Merged

maflcko merged commit 447f50e into bitcoin:master Sep 6, 2022

bitcoin locked and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 6, 2023

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Update chainparams for 24.0 release#25946

Update chainparams for 24.0 release#25946
maflcko merged 1 commit intobitcoin:masterfrom
ux3257:chainparams24

ux3257 commented Aug 28, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Aug 29, 2022

Uh oh!

ekzyis commented Aug 30, 2022

Uh oh!

jonatack commented Aug 31, 2022

Uh oh!

Sjors left a comment •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Sjors Aug 31, 2022

Uh oh!

Sjors Aug 31, 2022

Uh oh!

achow101 left a comment

Uh oh!

achow101 Aug 31, 2022

Uh oh!

Sjors Sep 1, 2022

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

Conversation

ux3257 commented Aug 28, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Aug 29, 2022

Conflicts

Uh oh!

ekzyis commented Aug 30, 2022

main

testnet3

Uh oh!

jonatack commented Aug 31, 2022

Uh oh!

Sjors left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sjors Aug 31, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sjors Aug 31, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

achow101 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

achow101 Aug 31, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sjors Sep 1, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

ux3257 commented Aug 28, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Sjors left a comment •

edited

Loading