ListSinceBlock RPC Incorrectly Describes Effect Of Confirmations Argument

[jtremback]

Location: https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#listsinceblock

[saivann]

@jtremback Can you explain the issue you are seeing?

[harding]

@jtremback thanks for the report! I looked at the text we had for listsinceblock and found a minor issue. You can see the diff by clicking the following link: cf77e86

Can you check that link and see if it fixes the issue you saw, or (if not) give us some more details as @saivann requested? Thanks!

(We'll close this issue in about 48 hours from now if we haven't heard anything new.)

[harding]

Closing: no new activity. @jtremback: if you discover we haven't fixed the problem you found, please add a note with the details to this report (even though it's closed) and we'll reopen. Thanks!

[jtremback]

Hey sorry, I didn't see these.

It's still wrong, the best description is the one here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_Calls_list.

Get all transactions in blocks since block [blockhash], or all transactions if omitted. [target-confirmations] intentionally does not affect the list of returned transactions, but only affects the returned "lastblock" value.

The way it works is kind of confusing, but the net effect is that if you have a daemon set up looking for incoming bitcoins, it can keep asking for the block in the last call's lastblock, and it will only get back transactions with less than [target-confirmations]. This way you can continually get only the newest transactions, and start and stop the daemon at any time with confidence that it will get everything.

[harding]

@jtremback oh, thanks! Reopening the issue and I'll try to get it fixed in the next couple hours. Thanks!

[harding]

@jtremback I believe pull request #464 fixes this, so I'm going to close this issue. If you see anything wrong, please let me know on that pull. Thanks for your help!

[jtremback]

Cool, this is a better understanding than I had of how it works.