-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
listtransactions output is not in order #2853
Comments
"Chronological order" is a bit ambiguous when it comes to Bitcoin transactions, which don't have timestamps! Where is this documentation? |
I completely understand that, but it does not sort them even by received timestamp. |
I think this is working as intended. I cannot find any mention of "chronological order" in the RPC help. |
Here is a quote: Doesn't "most recent" mean chronological? And as i already mentioned, it's not clear that you need to put "*" to make it work right. |
The code won't be changed: if the sorting is changed then other people will complain, this is one of those things that can never suit everyone. |
0.10.0, this still doesn't work, even in the most basic fashion. Why did you close it? ~$ ./bitcoin-cli listtransactions "someuser" 100 | grep time The docs all lead users to believe it will return the most recent transactions sorted in chronological order. It also just so happens that that is going to be the most common use case. Why wouldn't you want to fix that? |
Tried "-zapwallettxes=1". No change. Note that this wallet is over 560M and has around 170,000 transactions in it. |
No change, please fix it. |
@laanwj There does appear to be some kind of bug in @burnside 's case, seeing as his new transactions are getting added before his older ones. So maybe it's appropriate to reopen this issue. @burnside @DmRomantsov I'm not sure I will be able to actually fix the issue without a wallet demonstrating the problem. Is this something you can somehow reproduce in a testnet wallet without sensitive keys? |
@DmRomantsov That's expected behaviour in the first place... In any case, output is not useful for debugging this. |
@luke-jr The same response format is obtained by working through RPC. Each time I have to turn over the list. This is not a critical issue, but most likely it fixes by couple lines of code. So I would appreciate it if you correct it. |
* Be more accurate with denom creation/consumption - Calculate and pass an actual balance needed to be denominated to CreateDenominated. - Drop GetNeedsToBeAnonymizedBalance and fix corresponding conditions: do not overshoot, do not check max pool amount - these conditions are handled outside. - Properly calculate various balance limits. - Handle edge case for the final denom. * Add an option to control max number of denoms created and respect it `-privatesenddenoms`, default is 300 Note: CreateDenominated failure is not an error anymore * Add few more stats to log in DoAutomaticDenominating
According to API docs this command is expected to return transactions in chronological order. It does not do that.
Please check out details here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205647.0
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: