Coinstats Index #19521

fjahr · 2020-07-14T23:58:39Z

This is part of the coinstats index project tracked in #18000

While the review of the new UTXO set hash algorithm (MuHash) takes longer recently #19328 was merged which added the possibility to run gettxoutsetinfo with a specific hash type. As the first type it added hash_type=none which skips the hashing of the UTXO set altogether. This alone did not make gettxoutsetinfo much faster but it allows the use of an index for the remaining coin statistics even before a new hashing algorithm has been added. Credit to Sjors for the idea to take this intermediate step.

Features summary:

Users can start their node with the option -coinstatsindex which syncs the index in the background
After the index is synced the user can use gettxoutsetinfo with hash_type=none or hash_type=muhash and will get the response instantly out of the index
The user can specify a height or block hash when calling gettxoutsetinfo to see coin statistics at a specific block height

DrahtBot · 2020-07-15T05:44:57Z

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

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

Improve Indices on pruned nodes via prune blockers #21726 (Add prune blockers to BlockManager by fjahr)
Fix assumeutxo crash due to invalid base_blockhash #21584 (Fix assumeutxo crash due to invalid base_blockhash by MarcoFalke)
rpc: getblockfrompeer #20295 (rpc: getblockfrompeer by Sjors)
Allow whitelisting outgoing connections #17167 (Allow whitelisting outgoing connections by luke-jr)
Make SER_GETHASH implicit for CHashWriter and SerializeHash #13462 (Make SER_GETHASH implicit for CHashWriter and SerializeHash by Empact)

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.

luke-jr · 2020-07-30T23:37:22Z

src/init.cpp

    if (gArgs.GetArg("-prune", 0)) {
        if (gArgs.GetBoolArg("-txindex", DEFAULT_TXINDEX))
            return InitError(_("Prune mode is incompatible with -txindex."));
+        if (gArgs.GetBoolArg("-coinstatsindex", DEFAULT_COINSTATSINDEX))
+            return InitError(_("Prune mode is incompatible with -coinstatsindex."));


It syncs over the whole blockchain, processing every block and saving state on each. That allows users to query the stats for every block height (a nice-to-have feature). It's the standard way BaseIndex currently works, although changing that would probably only require minimal effort. Potential users who I have talked to didn't really care much about this. But I will look into it if this again since progress is slow anyway currently.

As a potential user, it would be nice if I can at least turn on pruning after the index is generated, but I think that's for a separate PR.

I don't think it is necessary to disallow the coin stats index when pruning is enabled. The only reason that txindex disallows it is because txindex gets the transaction data by reading it off disk from the block files, so that is incompatible with pruning.

The coin stats index doesn't have the same problem. The only issue would be if there were a large reorg and it needed the undo data that has already been deleted. However this is an issue overall of pruned nodes so it shouldn't be a concern for the coin stats index.

PierreRochard

To reconcile total issuance with the spendable UTXO set, it would be helpful to sum up unspendable amounts.

src/index/coinstatsindex.cpp

PierreRochard · 2020-08-17T02:38:42Z

src/index/coinstatsindex.cpp

+struct DBVal {
+    uint64_t transaction_output_count;
+    uint64_t bogo_size;
+    CAmount total_amount;


If I understand the logic, total_amount is the net increase of coins due to this block?

I don't want to bloat your stats index, but I'd be interested in adding total_prevout_spent_amount, total_new_outputs_ex_coinbase_amount, and coinbase_amount to unpack total_amount.

It is the total amount of coins in the UTXO set at that block height. So it's accumulative rather than for this specific block. I added the other values in a draft commit, needs some cleanup but ready to test.

fjahr · 2020-08-17T22:18:57Z

@PierreRochard Thanks a lot for the comments! I am happy to include these values you requested and drafted that up in a new commit (will need another day for clean-up, docs, tests etc. but it should work already). I actually had done some similar work already for my blog post and was thinking about adding some more numbers myself, just opted to keep the changeset small at the end.

The RPC now has the values for every block by passing a verbose flag true after the block indicator (example is testnet):

$ src/bitcoin-cli gettxoutsetinfo 'none' 1800003 true
{
  "height": 1800003,
  "bestblock": "00000000000005359e00fe3d069b2999baaaf4d69a34492e543f9f82047ddd01",
  "txouts": 23990594,
  "bogosize": 1799579780,
  "disk_size": 1341237413,
  "total_amount": 20940531.15125810,
  "block_info": {
    "unspendable_amount": 0.00000000,
    "total_prevout_spent_amount": 0.21428778,
    "total_new_outputs_ex_coinbase_amount": 0.21428778,
    "coinbase_amount": 0.19531250
  }
}

I just noticed when I was almost done, that I wasn't sure if you would like these requested values to be cumulative or per-block. They are per-block now but it is trivial to change that. Actually, I could even do both. And another questions: should the unspendable output values be included or excluded from the other output values. Example: src/bitcoin-cli gettxoutsetinfo 'none' 0 true shows coinbase: 50.0 although that is unspendable. Same for the total_new_outputs_ex_coinbase_amount if there is an OP_RETURN for example. Just a question of the definition.

And I saw your request for the data dump on twitter. Will look into that as a follow-up :)

benthecarman · 2020-08-17T23:02:39Z

Concept ACK

Would be nice to be able to see the total_unspendable_amount up to that current block.

jonatack · 2020-08-18T07:52:02Z

Concept ACK

src/index/coinstatsindex.cpp

PierreRochard · 2020-08-20T23:39:24Z

values to be cumulative or per-block

I find it easier to do the cumulative sum in pandas than to back in to the per-block, but the answer also depends on the performance of the underlying index for aggregate queries. If this behaves like a SQL database and we want it to be normalized, it should be per-block, but I'm not religious about it.

fjahr · 2020-08-21T00:33:09Z

@PierreRochard Thanks for testing and further feedback. As I have written the tests today and did further cleanup I have found that I hadn't been really doing what you were looking for in the coinbase_amount. I was simply returning the block subsidy there.

I am pushing my fixes and test as a separate commit for now since you were already testing with the first version:

Adds total_unspendable_amount, the cumulative number as requested
Tests for different unspendables (except BIP30 because that is pretty hard to test)
Cleans up internal naming and removes some indirections that caused bugs in some scenarios (removes total_in and total_out for example)

I think the formula in block_sanity_check in the test is what should hold for each block and that is how you intended it, correct?

    assert_equal(
        block_info['total_prevout_spent_amount'] + block_subsidy,
        block_info['total_new_outputs_ex_coinbase_amount'] + block_info['coinbase_amount'] + block_info['unspendable_amount']
    )

I think the new code also fixes the BIP30 issue you discovered but I am still syncing the new version of the index with not-super-fast hardware so I will be able to check tomorrow.

PierreRochard · 2020-08-21T02:09:45Z

Yes, perfect, that equation is exactly right. I'll just delete the coinstats index file for now but does this indexing system have versioning/migrations?

benthecarman · 2020-08-21T05:19:26Z

From testnet:

gettxoutsetinfo  none 1807942 true
{
  "height": 1807942,
  "bestblock": "00000000374715d95667998b720a60bf8241182b279c913573f5e9e3fa54ba00",
  "txouts": 24100924,
  "bogosize": 1807675952,
  "disk_size": 1318392833,
  "total_amount": 20942081.72908999,
  "total_unspendable_amount": 875.88809751,
  "block_info": {
    "unspendable_amount": 0.00000000,
    "total_prevout_spent_amount": 16798.39641164,
    "total_new_outputs_ex_coinbase_amount": 16798.36929066,
    "coinbase_amount": 0.22243348
  }
}

Looking good!

Sjors · 2021-04-19T20:21:26Z

Narrator: it lost, which is a good opportunity to test a reorg in real life. For height 679824 I now get 157ec719407b64f9204f464fcc203b04d288ff837a3ce5ca63edeb20a2614903.

jonatack

Code review re-ACK 5f96d7d per git range-diff 13d27b4 07201d3 5f96d7d

jonatack · 2021-04-19T22:53:25Z

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp

                {
                    {"hash_type", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Default{"hash_serialized_2"}, "Which UTXO set hash should be calculated. Options: 'hash_serialized_2' (the legacy algorithm), 'muhash', 'none'."},
+                    {"hash_or_height", RPCArg::Type::NUM, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED, "The block hash or height of the target height (only available with coinstatsindex)", "", {"", "string or numeric"}},


nit if you have to rebase, this is the only help argument of the three that doesn't end with a period.

Suggested change

{"hash_or_height", RPCArg::Type::NUM, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED, "The block hash or height of the target height (only available with coinstatsindex)", "", {"", "string or numeric"}},

{"hash_or_height", RPCArg::Type::NUM, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED, "The block hash or height of the target height (only available with coinstatsindex).", "", {"", "string or numeric"}},

done in #21818

promag

I think it should error when hash_or_height is set but index is not available or use_index=false otherwise the result is misleading.

promag

Tested ACK 5f96d7d. Light code review ACK 5f96d7d.

Feel free to ignore nits. These and the above comment can be addressed later.

promag · 2021-04-21T09:08:26Z

src/node/coinstats.h

@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ enum class CoinStatsHashType {

 struct CCoinsStats
 {
+    CoinStatsHashType m_hash_type;


9c8a265

const CoinStatsHashType m_hash_type and drop constructor.

promag · 2021-04-21T09:33:26Z

src/node/coinstats.cpp

-        stats.nHeight = Assert(pindex)->nHeight;
+
+    if (!pindex) {
+        {


3f166ec

Remove unnecessary block.

promag · 2021-04-21T09:35:40Z

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp

@@ -140,6 +140,35 @@ static int ComputeNextBlockAndDepth(const CBlockIndex* tip, const CBlockIndex* b
    return blockindex == tip ? 1 : -1;
 }

+CBlockIndex* ParseHashOrHeight(const UniValue& param, ChainstateManager& chainman) {


3f166ec

nit, can be static and move { to new line.

fjahr · 2021-04-24T21:38:19Z

I think it should error when hash_or_height is set but index is not available or use_index=false otherwise the result is misleading.

There is already a check for that and it should error in the case you describe: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19521/files#diff-decae4be02fb8a47ab4557fe74a9cb853bdfa3ec0fa1b515c0a1e5de91f4ad0bR1168

If you found a scenario where it doesn't work, please let me know. There is at least a basic test for it here but maybe I have overlooked something: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19521/files#diff-a6434325d09a6df4b371513c837907dfc1a97cf540709def4bded9b2a17e3f49R115

laanwj · 2021-04-30T15:35:41Z

Code review ACK 5f96d7d

Namecoin tracks currency and name outputs separately in the UTXO stats. For the recent merge of the coinstats index in upstream bitcoin/bitcoin#19521, we modify the code now to keep this separate tracking also in the new index.

The coinstats index that was created upstream in bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 needs some updates for Xaya, since the genesis block reward is custom (the premine) and spendable.

maflcko · 2021-05-18T06:26:18Z

src/index/coinstatsindex.cpp

+            for (size_t j = 0; j < tx->vout.size(); ++j) {
+                const CTxOut& out{tx->vout[j]};
+                Coin coin{out, pindex->nHeight, tx->IsCoinBase()};
+                COutPoint outpoint{tx->GetHash(), static_cast<uint32_t>(j)};


could just make j of type uint32_t to avoid the cast?

maflcko · 2021-05-18T06:37:59Z

src/index/coinstatsindex.cpp

+                if (tx->IsCoinBase()) {
+                    m_block_coinbase_amount += coin.out.nValue;
+                } else {
+                    m_block_new_outputs_ex_coinbase_amount += coin.out.nValue;


why is this called m_block...? The value is not per block, but the total, like all other CAmount members!? It might be good to call all of them m_block, or m_total, or just skip the prefix for all of them.

Yepp, it used to be per block, but the names were not changed when the values were changed to track totals.

maflcko · 2021-05-18T06:44:05Z

src/index/coinstatsindex.cpp

+    m_muhash.Finalize(out);
+    value.second.muhash = out;
+
+    return m_db->Write(DBHeightKey(pindex->nHeight), value) && m_db->Write(DB_MUHASH, m_muhash);


Shouldn't this be a batch to ensure an atomic operation? Otherwise you may end up with a corrupt muhash?

maflcko · 2021-05-18T06:54:59Z

src/index/coinstatsindex.cpp

+        }
+    }
+
+    if (BaseIndex::Init()) {


Could use early return if (!...) return false; to avoid large multi-line nesting

maflcko · 2021-05-18T07:10:09Z

src/index/coinstatsindex.cpp

+
+        uint256 expected_block_hash{pindex->pprev->GetBlockHash()};
+        if (read_out.first != expected_block_hash) {
+            if (!m_db->Read(DBHashKey(expected_block_hash), read_out)) {


Under what circumstance would this recovery condition be hit? Also, shouldn't the error message mention that this condition failed as well?

This could happen if there is a reorg that the index has not picked up on yet, so the hash returned from the height index is not on the active chain anymore. I added a warning logging and changed the error() message to be more accurate.

maflcko · 2021-05-18T07:10:21Z

src/index/coinstatsindex.cpp

+
+        uint256 expected_block_hash{pindex->pprev->GetBlockHash()};
+        if (read_out.first != expected_block_hash) {
+            if (!m_db->Read(DBHashKey(expected_block_hash), read_out)) {


Under what circumstance would this recovery condition be hit? Also, shouldn't the error message mention that this condition failed as well?

maflcko · 2021-05-18T07:12:47Z

src/init.cpp

    if (args.GetArg("-prune", 0)) {
        if (args.GetBoolArg("-txindex", DEFAULT_TXINDEX))
            return InitError(_("Prune mode is incompatible with -txindex."));
+        if (args.GetBoolArg("-coinstatsindex", DEFAULT_COINSTATSINDEX))


missing {} 😅

Hopefully removed soon anyway with #21726 :)

maflcko · 2021-05-18T08:35:24Z

test/functional/feature_coinstatsindex.py

+        self.nodes[0].submitblock(ToHex(block))
+        self.sync_all()
+
+        self.wait_until(lambda: not try_rpc(-32603, "Unable to read UTXO set", index_node.gettxoutsetinfo, 'muhash'))


why is this needed? (sync_all should call syncwithvalidationinterface). Also, if it didn't, shouldn't the index RPC call syncwithvalidationinterface internally by itself, similar to how the wallet does it?

True, I missed the option to use the BlockUntilSynced... function from BaseIndex.

maflcko · 2021-05-18T08:40:13Z

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp

+                        {RPCResult::Type::OBJ, "block_info", "Info on amounts in the block at this block height (only available if coinstatsindex is used)",
+                        {
+                            {RPCResult::Type::STR_AMOUNT, "prevout_spent", ""},
+                            {RPCResult::Type::STR_AMOUNT, "coinbase", ""},


Empty string as documentation? Would be nice to explain this a bit better. Does it include unspendable outputs ...?

fjahr · 2021-05-24T18:17:18Z

Thanks @MarcoFalke , all comments should be addressed in #22047 aside from the init arg brackets which should be made redundant with #21726.

779e638 coinstats: Add comments for new coinstatsindex values (Fabian Jahr) 5b3d4e7 Index: Improve logging in coinstatsindex (Fabian Jahr) d4356d4 rpc: Block until synced if coinstatsindex is used in gettxoutsetinfo (Fabian Jahr) a5f6791 rpc: Add missing gettxoutsetinfo help docs (Fabian Jahr) 01386bf Index: Return early from failed coinstatsindex init (Fabian Jahr) 1e38423 index: Use batch writing in coinstatsindex WriteBlock (Fabian Jahr) fb65dde scripted-diff: Fix coinstats data member names (Fabian Jahr) 8ea8c92 index: Avoid unnecessary type casts in coinstatsindex (Fabian Jahr) Pull request description: This is a collection of smaller follow-ups to #19521, addressing several post-merge review comments. ACKs for top commit: Sjors: re-utACK 779e638 jonatack: re-ACK 779e638 diff since last review involves doc changes only; rebased to current master and verified clean debug build/no silent conflicts, unit tests, and feature_coinstatsindex functional test laanwj: Code review ACK 779e638 Talkless: re-utACK 779e638 after cosmetic changes. Tree-SHA512: cb0d038d230c582d7fe3041c89b1e04d39971fab3739d540c609cf826754c6c513b12ded08ac92180aec7a9d7a70114ece50357bd1a902de4adaae9f30b8d699

Summary: Division of MuHash objects are very expensive and multiplication relatively cheap. The whole idea of introducing and tracking numerator and denominators seperately as a representation of the internal state was so that divisions would be rare. So using divison in the Remove method did not make any sense and was just a silly mistake which is corrected here. This is a partial backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 | core#19521]] bitcoin/bitcoin@2e2648a Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Subscribers: Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D11168

This is part of the "UTXO Set Statistics" project in Core, which aims to make things like "checking coin supply" faster. This stuff, and related things in coinstats.cpp, have always been broken for Elements in the sense that we consider only explicit outputs and we ignore assets (so everything just gets added together to get a meaningless total). It probably wouldn't be too hard to restrict this to only consider policyAsset, but it's out of scope for a rebase IMO. Also, I think this situation is fine .. I don't understand the motivation for this or why Core is merging this when they refuse to merge an address index .. but I guess we'll see if there are users who care about this data and who care about it being meaningful on Elements. Also, apologies for the big diff -- there were some mechanical changes to deal with CT amounts, but most of the changes related to the difference in how fees are accounted for. While I'm not thrilled with this PR, its functional test is really good! So I think what I eventually came up with is internally consistent.

Summary: This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 | core#19521]] [2/17] bitcoin/bitcoin@9c8a265 Depends on D11589 Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, sdulfari Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, sdulfari Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D11596

Summary: This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 | core#19521]] [3/17] bitcoin/bitcoin@a8a46c4 Depends on D11596 Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, sdulfari Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, sdulfari Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D11597

Summary: Main commit bitcoin/bitcoin@dd58a4d > index: Add Coinstats index > > The index holds the values previously calculated in coinstats.cpp for each block, representing the state of the UTXO set at each height. ----- bitcoin/bitcoin@57a026c > test: Add unit test for Coinstats index ----- bitcoin/bitcoin@8ea8c92 > index: Avoid unnecessary type casts in coinstatsindex ----- Replace two database writes with a single atomic batch write, to avoid a risk of database corruption. See [[ bitcoin/bitcoin@dd58a4d#r634089179 | the corresponding review ]]. bitcoin/bitcoin@1e38423 > index: Use batch writing in coinstatsindex WriteBlock ----- This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 | core#19521]] [4 & 8/17] and [[bitcoin/bitcoin#22047 | core#22047]] [1 & 3/3] Depends on D11597 Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, sdulfari Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, sdulfari Subscribers: sdulfari Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D11598

Summary: This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 | core#19521]] [5/17] bitcoin/bitcoin@3c914d5 partial bitcoin/bitcoin@6a4c0c0 The functional test only checks that "-coinstatsindex" argument does not break anything. The rest of the functional test from commit 6a4c0c09ab is not yet applicable and will be added in the next commit. This includes also minor documentation fixups from [[ bitcoin/bitcoin#21818 | core#21818]] Depends on D11598 and D11595 Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Subscribers: Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D11599

Summary: This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 | core#19521]] [6 & 7/17] bitcoin/bitcoin@3f166ec bitcoin/bitcoin@6a4c0c0 (removal of 'disk_size' and 'transactions' from the index and test the RPC on specific heights) Notes: - in the source commits there is a call to `::ChainstateActive().ForceFlushStateToDisk();` added, but it is removed in a following commit in the same PR. This is obviously duplicated with the `active_chainstate.ForceFlushStateToDisk()` a few lines later, so I omitted it. - I added a mention about `disk_size` not being available when using the index in the doc of the RPC call. This is added later in the same PR in an unrelated commit in the source material. - the new `hash_or_height` RPC parameter needs to be added to the `CRPCConvertParam`table for the unit tests to pass. This is done in a later commit in the same PR in the source material Depends on D11599 Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Subscribers: Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D11600

Summary: This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 | core#19521]] [9 & 10/17] bitcoin/bitcoin@ca01bb8 bitcoin/bitcoin@655d929 Depends on D11600 Test Plan: `ninja && test/functional/test_runner.py rpc_misc` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Subscribers: Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D11604

Summary: This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 | core#19521]] [11/17] and [[bitcoin/bitcoin#22047 | core#22047]] [2/3] bitcoin/bitcoin@2501576 bitcoin/bitcoin@fb65dde Depends on D11604 Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D11605

Summary: This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 | core#19521]] [12/17] bitcoin/bitcoin@e0938c2 Note that there are minor differences in some amounts compared to the source commit due to differences in tx fees. Depends on D11605 Test Plan: `ninja check-functional` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D11606

Summary: This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 | core#19521]] [13/17] bitcoin/bitcoin@bb7788b Depends on D11606 Test Plan: `ninja check-functional` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D11607

Summary: This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 | core#19521]] [14/17] bitcoin/bitcoin@b936239 Depends on D11607 Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D11608

… test for coinstatsindex behavior in reorgs Summary: This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 | core#19521]] [15 & 16/17] bitcoin/bitcoin@90c966b bitcoin/bitcoin@23fe504 Co-authored-by: Sjors Provoost <sjors@sprovoost.nl> Depends on D11608 Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D11609

Summary: This concludes backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#19521 | core#19521]] [17/17] bitcoin/bitcoin@5f96d7d Depends on D11609 Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D11610

fanquake added the UTXO Db and Indexes label Jul 14, 2020

fjahr mentioned this pull request Jul 15, 2020

[WIP] Index for UTXO Set Statistics #18000

Closed

This was referenced Jul 15, 2020

Prune locks #19463

Draft

Add hash_type MUHASH for gettxoutsetinfo #19145

Merged

Test: wallet issue with orphaned rewards #18795

Merged

Use shared pointers only in validation interface #18354

Closed

fjahr force-pushed the csi-6-none-index branch from 0aaa960 to 0269ff8 Compare July 15, 2020 11:31

luke-jr reviewed Jul 30, 2020

View reviewed changes

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Aug 2, 2020

assumeutxo #15606

Closed

18 tasks

PierreRochard suggested changes Aug 17, 2020

View reviewed changes

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Aug 17, 2020

fjahr force-pushed the csi-6-none-index branch from fdcc2ca to 7139c17 Compare August 17, 2020 22:23

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label Aug 18, 2020

rootzoll mentioned this pull request Aug 20, 2020

Running the numbers .. validate show how many Bitcoins are issued raspiblitz/raspiblitz#1470

Closed

PierreRochard reviewed Aug 20, 2020

View reviewed changes

src/index/coinstatsindex.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fjahr force-pushed the csi-6-none-index branch from 7139c17 to b40efde Compare August 21, 2020 00:31

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Aug 21, 2020

Implement BIP 340-342 validation (Schnorr/taproot/tapscript) #17977

Closed

4 tasks

jonatack reviewed Apr 19, 2021

View reviewed changes

promag reviewed Apr 21, 2021

View reviewed changes

laanwj merged commit 2b45cf0 into bitcoin:master Apr 30, 2021

sidhujag pushed a commit to syscoin/syscoin that referenced this pull request May 1, 2021

Merge bitcoin#19521: Coinstats Index

ddf3334

jonatack mentioned this pull request May 1, 2021

doc: fixup -coinstatsindex help, update bitcoin.conf and files.md #21818

Merged

maflcko reviewed May 18, 2021

View reviewed changes

fjahr mentioned this pull request May 24, 2021

index, rpc: Coinstatsindex follow-ups #22047

Merged

bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 16, 2022

	{"hash_or_height", RPCArg::Type::NUM, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED, "The block hash or height of the target height (only available with coinstatsindex)", "", {"", "string or numeric"}},
	{"hash_or_height", RPCArg::Type::NUM, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED, "The block hash or height of the target height (only available with coinstatsindex).", "", {"", "string or numeric"}},

Coinstats Index #19521

Coinstats Index #19521

Conversation

fjahr commented Jul 14, 2020 • edited Loading

DrahtBot commented Jul 15, 2020 • edited Loading

Conflicts

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

PierreRochard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fjahr commented Aug 17, 2020

benthecarman commented Aug 17, 2020

jonatack commented Aug 18, 2020

PierreRochard commented Aug 20, 2020

fjahr commented Aug 21, 2020

PierreRochard commented Aug 21, 2020

benthecarman commented Aug 21, 2020

Sjors commented Apr 19, 2021

jonatack left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

promag left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

promag left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fjahr commented Apr 24, 2021

laanwj commented Apr 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fjahr commented May 24, 2021

fjahr commented Jul 14, 2020 •

edited

Loading

DrahtBot commented Jul 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading