Bitcoin Core 29.0 Released

[achow101]

There's a big debate about it in Technical Discussion as achow101 mentioned.
Some short videos from Matthew Kratter to get you up to speed on the matter more quickly:

From discussions I have read elsewhere, none of the videos he has posted are actually accurate and supposedly he is significantly overexaggerating/being hyperbolic. I cannot attest this as I have not watched them myself.

the announcement was made a couple days ago by the devs and the PR will be merged. We will see.

There is no such announcement that anything will happen. I would happen to know, as I am one of the maintainers.

The document that was published a few days ago was a draft of one that had intended to be "official" from the project, but it did not have enough agreement amongst contributors to adopt it as such. The author then published the draft. It is neither an announcement nor the project's "official" stance on the topic.


Regardless, continued discussion of OP_RETURN limits is off topic for this thread and I will be removing any further posts on the subject. Go to the myriad of other threads/forums where this is being discussed.

[headingnorth]

There's a big debate about it in Technical Discussion as achow101 mentioned.
Some short videos from Matthew Kratter to get you up to speed on the matter more quickly:

From discussions I have read elsewhere, none of the videos he has posted are actually accurate and supposedly he is significantly overexaggerating/being hyperbolic. I cannot attest this as I have not watched them myself.

the announcement was made a couple days ago by the devs and the PR will be merged. We will see.

There is no such announcement that anything will happen. I would happen to know, as I am one of the maintainers.

The document that was published a few days ago was a draft of one that had intended to be "official" from the project, but it did not have enough agreement amongst contributors to adopt it as such. The author then published the draft. It is neither an announcement nor the project's "official" stance on the topic.


Regardless, continued discussion of OP_RETURN limits is off topic for this thread and I will be removing any further posts on the subject. Go to the myriad of other threads/forums where this is being discussed.

Thank you for the info. It is a relief to hear that. I am hearing a lot of conflicting information right now.
Some articles came out yesterday claiming otherwise so I don't know what to believe.

Bitcoin Developers Plan OP_RETURN Limit Removal in Next Release
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-developers-plan-op-return-062522161.html

Bitcoin Core to unilaterally remove controversial OP-Return limit
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-core-unilaterally-remove-controversial-op-return-limit

It appears they are using dev comments on Github as their source but that is not an official announcement.
I guess the only way to know for sure is when the next release of Core comes out.

[Satofan44]

Thank you for the info. It is a relief to hear that. I am hearing a lot of conflicting information right now.
Some articles came out yesterday claiming otherwise so I don't know what to believe.

You can follow the discussion on the pull request but also in the email lists. That is much better than reading articles by under qualified writers that are posing as Bitcoin journalists.

[samnew009]

How come the latest version still won't support seed phrases?

[Shishir99]

How come the latest version still won't support seed phrases?

Well, my Bitcoin core was corrupted for some reason, and I had to uninstall it. I don't remember if there is an option to recover or create a new wallet with seed phrases. I assume most people on the internet do not use Bitcoin Core as a wallet. They just run the Bitcoin core to help the network. For wallet purposes, it is recommended to use Electrum.

There might be other software wallets with better services, but I find Electrum easy to use and safe, and I have been using it for a couple of years now.

According to ChatGPT

Bitcoin Core does support seed phrases, but not in the same way as other wallets like Electrum or hardware wallets do. Bitcoin Core typically uses a 12-word seed phrase for generating and backing up wallet keys, starting from version 0.21.0 (released in 2020).

Here’s how it works:

Bitcoin Core 0.21.0 and later includes an option to create a new wallet with a seed phrase, similar to how many other wallets operate.

The seed phrase is used to restore the wallet and its private keys, which is crucial if you ever need to recover your wallet.

In these versions, when creating a new wallet, you can either create a wallet normally (with no seed phrase) or you can select the option to generate a wallet with a seed phrase for better recovery options.

Bitcoin Core uses a BIP39 standard for seed phrases (12 or 24 words). However, you should keep in mind that Bitcoin Core isn’t primarily designed to be a user-friendly wallet like others, such as Electrum or mobile wallets, so some advanced users prefer to use it as a full node to interact with the Bitcoin network directly.

[Amph]

Anything about addressing the migration for countering quantum computer? Are we waiting 2030?

[Satofan44]

Anything about address migration for countering quantum computer? Are we waiting 2030?

No. For that you need to follow the BIP repository and the developer mailing list. Quantum resistance research is still in progress and it is unlikely that an implementation will be available or merged very soon.

[FCM0BIL3]

Anything about address migration for countering quantum computer? Are we waiting 2030?

No. For that you need to follow the BIP repository and the developer mailing list. Quantum resistance research is still in progress and it is unlikely that an implementation will be available or merged very soon.

Excuse my ignorance, what is the BIP about quantum research? And how can I stay up to date on this topic?

[d5000]

Excuse my ignorance, what is the BIP about quantum research? And how can I stay up to date on this topic?

There is only a draft BIP with the tentative number 360. I had opened a thread about that discussion.

It's however unlikely the BIP will be implemented soon. The problem is that the developers don't consider the current post quantum algorithms to be mature enough, and for example @achow101 (a Bitcoin developer) has stated in that thread that he'd prefer to choose a single, battle-tested algorithm, instead of letting the users decide which algorithm to use (that can be dangerous because many users have no idea about the safety of the different algorithms and their particular challenges and potential vulnerabilities).

I personally think that it is reasonable to wait a couple of years more, because quantum computers with hundreds of thousands of logical qubits would be needed to crack a Bitcoin key in several years, and millions if it should happen in a few days. That's imo at least a decade, if not a century away. (And afaik you can't just connect several 1000-qubit-machines to create a million-qubit supercomputer.) And until quantum computers can crack keys in a few minutes, there is a simple strategy to make coins "almost" quantum safe: don't re-use your addresses, and thus no public key is exposed.

The best way to stay up to date about development issues is to follow the Bitcoin-dev mailing list. There was a quite long discussion about the proposed BIP360.

[headingnorth]

Anything about addressing the migration for countering quantum computer? Are we waiting 2030?

The NIST have already released quantum-resistant replacements for the SHA-256 and EDCSA encryption used by bitcoin.
They are called FIPS 203, 204, 205. NIST is the US federal agency that originally created SHA and EDCSA encryption methods.

NIST Releases First 3 Finalized Post-Quantum Encryption Standards

• NIST has released a final set of encryption tools designed to withstand the attack of a quantum computer.
• These post-quantum encryption standards secure a wide range of electronic information, from confidential
email messages to e-commerce transactions that propel the modern economy.
• NIST is encouraging computer system administrators to begin transitioning to the new standards as soon as possible.


The question is, if and when the devs will start implementing them into bitcoin?

[Satofan44]

Anything about addressing the migration for countering quantum computer? Are we waiting 2030?

The NIST have already released quantum-resistant replacements for the SHA-256 and EDCSA encryption used by bitcoin.
They are called FIPS 203, 204, 205. NIST is the US federal agency that originally created SHA and EDCSA encryption methods.

NIST Releases First 3 Finalized Post-Quantum Encryption Standards

• NIST has released a final set of encryption tools designed to withstand the attack of a quantum computer.
• These post-quantum encryption standards secure a wide range of electronic information, from confidential
email messages to e-commerce transactions that propel the modern economy.
• NIST is encouraging computer system administrators to begin transitioning to the new standards as soon as possible.

The question is, if and when the devs will start implementing them into bitcoin?

The general view is that this field is still in its emergence and that more changes will come. Bitcoin is not the kind of technology that allows for making fatal errors with minimal consequences. The consequences of adopting the wrong algorithm could be devastating. Keep in mind that knowledge in this field is still lacking, i.e., there are too many unknowns. What seems secure today could become insecure tomorrow as quantum computers actually start getting used and we discover new ways of attacking encryption and hashes. Anyhow, some of these algorithms may be rejected for different reasons here but they may be useful somewhere else. Decentralized systems have different limitations and restrictions than centralized systems.  

Furthermore, Bitcoin is generally a very slow mover. I'd expect at least a few more years to pass before we start considering some "final candidates" for our replacements. Note that I am talking about final candidates for Bitcoin, not final candidates as given by NIST. Unless something forces us to act faster.

[headingnorth]

Anything about addressing the migration for countering quantum computer? Are we waiting 2030?

The NIST have already released quantum-resistant replacements for the SHA-256 and EDCSA encryption used by bitcoin.
They are called FIPS 203, 204, 205. NIST is the US federal agency that originally created SHA and EDCSA encryption methods.

NIST Releases First 3 Finalized Post-Quantum Encryption Standards

• NIST has released a final set of encryption tools designed to withstand the attack of a quantum computer.
• These post-quantum encryption standards secure a wide range of electronic information, from confidential
email messages to e-commerce transactions that propel the modern economy.
• NIST is encouraging computer system administrators to begin transitioning to the new standards as soon as possible.

The question is, if and when the devs will start implementing them into bitcoin?

The general view is that this field is still in its emergence and that more changes will come. Bitcoin is not the kind of technology that allows for making fatal errors with minimal consequences. The consequences of adopting the wrong algorithm could be devastating. Keep in mind that knowledge in this field is still lacking, i.e., there are too many unknowns. What seems secure today could become insecure tomorrow as quantum computers actually start getting used and we discover new ways of attacking encryption and hashes. Anyhow, some of these algorithms may be rejected for different reasons here but they may be useful somewhere else. Decentralized systems have different limitations and restrictions than centralized systems.  

Furthermore, Bitcoin is generally a very slow mover. I'd expect at least a few more years to pass before we start considering some "final candidates" for our replacements. Note that I am talking about final candidates for Bitcoin, not final candidates as given by NIST. Unless something forces us to act faster.

That makes sense. One of the questions concerning the process of future-proofing bitcoin
to me would be how to protect legacy addresses from a quantum attack, addresses where
the private keys may have been permanently lost.

Potential solutions:

1. Provide plenty of warning and time for people to move their bitcoin before permanently
"locking" legacy addresses. Of course, doing that would be highly controversial.

2. Do the above, but provide a means for the owner of a locked legacy address to prove
ownership by "signing" the bitcoin and restoring their access. I have no idea if that would even be possible.

3. Something else

[Satofan44]

That makes sense. One of the questions concerning the process of future-proofing bitcoin
to me would be how to protect legacy addresses from a quantum attack, addresses where
the private keys may have been permanently lost.

Potential solutions:

1. Provide plenty of warning and time for people to move their bitcoin before permanently
"locking" legacy addresses. Of course, doing that would be highly controversial.

2. Do the above, but provide a means for the owner of a locked legacy address to prove
ownership by "signing" the bitcoin and restoring their access. I have no idea if that would even be possible.

3. Something else

If you want to seriously discuss this, it would be better to open a new topic in Development & Technical Discussion as it would be off topic to continue this here. I've seen pieces of this discussion in many threads though.

[headingnorth]

That makes sense. One of the questions concerning the process of future-proofing bitcoin
to me would be how to protect legacy addresses from a quantum attack, addresses where
the private keys may have been permanently lost.

Potential solutions:

1. Provide plenty of warning and time for people to move their bitcoin before permanently
"locking" legacy addresses. Of course, doing that would be highly controversial.

2. Do the above, but provide a means for the owner of a locked legacy address to prove
ownership by "signing" the bitcoin and restoring their access. I have no idea if that would even be possible.

3. Something else

If you want to seriously discuss this, it would be better to open a new topic in Development & Technical Discussion as it would be off topic to continue this here. I've seen pieces of this discussion in many threads though.

Thanks I'll start another thread later.

[wombat328]

The release notes for all Bitcoin Core versions up to and including version 28.2 say it's "supported and extensively tested" on Windows 7 and newer (or something to that effect).  But I notice in the release notes for version 29 that statement has now changed to "Windows 10+".

Can someone confirm Windows 7 support was quietly dropped?  I tried googling, but can't find any discussion about that or any explicit statements to that effect.

I'm interested in the backstory behind this change in the release notes.  Was that edit intentional?  Was there any discussion behind it among devs?  Have there been any specific codechanges introduced which are known to break on the older OS?  Was there a team member who did testing on Win 7 who left or no longer has access to that hardware?  Has it already not been tested on that OS for a long time and the team just decided now to adjust the release notes to reflect that?

I recognize Microsoft dropped Win 7 support a long time ago.  I understand there are security implications to running it.  I know most of the rest of the industry has moved on and the corpus of software titles that run on it is thinning.  And I acknowledge dropping support at this stage wouldn't be unreasonable.  All that said, I always felt it somewhat a badge of honor and testament to permanence that Bitcoin in particular maintained support for such an "OG" OS.

I'm not interested in arguing merits of the OS here, just genuinely curious about the change and discussion or consensus leading to it.

Also, is there a reason the bitcoincore.org landing page still doesn't mention version 29 at https://bitcoincore.org/, and that bitcoin.org still links to 28.1 e.g. at https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/?  Is 29 still considered very-new/upgrade-cautiously?

[achow101]

The release notes for all Bitcoin Core versions up to and including version 28.2 say it's "supported and extensively tested" on Windows 7 and newer (or something to that effect).  But I notice in the release notes for version 29 that statement has now changed to "Windows 10+".

Can someone confirm Windows 7 support was quietly dropped?  I tried googling, but can't find any discussion about that or any explicit statements to that effect.

Yes. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31172

Also, is there a reason the bitcoincore.org landing page still doesn't mention version 29 at https://bitcoincore.org/,

It does. The downloads page always has the latest major version. The website front page with latest posts will have earlier posts (e.g. announcing new versions) moved down, and eventually off the page. Since 29.0 was released, there have been 3 posts so it is no longer at the top.

and that bitcoin.org still links to 28.1 e.g. at https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/? 

We have no control over bitcoin.org. The owner of that website updates everything whenever they feel like/get around to it, and it is often outdated.

Is 29 still considered very-new/upgrade-cautiously?

No

[haeyove]

Since Bitcoin Core 29.0 removed UPnP, do developers plan to introduce an alternative that is easier to use than manual port forwarding?

How much does enabling an onion service on Tor affect the performance or latency of Bitcoin Core network connections?

Is there any chance that a future version will bring back UPnP support, or will a safer alternative be introduced instead?

For users who encounter blockchain database corruption like Bestcoin-fan, is there any way to repair or recover the data without having to resync from 2009?

Why doesn’t Bitcoin Core support seed phrases in the same way as Electrum, even though most users are more familiar with that system?

Regarding quantum resistance: does Bitcoin Core have any plans to begin testing or experimenting with NIST’s post-quantum algorithms on testnet or in an experimental branch?

[Satofan44]

Since Bitcoin Core 29.0 removed UPnP, do developers plan to introduce an alternative that is easier to use than manual port forwarding?

The alternative has already been chosen, PCP with NAT-PMP as fallback.

How much does enabling an onion service on Tor affect the performance or latency of Bitcoin Core network connections?

Not any worse than general use of TOR. If you get bad relays occasionally it can slow down, otherwise it works good.

Is there any chance that a future version will bring back UPnP support, or will a safer alternative be introduced instead?

They have already been introduced, here is the context of PCP and NAT-PMP.  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31130. Much better and safer than UPnP.

For users who encounter blockchain database corruption like Bestcoin-fan, is there any way to repair or recover the data without having to resync from 2009?

No, usually reindex is the way to go. You are not supposed to encounter a corruption, if it happens frequently then you are doing something wrong (e.g., running Bitcoin Core on an USB connected HDD with an unstable connection).

Why doesn’t Bitcoin Core support seed phrases in the same way as Electrum, even though most users are more familiar with that system?

Here is your answer.

The primary reason for Bitcoin Core's wallet not supporting seed phrases is simplify because it predates such standards, evolves slowly (by being conservative about many changes), and until recently, introducing a feature for recovery from a seed would have been very complicated. This may well change at some point in the future.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/109621/what-do-they-mean-by-12-24-words-or-seed-words

Regarding quantum resistance: does Bitcoin Core have any plans to begin testing or experimenting with NIST’s post-quantum algorithms on testnet or in an experimental branch?

AFAIK no plans yet.