Skip to content

Enhance signet chain configuration in bitcoin.conf #30203

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Enhance signet chain configuration in bitcoin.conf #30203

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

BrandonOdiwuor
Copy link
Contributor

@BrandonOdiwuor BrandonOdiwuor commented May 30, 2024 •
edited
Loading

!! Draft for feedback on the approach !!

Follow up to #29838 following #29838 (comment) and #29838 (comment)

This PR builds upon the changes introduced in #29838, which enabled the ability to run multiple Signet instances with distinct data directories. Now, it extends this functionality by allowing users to configure Signet chain specifics directly in bitcoin.conf.

Users can define multiple Signet chains by specifying configurations (see below) and specifying which signet chain to run on the chain variable:

chain=signet_xxxx

[signet_xxxx]
seednode=x.x.x.x
signetchallenge=xxxxxxxxxx

[signet_yyyy]
seednode=y.y.y.y
signetchallenge=yyyyyyyyy

#main signet
[signet]
seednode=z.z.z.z
signetchallenge=zzzzzzzzzzzzz

@BrandonOdiwuor
Use distinct data dirs for each signet
ac1ccd5 
If the -signetchallenge argument is provided,
the hash-160 (first 8 characters) of the challenge is appended to the datadir name,
resulting in unique data directories for each signet, i.e., signet_XXXXXXX.
@BrandonOdiwuor
test: Add test for diffrent signet data directories
50f4ca2 
- Added a test to verify the Signet data directory when -signetchallenge=51 is correctly set to 'signet_da1745e9'.
- Added a test to verify the main Signet data directory is correctly set to 'signet'.
@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented May 30, 2024 •
edited
Loading

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

Code Coverage

For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.
A summary of reviews will appear here.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

  • #29775 (Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix by fjahr)
  • #29032 (signet: fixing mining for OP_TRUE challenge by Sjors)
  • #28802 (ArgsManager: support subcommand-specific options by ajtowns)

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.

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the
documentation.

Possibly this is due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being
incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest
commit of the target branch.

Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/25609155217

This was referenced May 31, 2024
Merged
Closed
Open
Merged
Merged
Open
@BrandonOdiwuor
Add GetSectionArg() Helper
8d8a728 
Add helper function to read signet_chain args from config
@BrandonOdiwuor
Enable signet chain configs
2f762ba 
This enables adding of signet chain configs in bitcoin.conf.
This enables running of multiple signets with diffrent configurations

i.e
chain=signet_xxxx

[signet_xxxx]
seednodes=x.x.x.x
signetchallenge=xxxxxxxxx
@BrandonOdiwuor BrandonOdiwuor force-pushed the add-signet-chain-configs branch from 1f87975 to 2f762ba Compare June 7, 2024 15:28
@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented Aug 7, 2024

🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented Nov 4, 2024

⌛ There hasn't been much activity lately and the patch still needs rebase. What is the status here?

  • Is it still relevant? ➡️ Please solve the conflicts to make it ready for review and to ensure the CI passes.
  • Is it no longer relevant? ➡️ Please close.
  • Did the author lose interest or time to work on this? ➡️ Please close it and mark it 'Up for grabs' with the label, so that it can be picked up in the future.

1 similar comment
@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented Feb 1, 2025

⌛ There hasn't been much activity lately and the patch still needs rebase. What is the status here?

  • Is it still relevant? ➡️ Please solve the conflicts to make it ready for review and to ensure the CI passes.
  • Is it no longer relevant? ➡️ Please close.
  • Did the author lose interest or time to work on this? ➡️ Please close it and mark it 'Up for grabs' with the label, so that it can be picked up in the future.

@fanquake
Copy link
Member

Closing this given it hasn't received any feedback. I think discussion can continue in (or this branched can be linked to from) #29838.

@fanquake fanquake closed this Feb 20, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
CI failed Needs rebase
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@BrandonOdiwuor @DrahtBot @fanquake