To make space for new words, it's time to eliminate a word that has fallen into disuse: accounts. We make it fade into the night of time.
RIP accounts.
Completes #12952
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->Note to reviewers: This pull request conflicts with the following ones:
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.
Bon débarras!
Concept ACK, looks good in a first skim of commits.
Rebased.
V0.17 is branched. This is now ready for review/merge.
I think the general agreement towards this is clear but Concept ACK regardless. Will try and find time to review this soon
Perec redacted to remove any potential copyright material from git logs 😢
rebased
GetLegacyBalance() is never called with an account argument.
Remove the argument and helper functions.
Function no longer used.
Function no longer used.
Function no longer used.
Function no longer used.
reordering wallet transactions.
Accounting entries are deprecated. Don't rewrite them to the wallet
database when re-ordering transactions.
Function no longer used.
Function no longer used.
No long used
Function no longer used.
Deletes:
- ReadAccount
- WriteAccount
- EraseAccount
- DeleteLabel
No longer used.
No longer used.
No longer used
Care to fix #14023 (review)?
Thanks @laanwj & @promag . Typo fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13825/commits/85ec8d645f9aace793514ab36d6cc7a5382f3e7c
re-utACK 85ec8d6
utACK 85ec8d645f9aace793514ab36d6cc7a5382f3e7c
utACK .. but mostly I just like the PR text.
utACK 85ec8d645f9aace793514ab36d6cc7a5382f3e7c
Some of the changes for the "GetLabelDestination" commit (53038b47) are actually in the following "Delete unused account functions" commit, causing "make all" to fail. Otherwise looks good.
4 utACKs. Rather than fix the build break in the intermediate commit, I think it makes sense to just squash everything down to one commit (I only split it up so granularly to aid reviews). @laanwj - if you agree, I'm happy for you to squash these down when you merge, or I can do it. Let me know.
This was squashed to c9c32e6b844fc79467b7e24c6c916142a0d08484 and merged
yep
I should probably have left the [doc] commit separate, nah
Hi, this is a real pity that you have removed the "accounts" functionality. Many platforms have been designed around this as to "move" and "sendfrom" between accounts Is there a discussion somewhere where one can see the reasoning behind removing this functionality?
Hi, this is a real pity that you have removed the "accounts" functionality. Many platforms have been designed around this as to "move" and "sendfrom" between accounts Is there a discussion somewhere where one can see the reasoning behind removing this functionality?
I fully agree with you. This is close minded mentality, not looking at all side of the story, only at green users and miners side.
I need this CORE functionality!!!
What should I do now? Downgrade my version ? How odd. -deprecated=accounts options seems without effect.
What if I want one wallet with multiple addresses and move funds in between addresses? You guys just erased a whole functionality without replacement?
@inzider The accounts functionality we had almost certainly did not what you would expect it to do. It never supported moving coins between addresses, for example. You may be interested in the more modern multiwallet feature that supports having multiple truly independent wallets simultaneously.
I appreciate the suggestion and this is exactly what I DON'T want. I'm looking at one wallet with multiple addresses as in the core code.
I'm using a code that is based on bitcoin (multichain) and sendfrom does exactly that! Moving fund from one address to the other in the same wallet.
This is useful is MANY situation - I could write a novel on it.
As the core command document say: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_calls_list
Along the way it almost certainly seems some people did not understand the purpose of it, and just removed it...
Oh well, I just downgraded my version and it works now,... This strongly is inappropriate at my opinion.
I don't understand use-case described #13825 (comment), since sendfrom didn't control coin selection and had no influence on what addresses (so to speak) would be sent from. It only affected how account balances were computed.
If there's an actual use-case made more difficult by removing accounts, it'd be good to open a feature request to see how it could be addressed. I did describe some steps for replicating account functionality outside of the wallet in #12952 (comment)
Milestone
0.18.0