Show the “ of the last 100 blocks have unexpected version” warning only when running -debug=validation? #19603

1. 
   practicalswift commented at 11:59 pm on July 27, 2020: contributor

   Google search results suggest that our users are more confused than helped by the <n> of the last 100 blocks have unexpected version warning we’re printing.

   As developers we know the unfortunate reason behind this warning and how “unexpected” should be interpreted in this context, and thus why it is safe to disregard this warning. However, I don’t think it reasonable to expect our users to know the historical context here.

   In order to not desensitize our users to potentially critical “real” warnings, would it make sense to move this message to the -debug=validation log category?

2. practicalswift added the label Feature on Jul 27, 2020
3. fanquake added the label Utils/log/libs on Jul 28, 2020
4. 
   marpme commented at 2:35 pm on August 7, 2020: none

   Maybe it would be really helpful to give the user of this node suggestion what it could possibly mean by referencing a wiki site or giving a short suggestion what can be done to validate if this warning.

   <n> of the last 100 blocks have unexpected version (possible implication see: https://developer.bitcoin.org/reference/xyz/XYZ.html)

   OR

   <n> of the last 100 blocks have unexpected version (refers to mining differences but make sure to run the latest bitcoin version)

   These might not be the best description but they might be more explicit for the user to handle this certain warning.

5. 
   n-thumann commented at 4:42 pm on September 6, 2020: contributor

   Addressed the issue in #19898. I´d be happy about any feedback ✌️
6. fanquake closed this on Sep 29, 2020

   ---

7. sidhujag referenced this in commit 85b5c6ccc8 on Sep 29, 2020
8. 
   artburkart commented at 4:12 pm on December 18, 2020: none

   Hi 👋

   As developers we know the unfortunate reason behind this warning and how “unexpected” should be interpreted in this context, and thus why it is safe to disregard this warning. However, I don’t think it reasonable to expect our users to know the historical context here.

   Earlier, there was a suggestion to point folk to a wiki page. There’s a comment that says #19898 addresses the OP issue. Was the explanation part also addressed?

9. 
   iemwill commented at 1:15 pm on February 24, 2021: none

   @marpme

   Maybe it would be really helpful to give the user of this node suggestion what it could possibly mean

   Yes!

10. DrahtBot locked this on Aug 18, 2022

Contributors
practicalswift marpme n-thumann artburkart iemwill

Labels
Feature Utils/log/libs