How are descriptor wallets backed up? You can't simply backup the seed words for that kind of thing right? You also need the script. So backup would generally be: back up your seed as normal + backup the digital file containing the descriptor in a number of places. Is that right?
Since Bitcoin Core never had seed words for a backup, the backup of a Bitcoin Core wallet remains the same as before. It's just copying the wallet.dat file to your backup location.
For other wallets, the backup would just be the descriptor itself. Since it is a string, it can be largely treated like any other string backup method.
Interesting. Its not great for wallet security to only have a digital file backup. If you encrypt the file you're safe, but it makes it harder to do things like inheritance. If you don't encrypt the file, you're super vulnerable to theft. I'd like to see bitcoin core support standard HD wallets, and have an additional descriptor file with non-sensitive script info for the rest of it, so you can back up your see on metal while still storing the rest of the descriptor data with redundant digital files.
By default, everything in BDB is a transaction. So we do, in fact, use transactions. The problem is that BDB does not guarantee that when a write completes that everything was written to the database file. Instead it only guarantees it is in at least one of the database file or the log files. Unfortunately everyone has been trained to only care about the database file and not the log files. In the event of an unclean shutdown, if the user only copies the database file (e.g. for a backup, or maybe to move to a system that doesn't crash, etc.) , or deletes the log files, then data may be lost.
Because the version number doesn't matter.
1.0 is a human significant number and making a release with the version 1.0 would imply some level of completeness or finality. In reality, with our time based release schedule, such a version number is meaningless, but people would assign meaning to it anyways. If anything, a version numbering change would only be to drop the leading `0.`. There's no reason to change the version number anyways as it isn't really significant except as a counter.
Well it would matter to investors. It would be another benchmark that they use to determine robustness. (No longer in beta)
I'm hoping that after the privacy upgrades are all in place the next version is 1.0.0
Fine by me as well, I don't know why I'm getting all the downvotes here.
Just saying that most people don't think like that. Why try to fight the trend if going with the trend means more investments faster?
Obviously the technical side is meaningless, but you can't tell an investor what to think. They're already going to assume any software under version 1.0 is some kind of beta. That's just experience talking.
Actually, there is an order to software versioning in which version numbers that start with a zero are experimental (e.g. version 0.21). With a market cap of over $200 million it's hardly experimental.
And that is not the case for Bitcoin Core. Not every software's version numbers mean the same thing. In Bitcoin, the leading `0.` is meaningless. So is a 1.0, but people will attribute meaning to it anyways.
The fact of the matter is that no one really cares what the version number is. The current system isn't broken, and changing it will only confuse people. There's no need to make a 1.0, nor is there a need to change the version numbering scheme. Obviously what we use doesn't follow any existing standards for versioning so meanings from those should not be applied to the Bitcoin Core versioning scheme.
The general consensus with software writing is anything that begins with a zero is still experimental. When you increase a whole integer that is a major upgrade. Any changes less than one are minor revisions. It's not like we have windows 0.10. It's windows 10. Even non-programmers know this. You can say it's meaningless all you want but that doesn't make it so. If it's common knowledge than it's not meaningless. If we're arguing about it it's not meaningless.