Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-07-04 🗒️ Summary of this message: Renaming ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-07-04
🗒️ Summary of this message: Renaming wallet.dat for encrypted wallets has pros and cons, including breaking backup scripts. Changing the format could trigger errors in old clients.
📝 Original message:On Monday, July 04, 2011 1:52:53 PM Matt Corallo wrote:
> There were several suggestions of renaming wallet.dat for encrypted
> wallets. Obviously this has many advantages and disadvantages. It
> breaks backup scripts,
It shouldn't. Backup scripts should make a copy with the JSON-RPC call.
What about changing the format of wallet.dat to something that triggers an
error in the old clients? ie, maybe a dummy crafted-to-make-old-versions-
complain file that simply means "use ewallet.dat"?
🗒️ Summary of this message: Renaming wallet.dat for encrypted wallets has pros and cons, including breaking backup scripts. Changing the format could trigger errors in old clients.
📝 Original message:On Monday, July 04, 2011 1:52:53 PM Matt Corallo wrote:
> There were several suggestions of renaming wallet.dat for encrypted
> wallets. Obviously this has many advantages and disadvantages. It
> breaks backup scripts,
It shouldn't. Backup scripts should make a copy with the JSON-RPC call.
What about changing the format of wallet.dat to something that triggers an
error in the old clients? ie, maybe a dummy crafted-to-make-old-versions-
complain file that simply means "use ewallet.dat"?