AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 15 Bitcoin

Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#36415: rpc: clarify preciousblock help text

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by merge-script

81/100 · Strong
Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#36415: rpc: clarify preciousblock help text

15d092639957242d443a680d380f8df1def2bd4e rpc: clarify preciousblock help text (ViniciusCestarii)

Pull request description:

The preciousblock help says only "Treats a block as if it were received before others with the same work". This isn't wrong but could be clearer and it also leaves out cases that confuse users, including me (see discussion in #35300):

- The call has no effect when the block has less work than the current tip, and that includes any ancestor of the tip. A successful return doesn't mean the tip changed. ([code](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/69142eacd1374925cc9e4ea736c21fcec16307d0/src/validation.cpp#L3504-L3507))
- It only breaks ties between equal-work chains and doesn't pin the chain. If another chain gains more work, the node switches to it as usual. ([code](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/69142eacd1374925cc9e4ea736c21fcec16307d0/src/node/blockstorage.cpp#L174-L182))

This adds both points to the help text and doesn't change any behavior.

ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/36415/commits/15d092639957242d443a680d380f8df1def2bd4e
maflcko:
lgtm ACK 15d092639957242d443a680d380f8df1def2bd4e

Tree-SHA512: cc2bc740bb0e9ebc442b35b31b59b6f5ec56da23a555352e1491d98684d1722617e18072e05807e95be23b8a14ddd20aed01d67fae42c45cb2c788b1f999dc8a
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Links an issue, advisory, or supporting reference
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This change only updates the help text shown by the preciousblock RPC command to explain more clearly when it has no effect and that it does not permanently lock the chain. No code behavior was changed.

Recommended action

No security action needed; this is a documentation-only clarification.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 15/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 10/10
Evidence quality 5/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.