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

Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#35948: init: correct first-run disk space estimate

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Ava Chow

81/100 · Strong
Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#35948: init: correct first-run disk space estimate

42215b85811a4950265fa2d02b22e83046ed95d5 init: correct first-run disk space estimate (Lőrinc)

Pull request description:

**Problem:** The assumed blockchain size is maintained in GiB, but the first-run disk-space warning labels it as GB.
For pruned nodes, the warning also displays the full-chain estimate even though the check uses the lower of the prune target and that estimate.
The chainparams API comments likewise describe both assumed sizes as GB.

**Fix:** Label the warning as GiB, display the same rounded-up GiB estimate that the disk-space check uses, and document both assumed sizes as GiB.

This PR revives the first-run warning fixes from #29678.

ACKs for top commit:
jeanpablojp:
tACK 42215b85811a4950265fa2d02b22e83046ed95d5
achow101:
ACK 42215b85811a4950265fa2d02b22e83046ed95d5
murchandamus:
ACK 42215b85811a4950265fa2d02b22e83046ed95d5

Tree-SHA512: fa8a0e1eeefd674a4344772fa5e8f63fc3af9c106057c34fef47817d41cf162ad21f0e06412ad5bebc1504c57bb720e1c0ca5392e6f3d4052d3f8c7c360bac69
✓ 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 fixes a labeling bug in Bitcoin Core's first-run disk-space warning. The estimate was stored in GiB (binary gigabytes, 1024-based) but displayed as GB (decimal gigabytes, 1000-based), and for pruned nodes it showed the full-chain size instead of the smaller pruned size. The patch corrects the label to GiB and shows the same rounded-up value that the actual disk-space check uses. There is no security vulnerability here.

Recommended action

No security action needed. Treat as a normal UI/labeling fix.

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.