💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2138115140)
a703a3086a6a3a6250fb97e799712443eaedf5d0

and helps determine the total memory limits based on number of entries

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2137961509)
9afbf15b99508982b1a73bc416246ffbbce22d89

was this logic change necessary for this commit?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2138082482)
a703a3086a6a3a6250fb97e799712443eaedf5d0

exactly one *announcement* for this wtxid I presume

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2138563428)
nit(?): is it more of an AnnouncementMap?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2138586549)
"copying one that exists" I assume means grabbing the CTransactionRef?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2138044941)
a703a3086a6a3a6250fb97e799712443eaedf5d0

I think you can `const` all fields except `m_reconsider`?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2138569907)
c21466b83d725ab38e8b2b6c5b3e01815b300745

it's not actually bytes; we we want to just refer to Usage() directly here

💬 glozow commented on pull request "config: allow setting -proxy per network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32425#issuecomment-2960426526)
Needs release note?

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "wallet, refactor: Remove Legacy wallet unused warnings and errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32481#issuecomment-2960434399)
_<ins>Updates</ins>_:
* Addressed [feedback](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32481#discussion_r2138353475) from @maflcko [and](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32481#discussion_r2138470337) @achow101.
* Removed also wallet descriptor check from `CWallet::EncryptWallet()` and `CWallet::Create()`.

✅ glozow closed an issue: "Apparently CJDNS network does not work with Tor on mainnet."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24450)

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "config: allow setting -proxy per network"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32425)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "package validation: relax the package-not-child-with-unconfirmed-parents rule":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31385#issuecomment-2960446263)
Rebased since it's been a while. Still worth doing imo! Getting this out of the way would be good before we try to do subpackage evaluation / package RBF stuff, fwiw.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "build: Add resource file and manifest to `bitcoin.exe`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32634#discussion_r2138681467)
Followed up on in #32719.

⚠️ Christewart opened an issue: "`signrawtransactionwithkey` doesn't work with non segwit p2sh scripts"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32722)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [x] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

I'm attempting to reproduce the transaction specified by AJ Towns that pointed out BitVM bridges with CTV+CSFS for p2sh outputs are vulnerable to theft. You can read more about the topic [here](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/how-ctv-csfs-improves-bitvm-bridges/1591/8).

The TLDR is i'm attempting to sign a `p2sh(p2pk)` script.

I've attempted to create this transaction via the `signrawtransa
...

💬 ariard commented on pull request "BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (regtest only)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-2960477093)
@jamesob You can break some CTV use-cases by abusing the segwit block limits (i.e the 80k limit sigops).

Here a test case on some 28.x branch, i.e `getblocktemplate` won’t accept more txn, once 80k limit reached)
https://github.com/ariard/bitcoin/commit/b85a426c43cb7000788a55ea140b73a68da9ce4e

An adversary can be break-even by targeting multiples “contract protocols” in overflowing a single sequence of blocks.

The easy fix is to move CTV as an OP_SUCCESS, as like it’s done for OP_CSFS.
...

🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "wallet, rpc: Remove deprecated balances from getwalletinfo and getunconfirmedbalance"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32721#pullrequestreview-2915057715)
Concept ACK

There are still functional test references to the fields removed in the first commit (also in `wallet_multiwallet.py`, `wallet_reorgsrestore.py`). Should references in the wallet interface be updated as well?

This would need release notes at some point, no?

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "index: move disk read lookups to base class"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32694#pullrequestreview-2914928430)
Concept ACK

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "index: move disk read lookups to base class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32694#discussion_r2138697822)
6f1392cc42cde638773f2b697d7d2c58abcdc860:
As a result of this commit, `CopyHeightIndexToHashIndex` (which doesn't have any other callers) could be simpler: No nee to pass two heights, no need for a loop if it only copies one element.

Besides, I wonder if the code duplication (it's identical code in `coinstatsindex` and `blockfilterindex`) could be resolved.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#discussion_r2138805235)
Nice catch! I've added a commit that always performs the check for SimpleCandidateFinder (even if non-optimal).

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#discussion_r2138805358)
Indeed.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#discussion_r2138806088)
The chunking won't necessarily match exactly, but the number of elements in the chunking must match if both are optimal.