💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Refactor: Redefine CTransaction equality to include witness data":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32723#issuecomment-2960797103)
`CWalletTx::IsEquivalentTo` needs to consider malleated txs as equivalent, so the original behavior of ignoring the scriptSigs and scriptWitness is intended.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32723#issuecomment-2960797103)
`CWalletTx::IsEquivalentTo` needs to consider malleated txs as equivalent, so the original behavior of ignoring the scriptSigs and scriptWitness is intended.
💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "descriptors: MuSig2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244#discussion_r2138916560)
Maybe a test in `src/test/util_tests.cpp` in `BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(test_script_parsing)` would be good for consistency's sake.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244#discussion_r2138916560)
Maybe a test in `src/test/util_tests.cpp` in `BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(test_script_parsing)` would be good for consistency's sake.
💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: refactor: overhaul (w)txid determination for `CTransaction` objects":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32421#discussion_r2138926469)
Good point, decided to squash the two mentioned commits to get rid of the repeated renaming. I.e. both `.rehash()` and `.hash` calls/accesses of CTransaction instances are replaced with `.txid_hex` now in a single commit (ce83924237127fe6d32b63c362b57789e4628954).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32421#discussion_r2138926469)
Good point, decided to squash the two mentioned commits to get rid of the repeated renaming. I.e. both `.rehash()` and `.hash` calls/accesses of CTransaction instances are replaced with `.txid_hex` now in a single commit (ce83924237127fe6d32b63c362b57789e4628954).
🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "descriptors: MuSig2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244#pullrequestreview-2915269775)
Perhaps the description of the commits `script/parsing: Allow Const to not skip the found constant ` (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244/commits/4b135f80d03c92fb522d1dcfd7d697aa0a4af626) and `util/string: Allow Split to include the separator` (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244/commits/b89a937225ed217556b38e000ee5d1bf0b5952aa) could explain why these changes are necessary for the musig2 descriptor.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244#pullrequestreview-2915269775)
Perhaps the description of the commits `script/parsing: Allow Const to not skip the found constant ` (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244/commits/4b135f80d03c92fb522d1dcfd7d697aa0a4af626) and `util/string: Allow Split to include the separator` (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244/commits/b89a937225ed217556b38e000ee5d1bf0b5952aa) could explain why these changes are necessary for the musig2 descriptor.
🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "ci: Rewrite test-each-commit as py script"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32680)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32680)
💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "descriptors: MuSig2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244#discussion_r2138939609)
Without proper context, it may not be clear that this aggregation specifically refers to a MuSig2 aggregation.
Perhaps a name change could make the purpose and use of the function clearer.
```suggestion
virtual std::vector<CPubKey> GetMuSig2AggregateParticipantPubkeys(const CPubKey& pubkey) const { return {}; }
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244#discussion_r2138939609)
Without proper context, it may not be clear that this aggregation specifically refers to a MuSig2 aggregation.
Perhaps a name change could make the purpose and use of the function clearer.
```suggestion
virtual std::vector<CPubKey> GetMuSig2AggregateParticipantPubkeys(const CPubKey& pubkey) const { return {}; }
```
💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "descriptors: MuSig2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244#discussion_r2138945119)
I wonder if this function should have an output parameter for `agg_pk` (the MuSig-aggregated x-only public key) for future use, instead of considering it null.
But yes, for now, there is no use.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244#discussion_r2138945119)
I wonder if this function should have an output parameter for `agg_pk` (the MuSig-aggregated x-only public key) for future use, instead of considering it null.
But yes, for now, there is no use.
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "deps: Bump lief to 0.16.6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#discussion_r2138952194)
Fixed, thanks for being persistent on this, not sure why or what I was doing wrong [earlier](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#discussion_r2080687125) to see this error.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#discussion_r2138952194)
Fixed, thanks for being persistent on this, not sure why or what I was doing wrong [earlier](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#discussion_r2080687125) to see this error.
💬 ariard commented on pull request "BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (regtest only)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-2960899586)
> to go to write a full-explanation on the ML 🤷
well i went to publish a full write up of that on the ML, because I like James and he’s someone with integrity.
i think the problem is real, but don’t trust, verify.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-2960899586)
> to go to write a full-explanation on the ML 🤷
well i went to publish a full write up of that on the ML, because I like James and he’s someone with integrity.
i think the problem is real, but don’t trust, verify.
💬 furszy commented on pull request "index: move disk read lookups to base class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32694#discussion_r2139038922)
Pushed. Added it in a separate commit to avoid extending ryanofsky's commit further.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32694#discussion_r2139038922)
Pushed. Added it in a separate commit to avoid extending ryanofsky's commit further.
📝 w0xlt opened a pull request: "Musig2 tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32724)
Built on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244
This PR adds explicit tests for Bitcoin Core's MuSig2 interface.
Any issues in musig2.{cpp,h} will likely also be caught by the descriptor tests, but having more detailed tests for the MuSig2 class itself improves test reporting/coverage.
It uses BIP 328 test vectors.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32724)
Built on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244
This PR adds explicit tests for Bitcoin Core's MuSig2 interface.
Any issues in musig2.{cpp,h} will likely also be caught by the descriptor tests, but having more detailed tests for the MuSig2 class itself improves test reporting/coverage.
It uses BIP 328 test vectors.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#discussion_r2139065850)
Fixed!
The exception was that `SimpleCandidateFinder::FindCandidateSet` initialized `best` to be the entire set of remaining transactions, which are not necessarily connected. If the search then stops without ever finding a better subset (because `max_iterations` was hit), the entire set was returned.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#discussion_r2139065850)
Fixed!
The exception was that `SimpleCandidateFinder::FindCandidateSet` initialized `best` to be the entire set of remaining transactions, which are not necessarily connected. If the search then stops without ever finding a better subset (because `max_iterations` was hit), the entire set was returned.
💬 BitcoinMechanic commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2961231738)
> > Also - referring to those who disagree with you as "twitter bots" or - as @glozow continually does (even in formal statements) that we're just using LLMs is not just frustrating and disrespectful to those who disagree with you, but makes you all look like elitist snobs.
>
> Both sides have engaged in loaded language; for instance, calling consensus-valid transactions “spam.” I have likewise seen disrespect from the pro-filter camp, including personal attacks on Core developers and on anyo
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2961231738)
> > Also - referring to those who disagree with you as "twitter bots" or - as @glozow continually does (even in formal statements) that we're just using LLMs is not just frustrating and disrespectful to those who disagree with you, but makes you all look like elitist snobs.
>
> Both sides have engaged in loaded language; for instance, calling consensus-valid transactions “spam.” I have likewise seen disrespect from the pro-filter camp, including personal attacks on Core developers and on anyo
...
💬 stwenhao commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2961429463)
> But you can't make it impossible to store data.
Of course you can. Nobody implemented it yet, but technically, it is possible.
> Even if users couldn't store arbitrary bytes, they could use an encoding based on the number of satoshis sent to themselves or something.
Transactions can be compressed. Currently, to perform Initial Blockchain Download, you need to know the whole history, from 2009, up to today. But technically, there is no need to structure things in that way. If you can c
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2961429463)
> But you can't make it impossible to store data.
Of course you can. Nobody implemented it yet, but technically, it is possible.
> Even if users couldn't store arbitrary bytes, they could use an encoding based on the number of satoshis sent to themselves or something.
Transactions can be compressed. Currently, to perform Initial Blockchain Download, you need to know the whole history, from 2009, up to today. But technically, there is no need to structure things in that way. If you can c
...
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: refactor: overhaul (w)txid determination for `CTransaction` objects":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32421#issuecomment-2961434218)
Only change since my last review is me actually finishing the review.
re-ACK 4ef6253017672a74c584e6e9b449ffff79f67273 🏈
<details><summary>Show signature</summary>
Signature:
```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+k
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32421#issuecomment-2961434218)
Only change since my last review is me actually finishing the review.
re-ACK 4ef6253017672a74c584e6e9b449ffff79f67273 🏈
<details><summary>Show signature</summary>
Signature:
```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+k
...
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-2961510497)
Rebased 1417e0b3b1b03dd014a3459c10a5ae7ab0c3687f -> 43535b545ca6dd7e0221b7c25abfc8409885f7c0 ([kernelApi_39](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_39) -> [kernelApi_40](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_40), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelApi_39..kernelApi_40))
* Fixed conflict with #32680
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-2961510497)
Rebased 1417e0b3b1b03dd014a3459c10a5ae7ab0c3687f -> 43535b545ca6dd7e0221b7c25abfc8409885f7c0 ([kernelApi_39](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_39) -> [kernelApi_40](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_40), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelApi_39..kernelApi_40))
* Fixed conflict with #32680
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc, windows: CompanyName "Bitcoin" => "Bitcoin Core project"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32719#issuecomment-2961538055)
Makes sense to have the same metadata for the installer and the executables.
lgtm ACK 239fc4d62e73511b3ef5117706d4c5131a921955
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32719#issuecomment-2961538055)
Makes sense to have the same metadata for the installer and the executables.
lgtm ACK 239fc4d62e73511b3ef5117706d4c5131a921955
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "docs: add guidance on initialism capitalisation in PascalCase identifiers.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32720#discussion_r2139412600)
“do not to use” -> “do not use” [remove redundant “to”]
Also, not sure about linking to a private third-party rant as a rationale
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32720#discussion_r2139412600)
“do not to use” -> “do not use” [remove redundant “to”]
Also, not sure about linking to a private third-party rant as a rationale
💬 Muniru0 commented on pull request "docs: add guidance on initialism capitalisation in PascalCase identifiers.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32720#discussion_r2139434490)
Well, I will correct both. But I don't see that as a rant if the person is making legitimate points.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32720#discussion_r2139434490)
Well, I will correct both. But I don't see that as a rant if the person is making legitimate points.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "docs: add guidance on initialism capitalisation in PascalCase identifiers.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32720#discussion_r2139439755)
the filename is `...rant.md`, also external private third-party content is likely to change or disappear
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32720#discussion_r2139439755)
the filename is `...rant.md`, also external private third-party content is likely to change or disappear
💬 Muniru0 commented on pull request "docs: add guidance on initialism capitalisation in PascalCase identifiers.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32720#discussion_r2139451036)
okay, now I get you. Thanks.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32720#discussion_r2139451036)
okay, now I get you. Thanks.