💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286363848)
why limit these to `* 2`?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286363848)
why limit these to `* 2`?
🤔 murchandamus reviewed a pull request: "wallet: Remove isminetypes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#pullrequestreview-3133501440)
Concept ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#pullrequestreview-3133501440)
Concept ACK
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "wallet: Remove isminetypes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#discussion_r2286095170)
In "wallet: Remove COutput::spendable and AvailableCoinsListUnspent" (1f085fa90ae92d1fda437066f802c1fe9c1dfe1c), I was a bit surprised to find this change in the logic in the commit as it does not seem to be explicitly mentioned in the commit message.
Prior to this change, we would proceed on UTXOs that are `spendable` or on UTXOs that are solvable while keys are disabled. After this change, we proceed either if keys are enabled OR the UTXO is solvable.
If we consider all UTXOs in descript
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#discussion_r2286095170)
In "wallet: Remove COutput::spendable and AvailableCoinsListUnspent" (1f085fa90ae92d1fda437066f802c1fe9c1dfe1c), I was a bit surprised to find this change in the logic in the commit as it does not seem to be explicitly mentioned in the commit message.
Prior to this change, we would proceed on UTXOs that are `spendable` or on UTXOs that are solvable while keys are disabled. After this change, we proceed either if keys are enabled OR the UTXO is solvable.
If we consider all UTXOs in descript
...
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286384092)
Ah, I missed that at least one of the params gets checked for not being default-constructed here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/53341ea10dc2f7df371b416060863bbc094b8773/src/headerssync.cpp#L20
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286384092)
Ah, I missed that at least one of the params gets checked for not being default-constructed here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/53341ea10dc2f7df371b416060863bbc094b8773/src/headerssync.cpp#L20
💬 ryanofsky commented on issue "depends: `native_libmultiprocess` fails to build on OpenBSD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33219#issuecomment-3202305628)
Thanks for the report and clear reproduction steps. Following change fixes the problem for me, and I guess this was caused by the IWYU commit in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/libmultiprocess/pull/184,
```
--- a/src/ipc/libmultiprocess/src/mp/util.cpp
+++ b/src/ipc/libmultiprocess/src/mp/util.cpp
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <system_error>
+#include <thread>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <utility>
#include <vector>
```
An alternate change also
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33219#issuecomment-3202305628)
Thanks for the report and clear reproduction steps. Following change fixes the problem for me, and I guess this was caused by the IWYU commit in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/libmultiprocess/pull/184,
```
--- a/src/ipc/libmultiprocess/src/mp/util.cpp
+++ b/src/ipc/libmultiprocess/src/mp/util.cpp
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <system_error>
+#include <thread>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <utility>
#include <vector>
```
An alternate change also
...
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286406511)
nit, I think this was wrong in the original test as well, should be:
```suggestion
CHECK_RESULT(hss.ProcessNextHeaders(std::span{first_chain}.last(first_chain.size() - 1), false),
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286406511)
nit, I think this was wrong in the original test as well, should be:
```suggestion
CHECK_RESULT(hss.ProcessNextHeaders(std::span{first_chain}.last(first_chain.size() - 1), false),
```
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286407697)
nit: I think this comment was incorrectly placed in the original, it is the `ProcessNextHeaders` above that needs `/*full_headers_message=*/true`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286407697)
nit: I think this comment was incorrectly placed in the original, it is the `ProcessNextHeaders` above that needs `/*full_headers_message=*/true`
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286413175)
nit:
```suggestion
CHECK_RESULT(hss.ProcessNextHeaders({first_chain.begin() + REDOWNLOAD_BUFFER_SIZE + 1, first_chain.end()}, false),
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286413175)
nit:
```suggestion
CHECK_RESULT(hss.ProcessNextHeaders({first_chain.begin() + REDOWNLOAD_BUFFER_SIZE + 1, first_chain.end()}, false),
```
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Remove isminetypes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#discussion_r2286418712)
Yes, I believe it is obsolete. Removed.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#discussion_r2286418712)
Yes, I believe it is obsolete. Removed.
💬 TheBlueMatt commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3202364764)
> I don't see how it's required to use a fork of Core, unless you insist on running pre-built binaries only. This may be somewhat naive, but it doesn't seem that difficult to encourage users that want SV2 to use v30 with IPC enabled, and then open up issues as bugs turn up
- @marcofleon
Yes, this is somewhat naive. We've discussed this more than a few times and the reality is that people just don't build from source. We've been talking to miners for a long time and telling them "just take Sjors
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3202364764)
> I don't see how it's required to use a fork of Core, unless you insist on running pre-built binaries only. This may be somewhat naive, but it doesn't seem that difficult to encourage users that want SV2 to use v30 with IPC enabled, and then open up issues as bugs turn up
- @marcofleon
Yes, this is somewhat naive. We've discussed this more than a few times and the reality is that people just don't build from source. We've been talking to miners for a long time and telling them "just take Sjors
...
💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286387382)
Agreed, would be nice to have each chain's params be a `constexpr` expression tree in an ideal world.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286387382)
Agreed, would be nice to have each chain's params be a `constexpr` expression tree in an ideal world.
💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286383684)
That might be a cool higher level change, although hopefully a commitment will mismatch before we reach the final header.
Hm... thinking through the current code - given 15'000 headers and a period of 600, we have 38 commitments. So there's a 1 in 2^38 chance that all commitments will match. There's a 1/600 chance that `HeadersSyncState::commit_offset` will be 599, in which case `second_chain` would be too short to check the last commitment, making it a 1 in 2^37 chance of test failure for th
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286383684)
That might be a cool higher level change, although hopefully a commitment will mismatch before we reach the final header.
Hm... thinking through the current code - given 15'000 headers and a period of 600, we have 38 commitments. So there's a 1 in 2^38 chance that all commitments will match. There's a 1/600 chance that `HeadersSyncState::commit_offset` will be 599, in which case `second_chain` would be too short to check the last commitment, making it a 1 in 2^37 chance of test failure for th
...
💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286389214)
Giving us 2x mainnet should give the fuzzers enough time to break things before we reach that level. See 11a2d3a63e90cdc1920ede3c67d52a9c72860e6b for an example of how gradually these values change for 1 release.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286389214)
Giving us 2x mainnet should give the fuzzers enough time to break things before we reach that level. See 11a2d3a63e90cdc1920ede3c67d52a9c72860e6b for an example of how gradually these values change for 1 release.
💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286437807)
Agree here, it seems to be a more taxing test to not pretend like there are any more headers, that `HeadersSyncState` will have to make do. Will consider changing this if I push, although it is the same on master. Maybe making it random or doing a `for x in {true, false}` loop over it would be even better.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286437807)
Agree here, it seems to be a more taxing test to not pretend like there are any more headers, that `HeadersSyncState` will have to make do. Will consider changing this if I push, although it is the same on master. Maybe making it random or doing a `for x in {true, false}` loop over it would be even better.
💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286427414)
Seems related to your previous GH-comment. Current PR version has the comment:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/53341ea10dc2f7df371b416060863bbc094b8773/src/test/headers_sync_chainwork_tests.cpp#L153
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286427414)
Seems related to your previous GH-comment. Current PR version has the comment:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/53341ea10dc2f7df371b416060863bbc094b8773/src/test/headers_sync_chainwork_tests.cpp#L153
💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286420829)
I think the idea is to pretend that our peer has longer chain, meaning they are able to send us more headers, it's just that `HeadersSyncState` should be detecting that we've met the threshold and switch to `REDOWNLOAD` even though we tempt it that there are more headers in case it erroneously wants to continue `PRESYNC`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286420829)
I think the idea is to pretend that our peer has longer chain, meaning they are able to send us more headers, it's just that `HeadersSyncState` should be detecting that we've met the threshold and switch to `REDOWNLOAD` even though we tempt it that there are more headers in case it erroneously wants to continue `PRESYNC`.
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "wallet: Remove isminetypes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#issuecomment-3202412412)
ACK be776a1443fdf1a72e0d363c1566d71cb0cda8b5
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#issuecomment-3202412412)
ACK be776a1443fdf1a72e0d363c1566d71cb0cda8b5
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Avoid file overwriting in fallback `AllocateFileRange` implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33164#discussion_r2286476952)
TIL that fseek...SEEK_END is undefined behaviour for binary files.
https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/FIO19-C.+Do+not+use+fseek%28%29+and+ftell%28%29+to+compute+the+size+of+a+regular+file
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33164#discussion_r2286476952)
TIL that fseek...SEEK_END is undefined behaviour for binary files.
https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/FIO19-C.+Do+not+use+fseek%28%29+and+ftell%28%29+to+compute+the+size+of+a+regular+file
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3202473607)
@theuni Thanks for stating your preference. If I am following, you would like to:
1. Link cap'n proto and libmultiprocess into `bitcoind` and expose a new `-ipcbind` option there instead of only exposing it through the new `bitcoin` binary.
2. Revert or partially revert #31375 and stop including the `bitcoin` wrapper binary in releases because its presence would be too confusing.
3. Keep all the changes implemented in this PR which toggle the ENABLE_IPC option.
4. Introduce a new ENABLE_
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3202473607)
@theuni Thanks for stating your preference. If I am following, you would like to:
1. Link cap'n proto and libmultiprocess into `bitcoind` and expose a new `-ipcbind` option there instead of only exposing it through the new `bitcoin` binary.
2. Revert or partially revert #31375 and stop including the `bitcoin` wrapper binary in releases because its presence would be too confusing.
3. Keep all the changes implemented in this PR which toggle the ENABLE_IPC option.
4. Introduce a new ENABLE_
...
📝 murchandamus opened a pull request: "coinselection: Tiebreak SRD eviction by weight"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33223)
@yancyribbens [pointed out](https://github.com/p2pderivatives/rust-bitcoin-coin-selection/pull/108#issuecomment-3202107069) that SRD would fail to find a possible solution if there are multiple UTXOs of the same effective value with diverse weight.
This adds a tiebreaker that will make SRD succeed in such a scenario.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33223)
@yancyribbens [pointed out](https://github.com/p2pderivatives/rust-bitcoin-coin-selection/pull/108#issuecomment-3202107069) that SRD would fail to find a possible solution if there are multiple UTXOs of the same effective value with diverse weight.
This adds a tiebreaker that will make SRD succeed in such a scenario.
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "coinselection: Tiebreak SRD eviction by weight":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33223#discussion_r2286539756)
Move to `coinselection_tests.cpp`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33223#discussion_r2286539756)
Move to `coinselection_tests.cpp`