Bitcoin Core Github

💬 romanz commented on pull request "index: store per-block transaction locations for efficient lookups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541#discussion_r2312043002)
Sounds good - done.

3 views18:04

Bitcoin Core Github

💬 romanz commented on pull request "index: store per-block transaction locations for efficient lookups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541#discussion_r2312043135)
Not yet - will do and report the results here.

3 views18:05

Bitcoin Core Github

💬 romanz commented on pull request "index: store per-block transaction locations for efficient lookups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541#discussion_r2312043215)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4441827ef4e9b5fe306c5f0a81a52b5d2b5e0b69...5e1c80a22f3d3c6ecf6d4e2777d67656423dd3f3

3 views18:05

Bitcoin Core Github

🤔 naiyoma reviewed a pull request: "rpc: allow writing UTXO set to a named pipe, introduce dump_to_sqlite.sh script"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31560#pullrequestreview-3171162170)
Concept ACK

briefly tested on regtest:
```

./contrib/utxo-tools/dump_to_sqlite.sh "./build/src/bitcoin-cli -regtest" ~/utxos_03_regtest.sqlite3
UTXO Snapshot for Regtest at block hash 1859fa04bf13269212d2cbcc406c91b6..., contains 1358 coins
{
"coins_written": 1358,
"base_hash": "1859fa04bf13269212d2cbcc406c91b6d11decbc39b97de79ae75566f5b2e826",
"base_height": 1338,
"path": "/tmp/tmp.NbBipQ3mhb/utxos.fifo",
"txoutset_hash": "3bdfcb5a529096de8e73b516005d4263b7924a6c5f81e08
...

5 views18:50

Bitcoin Core Github

💬 jsarenik commented on pull request "wallet: Identify transactions spending 0-value outputs, and add tests for anchor outputs in a wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33268#issuecomment-3239456408)
Tested ACK de98ffb

5 views18:53

Bitcoin Core Github

💬 stwenhao commented on issue "signet: disk-space-DoS due to low mining difficulty":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33266#issuecomment-3239535357)
> It does not commit (and can not commit) to the nonce.

I agree, that it does not commit to the nonce. But if that would be needed, then it could. An example of a situation, where things are signed, but where nonce is included in signed commitment, is what I deployed as a Proof of Work puzzle: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5551080.0

Or, a similar case is recently deployed Optional Hourglass: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5557305.0

In that cases, the signature can sign ever
...

5 views20:51

Bitcoin Core Github

🤔 enirox001 reviewed a pull request: "cli: Handle arguments that can be either JSON or string"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33230#pullrequestreview-3171265739)
Concept ACK

5 views22:55

Bitcoin Core Github

💬 jsarenik commented on issue "signet: disk-space-DoS due to low mining difficulty":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33266#issuecomment-3239755243)
What about a safety one-liner fix which would not allow new block to have the same blockheader (except nonce) than an already mined block? Such a local-node "soft-fork" would be possible even without telling anyone network-wise.

An attack block could come only _after_ a new unique mined&signed block header was announced.

4 views04:44

Bitcoin Core Github

💬 stwenhao commented on issue "signet: disk-space-DoS due to low mining difficulty":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33266#issuecomment-3239765781)
> What about a safety one-liner fix which would not allow new block to have the same blockheader (except nonce) than an already mined block?

As long as you know, which block was propagated first, then you can do that. But note that signet block producers can decide to build things on top of any block, including something, which was grinded by some attacker. If you see two or more blocks with different nonces, at the same height N, then you don't know, what block number N+1 will sign (and also,
...

6 views05:01

Bitcoin Core Github

💬 romanz commented on pull request "index: store per-block transaction locations for efficient lookups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541#discussion_r2312254549)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4441827ef4e9b5fe306c5f0a81a52b5d2b5e0b69...5e1c80a22f3d3c6ecf6d4e2777d67656423dd3f3

6 views05:17

Bitcoin Core Github

💬 romanz commented on pull request "index: store per-block transaction locations for efficient lookups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541#issuecomment-3239789278)
Rebasing to resolve a conflict with `master`.

5 views05:36

Bitcoin Core Github

🤔 optout21 reviewed a pull request: "refactor: unify container presence checks (without PR conflicts)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33192#pullrequestreview-3171424512)
ACK f70d2c7faa8f7d724e146e4c409de9c6778b7299

Re-reviewed; this is a subset of #33097, comments from [there](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33094#pullrequestreview-3093962887) still apply:

- The changes increase code readability, as 'contains' expresses the code logic / intent more specifically
- It also results in higher performance, due to potential early exit. The improvement is probably negligible though.
- Changes are localized (each to a single line), local impact only

(
...

5 views06:06

About

Blog

Apps

Platform