💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#discussion_r2627185458)
In "consensus: Use Coin span in GetP2SHSigOpCount" 5709d073e06280c915e7d74e8f49e4904598c348

Here and other commits.
Sorted in what order?

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#discussion_r2627829017)
Since we are doing this, I think this should also be separated into two functions.
1. `EnforceBIP30` — a method that performs BIP30 validation.
2. `SpendBlock` — for each transaction in the block, checks that the outputs it is spending exist, spends them, and populates the `CBlockUndo` data structure.

This would move us a step closer to non-contextual block validation by allowing us to validate using just the block data and undo data. It would also make testing easier, and removing BIP30 af
...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#discussion_r2627860099)
In "validation: Add SpendBlock function" c937b12745971435111eab948e505580754d56bd

> The goal is to move logic requiring access to the
CCoinsViewCache out of ConnectBlock and to the new SpendBlock method.
SpendBlock will in future handle all UTXO set interactions that
previously took place in ConnectBlock.

This is counter to the objective of the PR; we are still accessing the UTXO set in this block validation function.
My hope was that we would have two UTXO-accessing validation functions that
...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#discussion_r2627840199)
In "validation: Add SpendBlock function" c937b12745971435111eab948e505580754d56bd
why duplicate this, I think we should just add a comment warning that we expect they are already executed before?

📝 fanquake converted_to_draft a pull request: "doc: clarify libbitcoinkernel usage in libraries design"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34042)
The libraries design document was out of sync with the current bitcoinkernel implementation and its consumers. It claimed that libbitcoin_node links against libbitcoin_kernel and that the kernel library only depends on consensus, crypto, and util, which is not true for the current CMake targets.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "wallet, doc: clarify the coin selection filters that enforce cluster count":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34037#issuecomment-3666323493)
cc @murchandamus

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "move-only: MAX_BLOCK_TIME_GAP to src/qt"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/919#pullrequestreview-3588731689)
ACK fa5ed16aa4d9dbe3ed47cb53f3cb15b0685a2b96, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add initial vectorized chacha20 implementation for 2-3x speedup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34083#discussion_r2627886053)
This is actually doing the opposite.. it's keeping the vectorized impl from having to worry about this case. In the current code, we have:
```c++
++j12;
if (!j12) ++j13;
...
input[8] = j12;
input[9] = j13;
```

So effectively `input[8]` and `input[9]` are treated as a single `uint64_t`. It's not possible to express "cast to `uint64_t` elements and increment" or "increment and overflow over there" with the vector extensions, so it turned out to be easier to just forbid the overflow cases
...

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add initial vectorized chacha20 implementation for 2-3x speedup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34083#discussion_r2627890205)
Thanks, yes, I meant to change that to `internal_bswap_32` before pushing. Will do.

🚀 hebasto merged a pull request: "move-only: MAX_BLOCK_TIME_GAP to src/qt"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/919)

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add initial vectorized chacha20 implementation for 2-3x speedup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34083#discussion_r2627891854)
Yep, will do.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Make `transaction_indentifier` hex string constructor evaluated at comptime"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34063)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: remove `doc/release-notes.md` from lint-spelling.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33968#issuecomment-3666368283)
Closing, as this code will be removed in #34053.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "ci: remove `doc/release-notes.md` from lint-spelling.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33968)

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add initial vectorized chacha20 implementation for 2-3x speedup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34083#discussion_r2627906491)
Thanks for catching this! I forgot to mention in the PR description that big-endian was best-effort and untested. I figured our c-i would catch any obvious bugs. Agree it's not great that it didn't :(

Thanks for the quick fix too :)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "lint: Remove confusing, redundant, and brittle lint-spelling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34053#issuecomment-3666374736)
I think it's ok for linters to be removed as long as they aren't causing failures / enforcing anything.

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "[30.x] Finalise v30.1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34092#pullrequestreview-3588777441)
code review ACK 2a21824b1190968ee8ba3120400c00e56be10591

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "lint: Remove confusing, redundant, and brittle lint-spelling"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34053)

📝 fanquake converted_to_draft a pull request: "test: p2p: check that peer's announced starting height is remembered"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33990)
Note that the announced starting height of a peer is neither verified nor used in any other logic, so reporting a bogus value [1] as done in the test doesn't have any consequences on the connection -- it's only used for inspection via the `getpeerinfo` RPC and in some debug messages (see also e.g. https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/issues/1387#issuecomment-252934859). Admittedly this is not terribly important, but I'd still think having test coverage for this simple reporting functio
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "Add initial vectorized chacha20 implementation for 2-3x speedup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34083#discussion_r2627921902)
I had the same disappointment when implementing the obfuscation optimization. :)

@maflcko do we have a big-endian nightly that supports vectorized operations? Would it have caught this?

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add initial vectorized chacha20 implementation for 2-3x speedup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34083#discussion_r2627930434)
See updated title description where I touched on this.

I found (with lots of experimentation here) that different compilers use complicated and unpredictable heuristics to decide whether or not to unroll loops. Even if an unroll-able loop is detected, unrolling may be skipped because of the function size (as is the case here because it's huge).

So, I'd like to not take chances on unrolling. That means one of:
- Manual unrolling
- Macro-based (as-in `REPEAT10()`)
- A pragma
- Recursive
...