📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "ci: Run Windows native task on GitHub Actions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28173)
From https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28098:
> Thus, someone would have to sponsor an amount of roughly 5kUSD/mo for those two tasks.
> If the goal is to stay on a free plan, I think the only option is GitHub Actions CI.
Historical context:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17697
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17803
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18031
Security concerns:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28098#issuecomment-16514321
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28173)
From https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28098:
> Thus, someone would have to sponsor an amount of roughly 5kUSD/mo for those two tasks.
> If the goal is to stay on a free plan, I think the only option is GitHub Actions CI.
Historical context:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17697
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17803
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18031
Security concerns:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28098#issuecomment-16514321
...
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "ZMQ: Support UNIX domain sockets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27679#discussion_r1276829144)
Prefer we just allow it for everything and error somewhere else
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27679#discussion_r1276829144)
Prefer we just allow it for everything and error somewhere else
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "ZMQ: Support UNIX domain sockets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27679#discussion_r1276830223)
ipc*
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27679#discussion_r1276830223)
ipc*
🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: don't duplicate change output if already exist"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27601#pullrequestreview-1550813509)
> In general, we shouldn't assume what the change is when it is ambiguous - conceivably a user could be reusing addresses or otherwise actually wants a particular change address that is also one of the outputs. Doing this is allowed now, and I don't think we should change the meaning of the change address argument.
That is not really how the wallet behaves for regular outputs. Not sure why it should
behave differently for change outputs only.
Right now, the user cannot duplicate outputs i
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27601#pullrequestreview-1550813509)
> In general, we shouldn't assume what the change is when it is ambiguous - conceivably a user could be reusing addresses or otherwise actually wants a particular change address that is also one of the outputs. Doing this is allowed now, and I don't think we should change the meaning of the change address argument.
That is not really how the wallet behaves for regular outputs. Not sure why it should
behave differently for change outputs only.
Right now, the user cannot duplicate outputs i
...
📝 aureleoules opened a pull request: "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174)
The current README is pretty bland and I believe it could need a few improvements to enhance its value and appeal.
This pull request updates the README to make it more appealing. The changes are the following:
* Adding emojis 🚀 which makes the document more vibrant
* Use a more casual and interactive language to engage the reader
All the original technical contents were preserved, and the structure of the document remains the same to ensure that users still find the information they're
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174)
The current README is pretty bland and I believe it could need a few improvements to enhance its value and appeal.
This pull request updates the README to make it more appealing. The changes are the following:
* Adding emojis 🚀 which makes the document more vibrant
* Use a more casual and interactive language to engage the reader
All the original technical contents were preserved, and the structure of the document remains the same to ensure that users still find the information they're
...
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Debug Console implementation of generate method":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/692#issuecomment-1654620797)
Approach NACK. If we're going to go this route, we can just add back the RPC method... :/
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/692#issuecomment-1654620797)
Approach NACK. If we're going to go this route, we can just add back the RPC method... :/
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Add warnings for non-active addresses in receive tab and address book":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/723#issuecomment-1654628389)
Concept NACK, there's no reason such an address shouldn't be used.
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/723#issuecomment-1654628389)
Concept NACK, there's no reason such an address shouldn't be used.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Relay own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1276860339)
I don't like outright lying in the UA. Why not just send it blank? Or at least some kind of standard for "I am not telling you"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1276860339)
I don't like outright lying in the UA. Why not just send it blank? Or at least some kind of standard for "I am not telling you"
🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#pullrequestreview-1550854157)
A few suggestions.
(I'm not sure who the emojis and "We" narration would be more appealing to and which target audience is being aimed for, but no strong opinion. Sugarcoating things might be a little akin to false advertising, though 😄.)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#pullrequestreview-1550854157)
A few suggestions.
(I'm not sure who the emojis and "We" narration would be more appealing to and which target audience is being aimed for, but no strong opinion. Sugarcoating things might be a little akin to false advertising, though 😄.)
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276850613)
Use newlines consistently.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276850613)
Use newlines consistently.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276847563)
"evolving with regular builds" seems awkward and may not be interpreted the same as "regularly built"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276847563)
"evolving with regular builds" seems awkward and may not be interpreted the same as "regularly built"
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276850279)
```suggestion
We use the https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui repository solely for GUI development. Its master branch serves as a clone in all monotree repositories. It doesn't have release branches and tags, so you only need to fork it for development purposes.
```
or s/We use/We use the/, s/tags here/tags there/ and s/fork this/fork that/
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276850279)
```suggestion
We use the https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui repository solely for GUI development. Its master branch serves as a clone in all monotree repositories. It doesn't have release branches and tags, so you only need to fork it for development purposes.
```
or s/We use/We use the/, s/tags here/tags there/ and s/fork this/fork that/
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276855045)
I like "Please be patient and help out by reviewing and testing" better than "Please understand the delay and assist by testing". The bottleneck aspect might be helpful to keep.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276855045)
I like "Please be patient and help out by reviewing and testing" better than "Please understand the delay and assist by testing". The bottleneck aspect might be helpful to keep.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276856178)
I'm not sure this paragraph is an improvement; it seems a little less easy to read and more verbose.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276856178)
I'm not sure this paragraph is an improvement; it seems a little less easy to read and more verbose.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276856597)
Not sure this is clearer.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276856597)
Not sure this is clearer.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276859281)
Could also mention the productivity notes in doc/. I like the original text better, however, as the links docs don't contain "all" about contributing.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276859281)
Could also mention the productivity notes in doc/. I like the original text better, however, as the links docs don't contain "all" about contributing.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "rpc: add 'getnetmsgstats', new rpc to view network message statistics":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27534#issuecomment-1654647616)
Is there a use case for this, for the typical user? If not, maybe it should be optional and disabled by default?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27534#issuecomment-1654647616)
Is there a use case for this, for the typical user? If not, maybe it should be optional and disabled by default?
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654647719)
Suggest running `test/lint/lint-whitespace.py` on this change to appease the lint CI.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654647719)
Suggest running `test/lint/lint-whitespace.py` on this change to appease the lint CI.
🤔 brunoerg reviewed a pull request: "test, rpc: invalid sighashtype coverage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28166#pullrequestreview-1550910355)
light crACK 90c8f79e945863f3818748b86572948d1558aec3
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28166#pullrequestreview-1550910355)
light crACK 90c8f79e945863f3818748b86572948d1558aec3
💬 aureleoules commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654657160)
Thanks @jonatack, I addressed your suggestions and rolled back some of my changes.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654657160)
Thanks @jonatack, I addressed your suggestions and rolled back some of my changes.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276879626)
FWIW it looks like this section dates back to 2012 or earlier!
```
Testing and code review is the bottleneck for development; we get more
pull requests than we can review and test. Please be patient and help
out, and remember this is a security-critical project where any
mistake might cost people lots of money.
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276879626)
FWIW it looks like this section dates back to 2012 or earlier!
```
Testing and code review is the bottleneck for development; we get more
pull requests than we can review and test. Please be patient and help
out, and remember this is a security-critical project where any
mistake might cost people lots of money.
```