💬 S3RK commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1472465541)
Not sure protocol implementation needs to now about the position in tx.vout array. AFAIK, output calculation doesn't depend on the position. Have you considered passing destinations one by one together with the counter if a destination is repeated?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1472465541)
Not sure protocol implementation needs to now about the position in tx.vout array. AFAIK, output calculation doesn't depend on the position. Have you considered passing destinations one by one together with the counter if a destination is repeated?
💬 S3RK commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1472466841)
I'm too dumb to understand why do we need to return sum on input pubkeys together with the input hash. Does it have something to do with index and light clients?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1472466841)
I'm too dumb to understand why do we need to return sum on input pubkeys together with the input hash. Does it have something to do with index and light clients?
👍 maflcko approved a pull request: "test: fix wallet_import_rescan unrounded minimum amount"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29343#pullrequestreview-1853179128)
lgtm
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29343#pullrequestreview-1853179128)
lgtm
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1472497733)
You can't serialize a non-fixed-size vector as a span. This will lead to errors when deserializing. For example, a default constructed empty vector, serialized, can not be serialized into a vector which has been resized to 64 bytes.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1472497733)
You can't serialize a non-fixed-size vector as a span. This will lead to errors when deserializing. For example, a default constructed empty vector, serialized, can not be serialized into a vector which has been resized to 64 bytes.
💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1472578055)
Yes I'd expect so
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1472578055)
Yes I'd expect so
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: fix wallet_import_rescan unrounded minimum amount"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29343)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29343)
💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1472586945)
Ah makes sense! I think it would be good to add a test for this case?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1472586945)
Ah makes sense! I think it would be good to add a test for this case?
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "assumeutxo, rpc: Add 'start' parameter to loadtxoutset":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28659#issuecomment-1918815388)
Ok, maybe turn it into draft, until you are done and the CI is passing?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28659#issuecomment-1918815388)
Ok, maybe turn it into draft, until you are done and the CI is passing?
🤔 fanquake reviewed a pull request: "init: settings, do not load auto-generated warning msg"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29301#pullrequestreview-1853403738)
Seems fine. Gets rid of the pointless `2024-01-31T10:25:34Z Ignoring unknown rw_settings value _warning_` and
`2024-01-31T10:25:34Z Setting file arg: _warning_ = "This file is automatically generated and updated by Bitcoin Core. Please do not edit this file while the node is running, as any changes might be ignored or overwritten."` output.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29301#pullrequestreview-1853403738)
Seems fine. Gets rid of the pointless `2024-01-31T10:25:34Z Ignoring unknown rw_settings value _warning_` and
`2024-01-31T10:25:34Z Setting file arg: _warning_ = "This file is automatically generated and updated by Bitcoin Core. Please do not edit this file while the node is running, as any changes might be ignored or overwritten."` output.
💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1472632779)
yeah not sigops adjusted, but we don't expect that to be necessary here so I think it's fine with a comment
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1472632779)
yeah not sigops adjusted, but we don't expect that to be necessary here so I think it's fine with a comment
💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1472650551)
Yep! There are two ways to use this data:
1. Immediately, as `(b_scan * input_hash) * sum_input_pubkeys`. This is one scalar multiplication and one EC multiplication.
2. Store it for later (either for wallet re-scans or to serve to light clients), as `input_hash * sum_input_pubkeys`. This is one EC multiplication and allows us to store all of the input data needed as 33 bytes.
If the function instead returned `input_hash * sum_input_pubkeys`, we would end up doing two EC multiplications f
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1472650551)
Yep! There are two ways to use this data:
1. Immediately, as `(b_scan * input_hash) * sum_input_pubkeys`. This is one scalar multiplication and one EC multiplication.
2. Store it for later (either for wallet re-scans or to serve to light clients), as `input_hash * sum_input_pubkeys`. This is one EC multiplication and allows us to store all of the input data needed as 33 bytes.
If the function instead returned `input_hash * sum_input_pubkeys`, we would end up doing two EC multiplications f
...
💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1472680361)
I think indeed we cannot hit this, but it's because we call `ApplyV3Rules` in a package.
When `package` is a parent+child, `has_mempool_sibling` doesn't matter since having any mempool ancestor should cause this to fail immediately. In that way, this function kind of assumes that `package` is a connected component.
If `package` has unrelated transactions, we'd let a mempool sibling slip through in this function. However, since we are calling `ApplyV3Rules` within `PreChecks`, the mempool s
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1472680361)
I think indeed we cannot hit this, but it's because we call `ApplyV3Rules` in a package.
When `package` is a parent+child, `has_mempool_sibling` doesn't matter since having any mempool ancestor should cause this to fail immediately. In that way, this function kind of assumes that `package` is a connected component.
If `package` has unrelated transactions, we'd let a mempool sibling slip through in this function. However, since we are calling `ApplyV3Rules` within `PreChecks`, the mempool s
...
📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "test: Assumeutxo with more than just coinbase transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29354)
Currently the AU tests only check that loading a txout set with only coinbase outputs works.
Fix that by adding other transactions.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29354)
Currently the AU tests only check that loading a txout set with only coinbase outputs works.
Fix that by adding other transactions.
⚠️ maflcko reopened an issue: "assumeutxo: nTx and nChainTx violations in CheckBlockIndex"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29261)
When disabling the "test-only" assumptions in CheckBlockIndex, the check fails. This is problematic, because test-only code should not affect the behavior of the program in production.
Current diff:
```diff
diff --git a/src/validation.cpp b/src/validation.cpp
index 8c583c586c..00d7ee3736 100644
--- a/src/validation.cpp
+++ b/src/validation.cpp
@@ -4866,9 +4866,9 @@ void ChainstateManager::CheckBlockIndex()
unsigned int prev_chain_tx = pindex->pprev ? pindex->pprev->nChainTx
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29261)
When disabling the "test-only" assumptions in CheckBlockIndex, the check fails. This is problematic, because test-only code should not affect the behavior of the program in production.
Current diff:
```diff
diff --git a/src/validation.cpp b/src/validation.cpp
index 8c583c586c..00d7ee3736 100644
--- a/src/validation.cpp
+++ b/src/validation.cpp
@@ -4866,9 +4866,9 @@ void ChainstateManager::CheckBlockIndex()
unsigned int prev_chain_tx = pindex->pprev ? pindex->pprev->nChainTx
...
💬 maflcko commented on issue "assumeutxo: nTx and nChainTx violations in CheckBlockIndex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29261#issuecomment-1918947945)
> test
Good idea.
On top of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29354 , the following diff should crash the node:
```diff
diff --git a/test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py b/test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py
index 528680f2ca..e9d74ea132 100755
--- a/test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py
+++ b/test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py
@@ -165,6 +165,14 @@ class AssumeutxoTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
self.mini_wallet.send_self_transfer(from_node=n0)
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29261#issuecomment-1918947945)
> test
Good idea.
On top of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29354 , the following diff should crash the node:
```diff
diff --git a/test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py b/test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py
index 528680f2ca..e9d74ea132 100755
--- a/test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py
+++ b/test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py
@@ -165,6 +165,14 @@ class AssumeutxoTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
self.mini_wallet.send_self_transfer(from_node=n0)
...
🤔 theStack reviewed a pull request: "test: fix intermittent failure in p2p_v2_earlykeyresponse"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29352#pullrequestreview-1853577256)
Concept ACK
I think you need to also initialize the newly introduced variable in the `PeerEarlyKey` constructor, otherwise the following can happen in the `wait_until` loop:
```
AttributeError: 'PeerEarlyKey' object has no attribute 'connection_made2'
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29352#pullrequestreview-1853577256)
Concept ACK
I think you need to also initialize the newly introduced variable in the `PeerEarlyKey` constructor, otherwise the following can happen in the `wait_until` loop:
```
AttributeError: 'PeerEarlyKey' object has no attribute 'connection_made2'
```
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `maxfeerate` wallet startup option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#discussion_r1472767521)
Added
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#discussion_r1472767521)
Added
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `maxfeerate` wallet startup option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#discussion_r1472768478)
Yes, fixed here and other place I did the same.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#discussion_r1472768478)
Yes, fixed here and other place I did the same.
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `maxfeerate` wallet startup option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#discussion_r1472775391)
> Maybe add tests where you (successfully) configure the node's wallet using -maxfeerate?
I dont understand what you mean by successfully configure nodes wallet.
The test you are commenting on configure node[0] with the `-maxfeerate` option.
Could you clarify your comment, thanks.
---
> Similarly, it would be good to test that both maxfee and maxfeerate requirements must be met.
Their is a test for `maxtxfee` already, and I added one for `maxfeerate`.
https://github.com/bitcoin/b
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#discussion_r1472775391)
> Maybe add tests where you (successfully) configure the node's wallet using -maxfeerate?
I dont understand what you mean by successfully configure nodes wallet.
The test you are commenting on configure node[0] with the `-maxfeerate` option.
Could you clarify your comment, thanks.
---
> Similarly, it would be good to test that both maxfee and maxfeerate requirements must be met.
Their is a test for `maxtxfee` already, and I added one for `maxfeerate`.
https://github.com/bitcoin/b
...
💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1472778222)
Output calculation doesn't depend on the position, but using output position makes the implementation much simpler. I did try something similar to what you suggested but it ended up being really complicated to make sure I was matching up all the right amounts and was always _implicitly_ relying on output position. @achow101 pointed out it would be better and simpler to just use the output index explicitly.
This also doesn't create any dependence on output position. The user can still order th
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1472778222)
Output calculation doesn't depend on the position, but using output position makes the implementation much simpler. I did try something similar to what you suggested but it ended up being really complicated to make sure I was matching up all the right amounts and was always _implicitly_ relying on output position. @achow101 pointed out it would be better and simpler to just use the output index explicitly.
This also doesn't create any dependence on output position. The user can still order th
...
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `maxfeerate` wallet startup option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#discussion_r1472785028)
`relayMinFee` is relative to the fee rate of the transaction. I believe I did the right thing by removing it and enforcing this check on `-maxfeerate` instead.
I don't think we should use the base fee value as a quantifier for the fee rate, as transaction sizes differ.
This is indicated in the issue description #29220.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#discussion_r1472785028)
`relayMinFee` is relative to the fee rate of the transaction. I believe I did the right thing by removing it and enforcing this check on `-maxfeerate` instead.
I don't think we should use the base fee value as a quantifier for the fee rate, as transaction sizes differ.
This is indicated in the issue description #29220.