💬 ariard commented on pull request "[WIP] Cluster mempool implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#issuecomment-1959971463)
> interesting what is the lowest performance linux host assumed for decentralization of the tx-relay network.
assume always 24/7 internet and on a vpcu instance, not baremetal.

Running this branch mainet on a 2 vcpu instance, with the following performance characteristics:
```
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 25
model : 1
model name : AMD EPYC 7543 32-Core Processor
stepping : 1
microcode : 0xa0011d1
cpu MHz : 2
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "miniscript: convert non-critical asserts to Assumes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28678#issuecomment-1959974038)
Are you still working on this?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Mempool util: Add RBF diagram checks for single chunks against clusters of size 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29242#discussion_r1499665791)
@sdaftuar that matches my understanding.

>Removing the sorting step in this function (moving it to the caller). The function can then take Span<const FeeFrac> as input too, and perhaps in a further iteration (in a later PR) this function could then be turned into one that actually performs chunking too.

Took this suggestion

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "kernel: Remove dependency on CScheduler":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28960#issuecomment-1959978642)
Added to 28.0, since it looks rfm, but is probably waiting on the branch-off?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "RPC: add new `listmempooltransactions`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29016#issuecomment-1959989869)
Are you still working on this? Looks like there are outstanding questions.

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "wallet: move lock at the top of ReleaseWallet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29155)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "wallet: move lock at the top of ReleaseWallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29155#issuecomment-1959993168)
Closing for now due to inactivity, and unclear status (why is this the correct fix?). However, a fix for this wallet crash is still needed and very much welcome.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: failure in `wallet_multiwallet.py --legacy-wallet`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29073#issuecomment-1959994612)
Added to 27.0, with the understanding that it is not a regression, and can be moved to 28.0, if needed.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Compressed Bitcoin Transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29134#issuecomment-1960003403)
> And if neither of those, then I don't think it's within the scope of Bitcoin Core. It seems to be a pretty significant maintenance burden for something that, as implemented, is only used by specific new RPCs.

My understanding is that it requires the chainstate, so this is written inside of Bitcoin Core. However, I am also wondering if existing RPCs can be used to query the chainstate, or extended, if needed. Putting this piece of code directly in the satellite broadcast software seems easie
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Bugfix: RPC: Check for blank rpcauth on a per-param basis":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29141#issuecomment-1960012705)
> I'm not entirely sure what the expected behaviour here is...

Are you still working on this?

Not sure something that is unsupported does need fixing.

💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "test: test_bitcoin: allow -testdatadir=<datadir>":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26564#discussion_r1499718540)
Thanks, I _think_ it's clear enough as is. If it says "until next run", it might not be clear if that's before the next run of _any_ test or this _particular_ test. Clarifying that would add more text and be a bit too chatty. I think the current text is clear enough to convey "not deleted after the current run"; I think it's understood that if you specify the same data directory and the same test, it will overwrite that same directory.

💬 ariard commented on issue "Cluster mempool, CPFP carveout, and V3 transaction policy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29319#issuecomment-1960028293)
@sdaftuar While I'm sharing your opinion on the lack of necessity to not break downstream users’s applications unnecessarily, I think you're missing my present observation on the lack of current benefit of the 2 anchor outputs on LN commitment transactions. As my test demonstrate just above, in the occurence of an adversarial scenario, the abibility to CPFPcon a counterparty commitment transaction can be neutralized by broadcasting one of the 2 commitment states in the target mempool. In the occ
...

🤔 maflcko reviewed a pull request: "rpcauth.py - Add new option (-json) to output text in json format"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29433#pullrequestreview-1893009405)
Seems fine to add this.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpcauth.py - Add new option (-json) to output text in json format":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29433#discussion_r1497403916)
```suggestion
if args.json:
```

nit: This is not needed in python

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpcauth.py - Add new option (-json) to output text in json format":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29433#issuecomment-1960031495)
Please squash your commits according to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#squashing-commits once they are ready for review.

Also, the `contrib: ` prefix is still missing.

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "test: Fix intermittent issue in interface_rest.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29467)
Fixes:

```
test 2024-02-22T16:15:37.465000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 131, in main
self.run_test()
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/test/functional/interface_rest.py", line 340, in run_test
assert_equal(json_obj, mempool_info)
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratc
...

💬 ariard commented on issue "Voting on Priority Projects for 28.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29465#issuecomment-1960044553)
in order of review priorities:
- erlay
- cluster mempool

btw on feature freeze, i believe it could be wise to start to think to introduce “subsystem-dependent” timeline, e.g for mempool it could be far earlier than the project-global feature freeze. that avoids last minute merge as some senior reviewers (apparently showing some sign of “process fatigue") justified recently the merge of #28948 (a controversial change). idea is not new, makes that grief originally in 2021 in the context of tx
...

💬 furszy commented on issue "rpc method removeprunedfunds should take an array of txids":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29466#issuecomment-1960062472)
Could add the "Good first issue" tag. And tag me for review whenever the PR is open, happy to check it.

💬 bstin commented on pull request "contrib: rpcauth.py - Add new option (-json) to output text in json format":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29433#issuecomment-1960079237)
Thanks for the walk-thru.....I followed the steps so hopefully all is ok...

💬 gdiscord commented on issue "Guix build script incorrectly reporting there is no Mac SDK":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29449#issuecomment-1960091208)
I can confirm that a clean pull builds successfully(took a good while, but I remained patient). So the issue I'm facing has to do with the modifications I've made during my experiments.

Digging a little further I've noted the files in the build-aux/m4 directory under the top directory are getting called, so it must be one of them doing the checks.



Then there
...

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Guix build script incorrectly reporting there is no Mac SDK":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29449#issuecomment-1960096855)
Thanks for clarifying that building our source (as-is) works fine. Outside of that, this isn't a support forum for developing altcoins/testing "modifications". If you have a specific issue with our (unmodiged) source, feel free to open a new issue.