💬 maflcko commented on pull request "net: disconnect inside AttemptToEvictConnection":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27912#issuecomment-2087991015)
@willcl-ark

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Assumeutxo: snapshots with less work should not be loaded":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29428#issuecomment-2087992693)
lgtm ACK 2f1b1eee8b8a8f546fb5975ac529c4032e46f069

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for `Crypter`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28074#issuecomment-2088028856)
It is not wrong. No file in this repo uses Windows newlines and they are problematic when shown in git.



📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "lint: [doc] Clarify Windows line endings (CR LF) not to be used"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30010)
It has been this case since the linter was introduced years ago. Given a misunderstanding (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28074#issuecomment-2088028856), clarify the docs.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Assume HAVE_CONFIG_H, Add IWYU pragma keep to bitcoin-config.h includes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29494#issuecomment-2088049351)
Rebased (should be trivial to re-ACK)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "net: Favor peers from addrman over fetching seednodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29605#discussion_r1585942374)
```suggestion
LogInfo("Couldn't connect to peers from addrman after %d seconds. Adding seednode (%s) to addrfetch\n", ADD_NEXT_SEEDNODE.count(), seed);
```

nit: For new code, it could make sense to use the clear and non-deprecated alias here.

💬 zPapaBear commented on issue "Error when launching Bitcoin Core":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29995#issuecomment-2088077663)
> > is it supposed to do this? i already had 590gb of the blockchain downloaded.
>
> If you told it to reindex, it will reindex.

Alright, its been "Processing blocks on disk" for about 2 days now, without internet.
Is it just reading and verifying whats there or something else? also does it normally take so long?

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Error when launching Bitcoin Core":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29995#issuecomment-2088079918)
You can check the progress window to see the progress and what it is doing currently. Also, you can use the task manager to see the CPU usage, or IO, to see whether it is doing work.

💬 zPapaBear commented on issue "Error when launching Bitcoin Core":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29995#issuecomment-2088085190)
> You can check the progress window to see the progress and what it is doing currently. Also, you can use the task manager to see the CPU usage, or IO, to see whether it is doing work.

as i said, it says "processing blocks on disk" with about 6 years remaining. But its gonna take about a week at this rate to do so, thus why im checking if its something normal. is it?

💬 WaffleApe commented on issue "Bitcoin Core 27 crash at sync - Ubuntu - No error in logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30001#issuecomment-2088088320)
[gdb.txt](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/files/15174784/gdb.txt)

Thanks for taking the time answering @maflcko.

The external HDD is mounted as a GUID Partition Table and is connected via USB3 to the motherboard's input. Only blocksdir is stored in the HDD.
The datadir is stored in the internal SSD

Attached to this message the gdb output when running bitcoin-qt in the debugger.

Please also find the `dmesg` output: https://pastebin.com/WBVXnRYe

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Error when launching Bitcoin Core":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29995#issuecomment-2088090333)
How long IBD takes depends on the speed of your CPU and other hardware components.

💬 zPapaBear commented on issue "Error when launching Bitcoin Core":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29995#issuecomment-2088091255)
> How long IBD takes depends on the speed of your CPU and other hardware components.

if i remove the ssd and plug it to a more powerful pc, does it continue? or will it restart?

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "test: Intermittent issue in feature_init.py", line 88, in run_test with node.wait_for_debug_log([terminate_line]): AssertionError: [node 0] Expected messages "[b'scheduler thread start']" does not partially match log:"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30011)
https://drahtbot.space/temp_scratch/feature_init_55.tar.zstd

```
test 2024-04-26T22:21:51.801000Z TestFramework.node0 (DEBUG): Node stopped
test 2024-04-26T22:21:51.801000Z TestFramework (INFO): Starting node and will exit after line b'Validating signatures for all blocks'
test 2024-04-26T22:21:51.809000Z TestFramework.node0 (DEBUG): bitcoind started, waiting for RPC to come up
node0 2024-04-26T22:22:36.237116Z [init] [init/common.cpp:155] [LogPackageVersion] Bitcoin Core versio
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "test: Intermittent issue in feature_init.py", line 88, in run_test with node.wait_for_debug_log([terminate_line]): AssertionError: [node 0] Expected messages "[b'scheduler thread start']" does not partially match log:":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30011#issuecomment-2088093064)
Looks like it ignored the terminate signal

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Error when launching Bitcoin Core":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29995#issuecomment-2088103940)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base.

General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or one of the Bitcoin subreddits, or any other place that you feel is well suited.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Bitcoin Core 27 crash at sync - Ubuntu - No error in logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30001#issuecomment-2088108958)
The gdb txt is empty. You can also post it in a comment, if it is shorter than 100 lines.

💬 WaffleApe commented on issue "Bitcoin Core 27 crash at sync - Ubuntu - No error in logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30001#issuecomment-2088111750)
@maflcko apologies, here is the dgb extract https://pastebin.com/LQri1rtg

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1585991033)
The idea is to return `GetChildrenFromSamePeer` in recency order. This one could be returned that way as well, as the goal is to have a random order (and we randomize the indices), but all I wanted to do here was deduplicate.

As for the 2 functions having duplicate code, for a longer explanation: I'm hoping we can remove 1p1cs with different providers by tracking all orphan announcers, which would mean deleting `GetChildrenFromDifferentPeer`. I think it'll be easier to delete the function + u
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1586000826)
> Is there a reason to convert the wtxids into hex strings for this comparison? That seems kind of expensive, especially when Wtxid already has an operator<.

> I surmise that this has to do with the "concatenated in lexicographical order (treating the wtxids as little endian encoded uint256, smallest to largest)" and BIP 331 defines the same thing, but it's not clear to me why it must be like that (and couldn't also be changed in the BIP).

The code was originally using the operator< define
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "refactor: Avoid unused-variable warning in init.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29968#issuecomment-2088128784)
Could be:
```diff
diff --git a/src/init.cpp b/src/init.cpp
index 4d7638cd6e..ebfcb9cf8e 100644
--- a/src/init.cpp
+++ b/src/init.cpp
@@ -1312,7 +1312,7 @@ bool AppInitMain(NodeContext& node, interfaces::BlockAndHeaderTipInfo* tip_info)
{"-zmqpubsequence", true}
}) {
const std::string arg{port_option.first};
- const bool unix{port_option.second};
+ [[maybe_unused]] const bool unix{port_option.second};
for (const std::string& socket
...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on issue "Change estimate_mode default to "ECONOMICAL" in these RPC calls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30009#issuecomment-2088162169)
> Therefore, I suggest changing the default fee estimation mode to "ECONOMICAL" in the following RPCs

Unfortunately even "economic" mode still overestimate so changing default mode to "economic" does not fix this issue.

There is an ongoing effort "see [delving post](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/mempool-based-fee-estimation-on-bitcoin-core/703)" where contributors are discussing the challenges of `CBlockPolicyEstimator` which is the fee estimation strategy used by all those RPC's.

Yes th
...