💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[PoC] ci: Add FreeBSD GitHub Actions job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30164#issuecomment-2130109577)
> > IMPORTANT. The `vmactions/*` needs to be added to the "Actions permissions" section of the repository settings.
>
> Not sure. What was the conclusion when GHA was added to the repo about enabling third party actions? IIRC it was unclear whether malicious or backdoored actions could compromise the repo, so the conclusion was to refrain from enabling them?
I think, this repository granted on Read permissions to the GH Actions workflows as their logs include:
```
GITHUB_TOKEN Permission
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30164#issuecomment-2130109577)
> > IMPORTANT. The `vmactions/*` needs to be added to the "Actions permissions" section of the repository settings.
>
> Not sure. What was the conclusion when GHA was added to the repo about enabling third party actions? IIRC it was unclear whether malicious or backdoored actions could compromise the repo, so the conclusion was to refrain from enabling them?
I think, this repository granted on Read permissions to the GH Actions workflows as their logs include:
```
GITHUB_TOKEN Permission
...
💬 sipa commented on pull request "doc: Change GiB to GB in release-process.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30171#issuecomment-2130126582)
> Software usually displays large sizes in GB because that's what the operating system and storage manufacturers use.
I don't think that's universally true. I believe Apple generally uses GB (meaning 10<sup>9</sup>), Windows generally uses GB (meaning 2<sup>30</sup>), and open-source systems use a mix (sometimes using GiB to mean 2<sup>30</sup>).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30171#issuecomment-2130126582)
> Software usually displays large sizes in GB because that's what the operating system and storage manufacturers use.
I don't think that's universally true. I believe Apple generally uses GB (meaning 10<sup>9</sup>), Windows generally uses GB (meaning 2<sup>30</sup>), and open-source systems use a mix (sometimes using GiB to mean 2<sup>30</sup>).
🤔 showtime73 reviewed a pull request: "doc: Change GiB to GB in release-process.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30171#pullrequestreview-2077589265)
Hello World
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30171#pullrequestreview-2077589265)
Hello World
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Low-level cluster linearization code":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30126#issuecomment-2130129883)
> Ancestor-set based presplitting inside the search is replaced with using the best ancestor set as one of the LIMO set choices.
Can this be elaborated a bit? I've taken a few minutes looking at the commits and it wasn't immediately clear how this all maps to existing public discussions and the comments:
```
// This is an implementation of the (single) LIMO algorithm:
// https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/limo-combining-the-best-parts-of-linearization-search-and-merging/825
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30126#issuecomment-2130129883)
> Ancestor-set based presplitting inside the search is replaced with using the best ancestor set as one of the LIMO set choices.
Can this be elaborated a bit? I've taken a few minutes looking at the commits and it wasn't immediately clear how this all maps to existing public discussions and the comments:
```
// This is an implementation of the (single) LIMO algorithm:
// https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/limo-combining-the-best-parts-of-linearization-search-and-merging/825
...
💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "improve MallocUsage() accuracy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28531#issuecomment-2130140023)
CI passed, thanks @theStack. I just force-pushed swapping of the two commits, the test commit has to be first for each commit to pass CI.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28531#issuecomment-2130140023)
CI passed, thanks @theStack. I just force-pushed swapping of the two commits, the test commit has to be first for each commit to pass CI.
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1613878905)
removed references to v3, and added a note that non-standard relay args should be removed once they're made standard
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1613878905)
removed references to v3, and added a note that non-standard relay args should be removed once they're made standard
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1613878961)
made an attempt at a grepp-able cautionary note
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1613878961)
made an attempt at a grepp-able cautionary note
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1613879170)
right this is just a logging arg; probably should clean that up to just take `Wtxid` in future work. re-arranged and passed in child workspace now
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1613879170)
right this is just a logging arg; probably should clean that up to just take `Wtxid` in future work. re-arranged and passed in child workspace now
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1613879250)
fixed
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1613879250)
fixed
💬 BenWestgate commented on pull request "doc: Change GiB to GB in release-process.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30171#issuecomment-2130157516)
> I don't think that's universally true. I believe Apple generally uses GB (meaning 109), Microsoft generally uses GB (meaning 230), and open-source systems use a mix (sometimes using GiB to mean 230).
Good to know. Should the value we display depend on platform then? At the very least I think we should be consistent within the repository or within a file. Currently we do math that adds and subtracts GiB from GB in the GUI welcome screen which will cause issues. https://github.com/bitcoin-cor
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30171#issuecomment-2130157516)
> I don't think that's universally true. I believe Apple generally uses GB (meaning 109), Microsoft generally uses GB (meaning 230), and open-source systems use a mix (sometimes using GiB to mean 230).
Good to know. Should the value we display depend on platform then? At the very least I think we should be consistent within the repository or within a file. Currently we do math that adds and subtracts GiB from GB in the GUI welcome screen which will cause issues. https://github.com/bitcoin-cor
...
🤔 murchandamus reviewed a pull request: "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#pullrequestreview-2077274300)
Thanks @achow101, @s3rk, and @ismaelsadeeq, I hope I addressed all of your comments satisfactorily.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#pullrequestreview-2077274300)
Thanks @achow101, @s3rk, and @ismaelsadeeq, I hope I addressed all of your comments satisfactorily.
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613854692)
used `exact_target` as proposed
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613854692)
used `exact_target` as proposed
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613782680)
Good question.
It has been a while since I made this change, but if I remember correctly, my fixing the duplicate meaning of `change_cost` broke this bench test due to the following:
Before my change, we would set `change_cost` to `0` as a signal that a transaction does not require a change output. This would happen when a coin selection algorithm found a changeless solution and after creating the recipient outputs there would not be sufficient funds to make a viable change output. However
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613782680)
Good question.
It has been a while since I made this change, but if I remember correctly, my fixing the duplicate meaning of `change_cost` broke this bench test due to the following:
Before my change, we would set `change_cost` to `0` as a signal that a transaction does not require a change output. This would happen when a coin selection algorithm found a changeless solution and after creating the recipient outputs there would not be sufficient funds to make a viable change output. However
...
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613679062)
Adopted the proposed change, but those lines get removed in the next commit anyway.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613679062)
Adopted the proposed change, but those lines get removed in the next commit anyway.
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613840073)
Yes! Thanks, I adjusted the comment.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613840073)
Yes! Thanks, I adjusted the comment.
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613876620)
I introduced an `exact_target` variable above this test block and used it everywhere it applies
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613876620)
I introduced an `exact_target` variable above this test block and used it everywhere it applies
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613825421)
Thanks, the "must be 0 if there is no change" is indeed outdated. I removed it.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613825421)
Thanks, the "must be 0 if there is no change" is indeed outdated. I removed it.
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613862525)
Added a calculation comment to illustrate the situation:
```code
// = (2 * fee) - (2 * (fee + large_fee_diff)) + change_cost
// = (2 * 100) - (2 * (100 + 90)) + 125
// = 200 - 380 + 125 = -55
```
and asserted that my calculation is correct.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613862525)
Added a calculation comment to illustrate the situation:
```code
// = (2 * fee) - (2 * (fee + large_fee_diff)) + change_cost
// = (2 * 100) - (2 * (100 + 90)) + 125
// = 200 - 380 + 125 = -55
```
and asserted that my calculation is correct.
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613850265)
Pulled `exact_target` out as another variable
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613850265)
Pulled `exact_target` out as another variable
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#issuecomment-2130175396)
> I'm not sure whether [44db79b](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/44db79b0c48d6b1a26dba6ab01c2a296d610c06b) is useful since it's fully replaced by the following commit.
Ah oops, yeah I guess the first commit was a vestige of my first attempt at this. I squashed it into the second commit.
Diff of before reviews to latest: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e95b9159380f2de7f9a6e7a202cc171ad285ee6c..2c18b86
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#issuecomment-2130175396)
> I'm not sure whether [44db79b](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/44db79b0c48d6b1a26dba6ab01c2a296d610c06b) is useful since it's fully replaced by the following commit.
Ah oops, yeah I guess the first commit was a vestige of my first attempt at this. I squashed it into the second commit.
Diff of before reviews to latest: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e95b9159380f2de7f9a6e7a202cc171ad285ee6c..2c18b86
💬 sipa commented on pull request "Low-level cluster linearization code":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30126#issuecomment-2130187888)
@instagibbs I've expanded the explanation. Happy to elaborate more if things are unclear.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30126#issuecomment-2130187888)
@instagibbs I've expanded the explanation. Happy to elaborate more if things are unclear.