💬 jirijakes commented on pull request "doc: Fix and clarify description of ZMQ message format":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31862#discussion_r2020060211)
I overlooked that, fixed.

💬 jirijakes commented on pull request "doc: Fix and clarify description of ZMQ message format":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31862#discussion_r2020060259)
Used this suggestion.

💬 jirijakes commented on pull request "doc: Fix and clarify description of ZMQ message format":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31862#discussion_r2020060307)
This was a very useful suggestion. Thanks!

💬 jirijakes commented on pull request "doc: Fix and clarify description of ZMQ message format":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31862#issuecomment-2764377913)
Reflected @ryanofsky's comments (thanks!) and used his suggestions.

- format of messages is now first outlined in a single table
- explanation of each topic follows the table in dedicated subsections
- format of numbers is consistent
- sequence numbers are referred to as either _message sequence number_ or _mempool sequence number_ to stress the difference
- the last subsection of “Usage” section is now called “Implementing ZMQ client” to separate it from previous sections; additionally,
...

⚠️ SatoshiFans888 opened an issue: "Acccedence; Double Poisson Sum†; p 0.04999579029644097"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32165)
Dear Bitcoin,

Wouldn't it Is the Poisson Sum shown as the periodic end or the spearhead in Bitcoin? Because it is not at all applicable to either Blockchain or what we call Cryptocurrency. Either you can really implement what the Poisson Sum is or you just have Delusions that think you understand what Satoshi Nakamoto published.

Why is it hurt by the content of my message? Let's focus on the topic ^^.

We know that the Poisson Sum has an exponential value of rational repeating but one thing
...

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Acccedence; Double Poisson Sum†; p 0.04999579029644097"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32165)

💬 warioishere commented on issue "assumeutxo: not syncing the snapshot chainstate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30971#issuecomment-2764480408)
> [@warioishere](https://github.com/warioishere) The `chainstate_snapshot` directory is automatically deleted at the next restart of your node. Have you done one already? If not, please restart your node and see if it was removed. Thanks you!

thanks pal I was better to read

[](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/design/assumeutxo.md?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
first hehe

Yes after restart `chainstate_snapshot` got cleaned up

💬 SatoshiFans888 commented on issue "Acccedence; Double Poisson Sum†; p 0.04999579029644097":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32165#issuecomment-2764493899)
@fanquake Thanks a lot

💬 laanwj commented on issue "(removed)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32165#issuecomment-2764496988)
This github ia intended for concrete issues related to functionality of the software or its development. Please do not post rambling (LLM-generated?) pseudo-mathemetical essays about what bitcoin ought to be here, it is a waste of time for all of us.

✅ jirijakes closed an issue: "test: No unit test covers BIP342 tapscript signatures"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32012)

💬 jirijakes commented on issue "test: No unit test covers BIP342 tapscript signatures":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32012#issuecomment-2764497762)
Thank everybody for checking.

Originally, I was running the test without `qa-assets`, only using `./build/bin/test_bitcoin --run_test=script_tests`. To my understanding, that uses only the attached `bip341_wallet_vectors.json`, which is the test vector from the BIP (it does not cover tapscript).

What I did not verify was running with `qa-assets`. As others have reported, using `qa-assets` correctly raises errors after the modification.

I believe the BIP's test vectors should also cover tapscr
...

💬 SatoshiFans888 commented on issue "(removed)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32165#issuecomment-2764500880)
@laanwj Either I understand or I'm wrong, the essence of the message is the determination of z and p values in the Double Poisson Sum, I always calculate the risk before calculating the reward, I also had a headache with how it was applied to Mathematics but I could only tell the numbers were 1.96 and 0.04999579029644097 and some other criteria, maybe Bitcoin is still the Bitcoin that Satoshi asked for at the beginning of his speech, so proud.

📝 eval-exec opened a pull request: "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as cosnt to improve readability) torcontrol: Define tor replay code as const to improve our maintainability"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166)
This PR want to replace tor repy code with const to improve out maintainability.

Friendly invite

💬 eval-exec commented on pull request "torcontrol: Add comment explaining Proxy credential randomization for Tor privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973#issuecomment-2764507260)
Friendly ping @fanquake , I think this PR is ready to be merged.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166#issuecomment-2764511611)
Could probably be cherry-picked into https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973, so that there is only a single pull with doc/refactor fixups of the same file?

✅ eval-exec closed a pull request: "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166)

💬 eval-exec commented on pull request "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166#issuecomment-2764512073)
> Could probably be cherry-picked into #31973, so that there is only a single pull with doc/refactor fixups of the same file?

Sure.

📝 eval-exec reopened a pull request: "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166)
This PR want to replace tor repy code with const to improve out maintainability.

Friendly invite @fanquake @laanwj @luke-jr to review this PR.

✅ eval-exec closed a pull request: "torcontrol: Add comment explaining Proxy credential randomization for Tor privacy"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973)

💬 eval-exec commented on pull request "torcontrol: Add comment explaining Proxy credential randomization for Tor privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973#issuecomment-2764512464)
Has cherry-pick this commit into https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "oss-fuzz build fails"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32167)
https://oss-fuzz-build-logs.storage.googleapis.com/index.html#bitcoin-core

Passing: https://oss-fuzz-build-logs.storage.googleapis.com/log-412269f7-edf7-41df-bf45-c7c19e4a6518.txt

(commit f1d129d96340503ec5f6b347c2fdf6a6901b1f7e)

Failing: https://oss-fuzz-build-logs.storage.googleapis.com/log-55825031-7dd1-470e-a768-1dd6d1cc1d8a.txt

(commit 0a1e36effaa5aa27bc5f2c4955c1fa2eb2f0c8fa)

output:

```
Step #30 - "compile-libfuzzer-address-i386": copying packages: boost libevent sqlite
Step #30 - "
...