💬 gmaxwell commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3079665606)
> It's not obvious that the price going up 10x means we get to lower the default by 10x, because it's a more important system now and the stakes are simply higher.
Sure, though at the same time the situation being dicussed here isn't price up 10x means default down 10x. Compared to when this was last adjusted the price is up 500x and this proposes down by 10x. :P The magnitudes matter-- particularly in that it answers your drawdown comment: Even if bitcoin prices drop by 90% they'll still
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3079665606)
> It's not obvious that the price going up 10x means we get to lower the default by 10x, because it's a more important system now and the stakes are simply higher.
Sure, though at the same time the situation being dicussed here isn't price up 10x means default down 10x. Compared to when this was last adjusted the price is up 500x and this proposes down by 10x. :P The magnitudes matter-- particularly in that it answers your drawdown comment: Even if bitcoin prices drop by 90% they'll still
...
💬 sybot99 commented on issue "GUI bitcoin core shows wrong amount":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32976#issuecomment-3079684889)
> You can use the coin selection expert feature, or the RPC interface
Can you give some manual ? I need to get btc from that address, from change address
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32976#issuecomment-3079684889)
> You can use the coin selection expert feature, or the RPC interface
Can you give some manual ? I need to get btc from that address, from change address
📝 l0rinc opened a pull request: "log: unify `UpdateTip` values"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32996)
The most frequently seen log line prints tip-update data after each successful block connection. During IBD this produces ~900k lines (~250 characters per line), totaling ~220 MB so far.
Most `key=value` pairs are written directly, but block time is emitted as `date='ISO8601DateTime'`, adding unnecessary single quotes because the value contains no spaces.
Removing those quotes shortens every line and reduces a full-IBD debug log by ~1% (about ~2MB).
Before:
> 2025-07-16T04:50:47Z Updat
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32996)
The most frequently seen log line prints tip-update data after each successful block connection. During IBD this produces ~900k lines (~250 characters per line), totaling ~220 MB so far.
Most `key=value` pairs are written directly, but block time is emitted as `date='ISO8601DateTime'`, adding unnecessary single quotes because the value contains no spaces.
Removing those quotes shortens every line and reduces a full-IBD debug log by ~1% (about ~2MB).
Before:
> 2025-07-16T04:50:47Z Updat
...
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Set migrated wallet name only on success":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32984#issuecomment-3079713773)
> > I was unable to write a working functional test for this behavior.
>
> It should be pretty trivial, see #32988
Ah, thanks. Pulled in that commit with some changes.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32984#issuecomment-3079713773)
> > I was unable to write a working functional test for this behavior.
>
> It should be pretty trivial, see #32988
Ah, thanks. Pulled in that commit with some changes.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#issuecomment-3079716543)
Concept ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#issuecomment-3079716543)
Concept ACK
👋 brunoerg's pull request is ready for review: "fuzz: wallet: add target for tx scanning"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32993)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32993)
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet: add target for tx scanning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32993#issuecomment-3079741494)
> https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4897452429410304?logs=ci#L6267:
>
> ```shell
> [10:48:30.374] Run wallet_scan with args ['/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/fuzz', '-max_total_time=60']INFO: Running with entropic power schedule (0xFF, 100).
> [10:48:30.374] INFO: Seed: 1927962085
> [10:48:30.374] INFO: Loaded 1 modules (634026 inline 8-bit counters): 634026 [0x5573df666fb8, 0x5573df701c62),
> [10:48:30.374] INFO: Loaded 1 PC tables (634026 PCs): 634026 [0x5573df70
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32993#issuecomment-3079741494)
> https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4897452429410304?logs=ci#L6267:
>
> ```shell
> [10:48:30.374] Run wallet_scan with args ['/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/fuzz', '-max_total_time=60']INFO: Running with entropic power schedule (0xFF, 100).
> [10:48:30.374] INFO: Seed: 1927962085
> [10:48:30.374] INFO: Loaded 1 modules (634026 inline 8-bit counters): 634026 [0x5573df666fb8, 0x5573df701c62),
> [10:48:30.374] INFO: Loaded 1 PC tables (634026 PCs): 634026 [0x5573df70
...
💬 maflcko commented on issue "GUI bitcoin core shows wrong amount":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32976#issuecomment-3079753017)
coin control is an expert feature, but you can enable it in
Settings > Options > Wallet
Check "Enable coin control features (experts only!)"
The RPC has a manual, you can just go to "Window"->"Console" and type `help`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32976#issuecomment-3079753017)
coin control is an expert feature, but you can enable it in
Settings > Options > Wallet
Check "Enable coin control features (experts only!)"
The RPC has a manual, you can just go to "Window"->"Console" and type `help`.
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3079770986)
> If, at the time the figure was set, you had asked "But what happens if later bitcoin is trading at 100x what it is now?" you would have gotten a (near-)unanimous and hesitation free "then the setting can be adjusted down 100x"
I don't think I was around then, so maybe or maybe not :)
I assume the same logic holds for incremental rate?
> There is a secondary reason it exists
Not sure I understood this point.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3079770986)
> If, at the time the figure was set, you had asked "But what happens if later bitcoin is trading at 100x what it is now?" you would have gotten a (near-)unanimous and hesitation free "then the setting can be adjusted down 100x"
I don't think I was around then, so maybe or maybe not :)
I assume the same logic holds for incremental rate?
> There is a secondary reason it exists
Not sure I understood this point.
✅ Galoretka closed a pull request: "fix: Python 3 bytes comparison in linearize-data.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32978)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32978)
✅ sr-gi closed a pull request: "Adds transaction propagation information to mempool transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32986)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32986)
💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "Adds transaction propagation information to mempool transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32986#issuecomment-3079819547)
> I'm generally not in favour of making bespoke changes to production code or extending the public interface just to facilitate tests, monitoring, ... if there exists a workaround, especially for temporary projects. In this case, after speaking with @sr-gi offline a bit more, it seems it seems like tracepoints, logging, small patchsets, ... are feasible alternatives, so I'm Concept NACK on this one. (but I am open to making minimal changes to ensure the necessary erlay simulations can be ran)
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32986#issuecomment-3079819547)
> I'm generally not in favour of making bespoke changes to production code or extending the public interface just to facilitate tests, monitoring, ... if there exists a workaround, especially for temporary projects. In this case, after speaking with @sr-gi offline a bit more, it seems it seems like tracepoints, logging, small patchsets, ... are feasible alternatives, so I'm Concept NACK on this one. (but I am open to making minimal changes to ensure the necessary erlay simulations can be ran)
...
💬 gmaxwell commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3079827081)
> I assume the same logic holds for incremental rate?
I think that the incremental rate, like dust limit, would in an ideal world be just a pure function of the "actual" feerate, but we don't have access to the actual feerate and the actual rate is fluctuating while it's preferable for these to be more stable so the minrelay fee gets used as a proxy.
> Not sure I understood this point.
If there is a sustained period of low demand (such that few blocks are full) then absent artificial li
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3079827081)
> I assume the same logic holds for incremental rate?
I think that the incremental rate, like dust limit, would in an ideal world be just a pure function of the "actual" feerate, but we don't have access to the actual feerate and the actual rate is fluctuating while it's preferable for these to be more stable so the minrelay fee gets used as a proxy.
> Not sure I understood this point.
If there is a sustained period of low demand (such that few blocks are full) then absent artificial li
...
🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "wallet: Set migrated wallet name only on success"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32984#pullrequestreview-3026426274)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32984/commits/3a0be655c4fd5c74731f1fcb57c45e6a8c3c362f
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32984#pullrequestreview-3026426274)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32984/commits/3a0be655c4fd5c74731f1fcb57c45e6a8c3c362f
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validation: docs and cleanups for MemPoolAccept coins views":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32973#discussion_r2211313016)
s/has now been spent/has now been spent in the mempool/ ?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32973#discussion_r2211313016)
s/has now been spent/has now been spent in the mempool/ ?
💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2211351922)
maybe these should live in mempool_util?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2211351922)
maybe these should live in mempool_util?
💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2211362713)
Might want to assert that it's v2
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2211362713)
Might want to assert that it's v2
💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2211355006)
This looks like it was copy-pasted from the test framework - can we just use the existing method, perhaps with a wrapper if needed?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2211355006)
This looks like it was copy-pasted from the test framework - can we just use the existing method, perhaps with a wrapper if needed?
💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2211375162)
Could you also add `v2_tx_spends_confirmed_v3_tx` and `v3_tx_spends_confirmed_v2_tx` to check that version mismatches are fine there?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2211375162)
Could you also add `v2_tx_spends_confirmed_v3_tx` and `v3_tx_spends_confirmed_v2_tx` to check that version mismatches are fine there?
💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2211372152)
Should there also be a test where Alice tries to spend her change after Bob has spent from the parent? That wouldn't require `include_unsafe` IIUC
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2211372152)
Should there also be a test where Alice tries to spend her change after Bob has spent from the parent? That wouldn't require `include_unsafe` IIUC