💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218068575)
There are quite a few places where we can clean up production and test logic to not have to deal with non-dirty entries in BatchWrite. I think there would be too many TODOs.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218068664)
Done.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218069073)
You did enable it for a few additional cases, that's already a win 👍

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218069128)
Done.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218070113)
Err, I did but didn't test locally before pushing. I will have to revert. Tests are failing.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218071116)
I don't see what can be explained more than the code? This seems obvious to me.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218071185)
Can we fix those case of instead? Having a sanitycheck which isn't run just gives us a false sense of security otherwise

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218071890)
Ok, agree, please resolve the comment

💬 Lalaweazel commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#issuecomment-3095031799)
' DQ at need f cc 2iooo9 to be in work iiiiiiii iroieeieeieowwiereo W e

On Mon, 21 July 2025, 12:02 pm Andrew Toth, ***@***.***>
wrote:

> ***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
> ------------------------------
>
> In src/coins.h
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218067867>:
>
> > * - spent, not FRESH, DIRTY (e.g. a coin is spent and spentness needs to be flushed to the parent)
> */
> struct CCoinsCacheEntry
> {
> private:
> /**
>
...

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218079735)
Ah right, removed.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218080120)
I suppose its legal to call SetDirty on a coin that is already DIRTY-and-FRESH. I'm not sure we need to do anything here in that case.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218081257)
Should we remove its freshness in that case?

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218084376)
No, that would make this a behavior change rather than a refactor. We only added flags before, so we must only do that now as well.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218086462)
But we have prohibited one of the states here, we can document that with code now instead of comments. If we think it's a behavior change the PR is incorrect, isn't it?

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218086535)
I can make a follow-up to remove spent fresh and dirty entries from the test cases as well. I don't think that should happen in this PR though to keep it focused.
The previous PR also did this.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218092689)
Your suggestion is to assert that if fresh is false then the entry cannot already be fresh. This is not the case. An entry can be made DIRTY-and-FRESH, and then it can be made DIRTY again while already DIRTY-and-FRESH. The current behavior allows this to happen and keeps the entry DIRTY-and-FRESH when SetDirty is called. If we assert that we can't call SetDirty on a DIRTY-and-FRESH entry then it is a behavior change.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: remove SetFresh method from CCoinsCacheEntry":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33018#discussion_r2218093659)
Nah, I'm just on a phone and thought I'm commenting on SetDirty and SetFresh.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3095260286)
> Sure, though at the same time the situation being discussed 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

Previous settings have been:

* 2015/10/13 - 5sat/vb to 1sat/vb
* $250/BTC
* 1sat*200vb = 0.5c
* 1sat/vb*1Mvb/25BTC = 0.04% of block reward
* 2015/10/09 - 1sat/vb to 5at/vb
* $250/BTC
* 5sat*200vb = 2.5c
* 5sat/vb*1Mvb/25BTC = 0.2% of block reward
* 2013/04/13
...

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "test: add unit test for psbt_wallet error messages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33025)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: add unit test for psbt_wallet error messages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33025#issuecomment-3095412719)
Closing for now. You can open a new pull request for the new approach, once there is one.