📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "depends: disable builtin rules and suffixes."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33045)
This picks up #22126. Previously, this was more complicated to do, as depends packages (upnp, natpmp) used the rules being disabled. Those packages have since been removed, and we should be able to use the flag directly.
When there is no rule to build a target in the makefile, make looks for a builtin rule. When `-r` is specified make no longer performs this lookup.
E.g. the following in an excerpt from `make -d` output. Here, make looks for a rule to build `all`.
```bash
Considering tar
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33045)
This picks up #22126. Previously, this was more complicated to do, as depends packages (upnp, natpmp) used the rules being disabled. Those packages have since been removed, and we should be able to use the flag directly.
When there is no rule to build a target in the makefile, make looks for a builtin rule. When `-r` is specified make no longer performs this lookup.
E.g. the following in an excerpt from `make -d` output. Here, make looks for a rule to build `all`.
```bash
Considering tar
...
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Disable make builtin rules.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22126#issuecomment-3109111783)
Picked up in #33045.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22126#issuecomment-3109111783)
Picked up in #33045.
💬 enirox001 commented on pull request "test: Do not pass tests on unhandled exceptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33001#issuecomment-3109152663)
Looks good to me—ACK faa3e68
I verified both versions: before the patch the test passed erroneously, but with your changes it now fails as intended. This will be invaluable for debugging by ensuring unhandled exceptions surface as test failures.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33001#issuecomment-3109152663)
Looks good to me—ACK faa3e68
I verified both versions: before the patch the test passed erroneously, but with your changes it now fails as intended. This will be invaluable for debugging by ensuring unhandled exceptions surface as test failures.
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: inline constant return values from `dbwrapper` write methods":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33042#issuecomment-3109173946)
We could go the other way as well, enabling writes to only return a boolean and handle them everywhere.
I'm open to suggestions.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33042#issuecomment-3109173946)
We could go the other way as well, enabling writes to only return a boolean and handle them everywhere.
I'm open to suggestions.
💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2226003081)
This is a good point, if `coin_control.m_version` is not set and the preselected inputs have different versions, then an error would not be thrown. I have changed `m_version` so that it has a default value of `CTransaction::CURRENT_VERSION` instead of being optional.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2226003081)
This is a good point, if `coin_control.m_version` is not set and the preselected inputs have different versions, then an error would not be thrown. I have changed `m_version` so that it has a default value of `CTransaction::CURRENT_VERSION` instead of being optional.
💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2226003455)
Thanks, I've updated the comment
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2226003455)
Thanks, I've updated the comment
💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2226004291)
I've added a test for this.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2226004291)
I've added a test for this.
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Do not pass tests on unhandled exceptions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33001)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33001)
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "[28.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32969)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32969)
💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "[POC] wallet: Enable non-electronic (paper-based) wallet backup with codex32":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33043#issuecomment-3109229857)
Yes, you're right. I thought the passphrase deterministically modified the seed to create the BIP 32 Extended Key, but that's not the case.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/73e754bd01b0653d1fda2d947fcaed0742da81c3/src/wallet/wallet.cpp#L3542
So the passphrase doesn't provide any additional security in this case.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33043#issuecomment-3109229857)
Yes, you're right. I thought the passphrase deterministically modified the seed to create the BIP 32 Extended Key, but that's not the case.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/73e754bd01b0653d1fda2d947fcaed0742da81c3/src/wallet/wallet.cpp#L3542
So the passphrase doesn't provide any additional security in this case.
📝 w0xlt converted_to_draft a pull request: "[POC] wallet: Enable non-electronic (paper-based) wallet backup with codex32"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33043)
This PR introduces support for exporting and restoring wallet seeds using the [codex32](https://github.com/BlockstreamResearch/codex32) format, enabling non-electronic (paper-based) wallet backups.
To accomplish this, the patch ports the `codex32.{c,h}` implementation from Core Lightning to C++, integrating it with Bitcoin Core's libraries. Corresponding unit tests for codex32 encoding and decoding are also included.
Because Bitcoin Core wallets currently do not store the seed material by
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33043)
This PR introduces support for exporting and restoring wallet seeds using the [codex32](https://github.com/BlockstreamResearch/codex32) format, enabling non-electronic (paper-based) wallet backups.
To accomplish this, the patch ports the `codex32.{c,h}` implementation from Core Lightning to C++, integrating it with Bitcoin Core's libraries. Corresponding unit tests for codex32 encoding and decoding are also included.
Because Bitcoin Core wallets currently do not store the seed material by
...
📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[29.x] test: Do not pass tests on unhandled exceptions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33046)
Backports #33001 to `29.x`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33046)
Backports #33001 to `29.x`.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: Do not pass tests on unhandled exceptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33001#issuecomment-3109248309)
Backported to `29.x` in #33046.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33001#issuecomment-3109248309)
Backported to `29.x` in #33046.
👍 pablomartin4btc approved a pull request: "[29.x] test: Do not pass tests on unhandled exceptions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33046#pullrequestreview-3048147546)
ACK 411e15194b3a770ff455d413a0fe2495f0362297
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33046#pullrequestreview-3048147546)
ACK 411e15194b3a770ff455d413a0fe2495f0362297
💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "[POC] wallet: Enable non-electronic (paper-based) wallet backup with codex32":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33043#issuecomment-3109330016)
This could still be implemented—even as part of this PR.
The wallet generates the seed, stores it, and then derives the BIP32 master key by deterministically combining the seed with the user-provided passphrase. This approach allows users to back up the raw seed while still requiring the passphrase for wallet recovery.
Or am I missing something ?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33043#issuecomment-3109330016)
This could still be implemented—even as part of this PR.
The wallet generates the seed, stores it, and then derives the BIP32 master key by deterministically combining the seed with the user-provided passphrase. This approach allows users to back up the raw seed while still requiring the passphrase for wallet recovery.
Or am I missing something ?
💬 darosior commented on pull request "[29.x] Backport #32521":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33013#issuecomment-3109399111)
Cherry-picked your commit
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33013#issuecomment-3109399111)
Cherry-picked your commit
💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "Silent Payments: sending":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28201#discussion_r2226151771)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28201/commits/e0404435ff4d64b32b58774b6c909c66f1692a9f: `TxoutType::PUBKEY` which represents Pay2Pubkey outputs, is also not eligible to pay to silent payments outputs.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28201#discussion_r2226151771)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28201/commits/e0404435ff4d64b32b58774b6c909c66f1692a9f: `TxoutType::PUBKEY` which represents Pay2Pubkey outputs, is also not eligible to pay to silent payments outputs.
📝 brunoerg opened a pull request: "test: check proper OP_2ROT behavior"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33047)
According to corecheck, the following mutant is not caught by any test (https://corecheck.dev/mutation/src/script/interpreter.cpp).
```diff
diff --git a/src/script/interpreter.cpp b/src/script/interpreter.cpp
index 61ea7f4503..4f6fa34836 100644
--- a/src/script/interpreter.cpp
+++ b/src/script/interpreter.cpp
@@ -746,7 +746,6 @@ bool EvalScript(std::vector<std::vector<unsigned char> >& stack, const CScript&
return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_INVALID_STACK_OPERA
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33047)
According to corecheck, the following mutant is not caught by any test (https://corecheck.dev/mutation/src/script/interpreter.cpp).
```diff
diff --git a/src/script/interpreter.cpp b/src/script/interpreter.cpp
index 61ea7f4503..4f6fa34836 100644
--- a/src/script/interpreter.cpp
+++ b/src/script/interpreter.cpp
@@ -746,7 +746,6 @@ bool EvalScript(std::vector<std::vector<unsigned char> >& stack, const CScript&
return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_INVALID_STACK_OPERA
...
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3109422588)
As hinted by @glozow above, `mempool_opts.min_relay_feerate` is set automatically to the minimum of `incrementalrelayfee` and `minrelaytxfee`, so to lower the minimum feerate for what is accepted into a node’s mempool, which means that either `DEFAULT_INCREMENTAL_RELAY_FEE` also has to be lowered or the two need to be decoupled. I would still maintain that relaying things that aren’t mined by default would be odd, and so it sounds to me that lowering the `DEFAULT_MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE` would entail a
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3109422588)
As hinted by @glozow above, `mempool_opts.min_relay_feerate` is set automatically to the minimum of `incrementalrelayfee` and `minrelaytxfee`, so to lower the minimum feerate for what is accepted into a node’s mempool, which means that either `DEFAULT_INCREMENTAL_RELAY_FEE` also has to be lowered or the two need to be decoupled. I would still maintain that relaying things that aren’t mined by default would be odd, and so it sounds to me that lowering the `DEFAULT_MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE` would entail a
...
💬 darosior commented on pull request "Introduce per-txin sighash midstate cache for legacy/p2sh/segwitv0 scripts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32473#issuecomment-3109476511)
Here is a fuzz test which asserts the cached and not cached versions of the sighash function always return the same result: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3c056d766d6311e4120d43705b53059e3b1b0bb1. Running it for a while here did not reveal anything.
> I ran IBD on mainnet and signet with caching for blocks enabled and it did not result in any historical block being rejected on either of these networks. I'll do testnet3 and testnet4 next.
Done that and it didn't cause any issue e
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32473#issuecomment-3109476511)
Here is a fuzz test which asserts the cached and not cached versions of the sighash function always return the same result: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3c056d766d6311e4120d43705b53059e3b1b0bb1. Running it for a while here did not reveal anything.
> I ran IBD on mainnet and signet with caching for blocks enabled and it did not result in any historical block being rejected on either of these networks. I'll do testnet3 and testnet4 next.
Done that and it didn't cause any issue e
...