💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "[IBD] prevector: store `P2WSH`/`P2TR`/`P2PK` scripts inline":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32279#discussion_r2232640266)
Can get errors like:
```
test/script_tests.cpp(1246): error: in "script_tests/script_size_and_capacity_test": check script_dynamic_alloc( script, 64, 64 ) has failed for ( CScript(size=67,cap=67), 64, 64 )
test/script_tests.cpp(1253): error: in "script_tests/script_size_and_capacity_test": check script_dynamic_alloc( script, 10, 1000 ) has failed for ( CScript(size=71,cap=103), 10, 1000 )
```
with this approach:
```diff
--- a/src/test/script_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/script_tests.cp
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32279#discussion_r2232640266)
Can get errors like:
```
test/script_tests.cpp(1246): error: in "script_tests/script_size_and_capacity_test": check script_dynamic_alloc( script, 64, 64 ) has failed for ( CScript(size=67,cap=67), 64, 64 )
test/script_tests.cpp(1253): error: in "script_tests/script_size_and_capacity_test": check script_dynamic_alloc( script, 10, 1000 ) has failed for ( CScript(size=71,cap=103), 10, 1000 )
```
with this approach:
```diff
--- a/src/test/script_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/script_tests.cp
...
📝 w0xlt opened a pull request: "[POC] wallet: Add Support for BIP-353 DNS-Based Bitcoin Address via External Resolver"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069)
This PR implements [BIP-353](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0353.mediawiki) support in Bitcoin Core's wallet, enabling users to send Bitcoin to human-readable usernames instead of traditional addresses.
### What is BIP-353?
BIP-353 specifies a method for resolving human-friendly payment instructions via DNS. Instead of sharing long Bitcoin addresses, users can share memorable usernames like `alice._bitcoin-payment.example.com`.
### Key Features
* New `-dnsresolver` opt
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069)
This PR implements [BIP-353](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0353.mediawiki) support in Bitcoin Core's wallet, enabling users to send Bitcoin to human-readable usernames instead of traditional addresses.
### What is BIP-353?
BIP-353 specifies a method for resolving human-friendly payment instructions via DNS. Instead of sharing long Bitcoin addresses, users can share memorable usernames like `alice._bitcoin-payment.example.com`.
### Key Features
* New `-dnsresolver` opt
...
📝 w0xlt converted_to_draft a pull request: "[POC] wallet: Add Support for BIP-353 DNS-Based Bitcoin Address via External Resolver"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069)
This PR implements [BIP-353](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0353.mediawiki) support in Bitcoin Core's wallet, enabling users to send Bitcoin to human-readable usernames instead of traditional addresses.
### What is BIP-353?
BIP-353 specifies a method for resolving human-friendly payment instructions via DNS. Instead of sharing long Bitcoin addresses, users can share memorable usernames like `alice._bitcoin-payment.example.com`.
### Key Features
* New `-dnsresolver` opt
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069)
This PR implements [BIP-353](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0353.mediawiki) support in Bitcoin Core's wallet, enabling users to send Bitcoin to human-readable usernames instead of traditional addresses.
### What is BIP-353?
BIP-353 specifies a method for resolving human-friendly payment instructions via DNS. Instead of sharing long Bitcoin addresses, users can share memorable usernames like `alice._bitcoin-payment.example.com`.
### Key Features
* New `-dnsresolver` opt
...
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "cmake: Move internal binaries from bin/ to libexec/":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-3121464147)
@achow101 there was some discussion about `test_bitcoin` above: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-2807539249
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-3027233699
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-3121464147)
@achow101 there was some discussion about `test_bitcoin` above: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-2807539249
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-3027233699
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "[POC] wallet: Add Support for BIP-353 DNS-Based Bitcoin Address via External Resolver":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#discussion_r2232783849)
So after #28201 this would no longer be a failure?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#discussion_r2232783849)
So after #28201 this would no longer be a failure?
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "[POC] wallet: Add Support for BIP-353 DNS-Based Bitcoin Address via External Resolver":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#discussion_r2232784061)
Maybe return an array of strings, because there might be multiple options we can pay to (regular address, silent payment, some future thing).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#discussion_r2232784061)
Maybe return an array of strings, because there might be multiple options we can pay to (regular address, silent payment, some future thing).
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "[POC] wallet: Add Support for BIP-353 DNS-Based Bitcoin Address via External Resolver":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#discussion_r2232784859)
Can you add this to the send RPC as well? Ideally the code should reusable by the GUI too, so maybe move it to CWallet.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#discussion_r2232784859)
Can you add this to the send RPC as well? Ideally the code should reusable by the GUI too, so maybe move it to CWallet.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "[POC] wallet: Add Support for BIP-353 DNS-Based Bitcoin Address via External Resolver":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#issuecomment-3121475171)
Concept ACK
Using `RunCommandParseJSON()` is similar to how we handle external signers. It's a good way to add this functionality without adding a lot of code and dependencies.
It won't be useful until we have silent payments send support #24897 (we don't want to encourage address reuse), so this PR could be contingent on that.
Node in a box applications like [Rspiblitz](https://github.com/raspiblitz/raspiblitz) could easily ship and configure a resolver, so this can be used not just by
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#issuecomment-3121475171)
Concept ACK
Using `RunCommandParseJSON()` is similar to how we handle external signers. It's a good way to add this functionality without adding a lot of code and dependencies.
It won't be useful until we have silent payments send support #24897 (we don't want to encourage address reuse), so this PR could be contingent on that.
Node in a box applications like [Rspiblitz](https://github.com/raspiblitz/raspiblitz) could easily ship and configure a resolver, so this can be used not just by
...
💬 HowHsu commented on pull request "truc: optimize the in package relation calculation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33062#discussion_r2232787217)
Hi glozow,
> I think most of the benefits of precomputing this would be realized in the loop a few lines down looking for a package_tx sibling.
Could you elaborate on this?
As is, I'm not sure how much faster precomputation is: n=2 in normal cases, and we don't need to continue computing parents once we've realized it's oversize.
Yep, for n=2, I think no much difference here.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33062#discussion_r2232787217)
Hi glozow,
> I think most of the benefits of precomputing this would be realized in the loop a few lines down looking for a package_tx sibling.
Could you elaborate on this?
As is, I'm not sure how much faster precomputation is: n=2 in normal cases, and we don't need to continue computing parents once we've realized it's oversize.
Yep, for n=2, I think no much difference here.
💬 fanquake commented on issue "intermittent timeout in wallet_signer.py : sendall timed out":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33015#issuecomment-3121553822)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4962760091500544?logs=ci#L1710
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33015#issuecomment-3121553822)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4962760091500544?logs=ci#L1710
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "util: Revert "common: Close non-std fds before exec in RunCommandJSON"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33063#issuecomment-3121554126)
ACK faa1c3e80d95552bdc2c0e717065ebf8d510138f
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33063#issuecomment-3121554126)
ACK faa1c3e80d95552bdc2c0e717065ebf8d510138f
✅ fanquake closed an issue: "intermittent issue in rpc_signer.py (enumeratesigners timeout) under GLIBCXX debug mode"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32524)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32524)
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "util: Revert "common: Close non-std fds before exec in RunCommandJSON""
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33063)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33063)
✅ fanquake closed an issue: "intermittent timeout in wallet_signer.py : sendall timed out"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33015)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33015)
✅ fanquake closed an issue: "intermittent timeout in wallet_signer.py : 'createwallet' RPC took longer than 1200.000000 seconds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32855)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32855)
👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "test: fix RPC coverage check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33064)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33064)
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Run unit test parallel with functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33000#issuecomment-3121563681)
Concept ACK. Not sure about the approach of more Bash, to call new Python, that wraps more Bash.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33000#issuecomment-3121563681)
Concept ACK. Not sure about the approach of more Bash, to call new Python, that wraps more Bash.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#issuecomment-3121571275)
@hebasto how can we move past the GUI build failures here? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16538448423/job/46776353144?pr=32998#step:6:3769.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#issuecomment-3121571275)
@hebasto how can we move past the GUI build failures here? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16538448423/job/46776353144?pr=32998#step:6:3769.
💬 fanquake commented on issue "SegFault in `coinstatsindex_tests`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32936#issuecomment-3121573845)
Has this happened again? If not, and the suspicion is OOM, then I think close, and re-open if it happens again, with more info / steps to reproduce?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32936#issuecomment-3121573845)
Has this happened again? If not, and the suspicion is OOM, then I think close, and re-open if it happens again, with more info / steps to reproduce?
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: add option to skip large re-org test in feature_block":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33003#issuecomment-3121579232)
Looking at corecheck, there are currently 3 other functional tests that run slower than `feature_block.py` (`p2p_segwit.py`, `p2p_opportunistic_1p1c.py` & `mining_getblocktemplate_longpoll.py`). `p2p_opportunistic_1p1c.py` should be better after #33048.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33003#issuecomment-3121579232)
Looking at corecheck, there are currently 3 other functional tests that run slower than `feature_block.py` (`p2p_segwit.py`, `p2p_opportunistic_1p1c.py` & `mining_getblocktemplate_longpoll.py`). `p2p_opportunistic_1p1c.py` should be better after #33048.