💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244981786)
thx, done

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244982186)
seems unrelated? But i am happy to review a pull request changing it

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244982876)
Just to make review easier, because you agree that the commit is already large in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2233735207. Will leave as-is for now.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244984778)
> Looking at the code I understand it of course, but maybe something like:
>
> ```c++
> ElapseTime elapse_time{};
> elapse_time.Advance(777s);
> ```

Not sure. This is doing something else, as explained above by yourself? So this replacement is not correct to apply here.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244985411)
> are we planning on using the new declared object?

Yes, it can trivially be used, if there is need to. Possibly it isn't used in this specific instance any further, but it seems beneficial to allow it and also beneficial to be consistent in the naming and usage.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244987390)
I think it should be allowed to have it set previously, as there may be valid use-cases. Using it in multiple threads is not a thing right now and I can't imagine a use-case in the future. However, if there is one, it seems fine to support it and allow it as well.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244987874)
thx, done

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244988027)
thx, mentioned global in a new struct-level-doc

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244988253)
thx, mentioned global in a new struct-level-doc

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244988435)
thx, done

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244988724)
thx, done

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244991616)
> nit: I don't find the operator to be intuitive here, maybe we could call it `Advance` instead?

I think `elapse_time(4h)` or `elapse_steady(4h)` is self-explanatory. So leaving as-is for now.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244994040)
thx, reworded comment

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244994154)
thx, reworded comment a bit

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244994320)
thx, fixed

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244994428)
thx, split up into a new commit

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2244994901)
It is split up, because you agree that the commit is already large in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2233735207. Will leave as-is for now.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#issuecomment-3139428832)
Force pushed with some minor doc-changes and small refactoring in `src/test/util/time.h`

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3139446010)
> Concept NACK. Everything below 1s/vB is spam. There's no reason to change the default.

FYI my two OpenTimestamps calendars are creating sub-1sat/vB transactions:

https://alice.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org/
https://bob.btc.calendar.opentimestamps.org/

The operator of the Finney calendar has told me he's looking into doing that as
well.

Also BlueWallet recently merged a pull-req to allow users to choose sub-1sat/vB
fees.

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3139456269)
> It's the USD that has fallen, Bitcoin has remained more or less the same.

This is clearly not true. If you compute the Big Mac Index for Bitcoin and USD,
Bitcoin has clearly made enormous gains over the time period in question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index