💬 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

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3139506353)
> FYI my two OpenTimestamps calendars are creating sub-1sat/vB transactions:
> Also BlueWallet recently merged a pull-req to allow users to choose sub-1sat/vB
fees.

Luke isn't wrong if runes and inscriptions are considered spam. Minimum fee is still above 1 sat/vbyte in most blocks and sub 1 sat/vbyte fee rate is mostly used by runes and inscription transactions.

<img width="1850" height="703" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f1c5502f-7bee-4d53-a024-b7ffa49e379
...

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "log: rate limiting followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33011#discussion_r2245140841)
Re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33011#issuecomment-3136494016:

Nice find re the lock contention. I was able to hit this from other locations in the test too on my machine. As you suggested offline, I think the best fix is to disable the LOCK category for this test. It might be helpful to first add a commit to prevent leaking categories across tests (e.g. https://github.com/stickies-v/bitcoin/commit/3d96ff75f161419654b14a7e9fd884e52aec26c4), and then the below diff should work?

<
...

💬 ArmchairCryptologist commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3139637317)
> Luke isn't wrong if runes and inscriptions are considered spam. Minimum fee is still above 1 sat/vbyte in most blocks and sub 1 sat/vbyte fee rate is mostly used by runes and inscription transactions.

It's irrelevant whether or not anyone considers any transaction "spam", all that matters is if miners are mining them, and they are. At the time of this writing, looking back at the last three days worth of blocks, there are about 100 blocks containing <1 sat/vB transactions, and the only pool
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: limit max stack size to 512 KiB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33079#discussion_r2245154779)
Yeah, I was confused, because on current master, it passes even with the workaround reverted at least for me locally:

`git revert -m1 --no-commit 2d5b4244147bfd59471864ed563907e8012c7aee`

Though, lowering the stack limit gives the same segfault:

```diff
diff --git a/ci/test/03_test_script.sh b/ci/test/03_test_script.sh
index 13bfea1f22..eb3950d126 100755
--- a/ci/test/03_test_script.sh
+++ b/ci/test/03_test_script.sh
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ du -sh "${DEPENDS_DIR}"/*/
du -sh "${PREVI
...

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "wallet: Set descriptor cache upgraded flag for migrated wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33031#discussion_r2245195429)
I see, yes `ser_string` seems thorough.

👍 rkrux approved a pull request: "wallet: Set descriptor cache upgraded flag for migrated wallets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33031#pullrequestreview-3075128335)
lgtm ACK da84d666e375b82960962ddf840f331473149999 modulo py-lint error.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "wallet: Set descriptor cache upgraded flag for migrated wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33031#discussion_r2245197183)
Linter fails here because of `;`