💬 Sjors commented on issue "depends: `native_libmultiprocess` fails to build on OpenBSD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33219#issuecomment-3201724485)
Maybe we could have a label like "moar-ci" that runs these extra systems? Similar to how we can request guix builds.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33219#issuecomment-3201724485)
Maybe we could have a label like "moar-ci" that runs these extra systems? Similar to how we can request guix builds.
💬 TheBlueMatt commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3201748467)
> The only difference between the binary that supports the -ipcbind option and the binary that does not support it
Forgive my ignorance, but ISTM a simple solution to @sipa's concern, then, would be for the *only* release `bitcoind` binary to be the `bitcoin-node` one. Is there some reason why someone should prefer to have run a binary which is simply missing the option (given release builds optionally provide it)?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3201748467)
> The only difference between the binary that supports the -ipcbind option and the binary that does not support it
Forgive my ignorance, but ISTM a simple solution to @sipa's concern, then, would be for the *only* release `bitcoind` binary to be the `bitcoin-node` one. Is there some reason why someone should prefer to have run a binary which is simply missing the option (given release builds optionally provide it)?
🤔 janb84 reviewed a pull request: "test: modify logging_filesize_rate_limit params"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33211#pullrequestreview-3133387403)
re ACK 5dda364c4b1965da586db7b81de8be90b6919414
changes since last ACK:
- more informative test failure loggin
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33211#pullrequestreview-3133387403)
re ACK 5dda364c4b1965da586db7b81de8be90b6919414
changes since last ACK:
- more informative test failure loggin
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: build for Linux HOSTS with `-static-libgcc`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33181#issuecomment-3201822267)
> Maybe add a note so we don't forget?
Any preference to where we add that?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33181#issuecomment-3201822267)
> Maybe add a note so we don't forget?
Any preference to where we add that?
📝 polespinasa opened a pull request: "doc: truc packages allow sub min feerate transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33220)
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32067
Some policy documentation is outdated since TRUC. This PR aims to update the documentation to the actual policy state.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33220)
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32067
Some policy documentation is outdated since TRUC. This PR aims to update the documentation to the actual policy state.
💬 polespinasa commented on issue "doc: Mempool Policy documentation Outdated since TRUC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32067#issuecomment-3201836465)
Went ahead and opened a PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33220 as draft to not create much noise.
@glozow feel free to review and suggest text :)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32067#issuecomment-3201836465)
Went ahead and opened a PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33220 as draft to not create much noise.
@glozow feel free to review and suggest text :)
💬 ryanofsky commented on issue "depends: `native_libmultiprocess` fails to build on OpenBSD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33219#issuecomment-3201847735)
I am waiting for openbsd to slowly install in a vm. It might not be too hard to add an openbsd job in the libmultiprocess repository too with https://github.com/vmactions/openbsd-vm
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33219#issuecomment-3201847735)
I am waiting for openbsd to slowly install in a vm. It might not be too hard to add an openbsd job in the libmultiprocess repository too with https://github.com/vmactions/openbsd-vm
🤔 yuvicc reviewed a pull request: "kernel: improve BlockChecked ownership semantics"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33078#pullrequestreview-3133490635)
Code Review ACK 1d9f1cb4bd6b119e1d56cbdd7f6ce4d4521fffa3
- the benchmark looks encouraging
- avoids ref-counts and no atomic overhead.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33078#pullrequestreview-3133490635)
Code Review ACK 1d9f1cb4bd6b119e1d56cbdd7f6ce4d4521fffa3
- the benchmark looks encouraging
- avoids ref-counts and no atomic overhead.
💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3201890300)
It's my first time fully reading through this PR (along with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31756 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33190) and looking at the code changes so my understanding is high level and likely incomplete. If there are details I'm missing or other PRs I should check out, please let me know.
Based on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31756#issuecomment-3191623241 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3190601926, it see
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3201890300)
It's my first time fully reading through this PR (along with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31756 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33190) and looking at the code changes so my understanding is high level and likely incomplete. If there are details I'm missing or other PRs I should check out, please let me know.
Based on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31756#issuecomment-3191623241 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3190601926, it see
...
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "index: fix wrong assert of current_tip == m_best_block_index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32878#issuecomment-3201901283)
ACK 3aef38f44b76dfda77f47dc1a0e1fdc6ff3c7766
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32878#issuecomment-3201901283)
ACK 3aef38f44b76dfda77f47dc1a0e1fdc6ff3c7766
🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "index: fix wrong assert of current_tip == m_best_block_index"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32878)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32878)
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3201962009)
> > The only difference between the binary that supports the -ipcbind option and the binary that does not support it
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but ISTM a simple solution to @sipa's concern, then, would be for the _only_ release `bitcoind` binary to be the `bitcoin-node` one.
If the only purpose of the ENABLE_IPC option were to enable the IPC mining interface this would make sense. But that's not the only purpose or even the intended one. The point of the option is to turn on IPC features b
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3201962009)
> > The only difference between the binary that supports the -ipcbind option and the binary that does not support it
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but ISTM a simple solution to @sipa's concern, then, would be for the _only_ release `bitcoind` binary to be the `bitcoin-node` one.
If the only purpose of the ENABLE_IPC option were to enable the IPC mining interface this would make sense. But that's not the only purpose or even the intended one. The point of the option is to turn on IPC features b
...
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3201997480)
> This would give us more confidence to include the new binary in the next official release.
marcofleon, I think your understanding is all correct but note that -ipcbind feature and mining interface are available in v29 and can be easily toggled on in cmake. If you check discussion starting https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3189623427 not having the feature enabled in binary releases and depends builds has seemed to be a barrier to adoption. It do think it might not b
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3201997480)
> This would give us more confidence to include the new binary in the next official release.
marcofleon, I think your understanding is all correct but note that -ipcbind feature and mining interface are available in v29 and can be easily toggled on in cmake. If you check discussion starting https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3189623427 not having the feature enabled in binary releases and depends builds has seemed to be a barrier to adoption. It do think it might not b
...
⚠️ CryptoYahan opened an issue: "Request for Review: Somali Translation and Explanation of Bitcoin Whitepaper"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33221)
We have translated the Bitcoin whitepaper into Somali and have provided a detailed explanation for sections that may be difficult to understand. This translation aims to make Bitcoin more accessible to the Somali-speaking community.
We kindly request that you publish both the Somali translation and its accompanying explanation on your official website to help reach a wider audience. Both documents are fully accurate, and their purpose is purely educational, without ads or marketing.
Here are t
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33221)
We have translated the Bitcoin whitepaper into Somali and have provided a detailed explanation for sections that may be difficult to understand. This translation aims to make Bitcoin more accessible to the Somali-speaking community.
We kindly request that you publish both the Somali translation and its accompanying explanation on your official website to help reach a wider audience. Both documents are fully accurate, and their purpose is purely educational, without ads or marketing.
Here are t
...
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "cmake: Fix `-pthread` flags presentation in summary":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31724#issuecomment-3202050752)
> The best alternative to printing a summary at configure time, is to generate it into a file at generate time with [`file(GENERATE)`](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/command/file.html#generate). This supports generator expressions.
I think there is value in printing a configure summary to stdout, so writing it only to a file could make it harder to quickly double-check if an option or compile flag has been applied.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31724#issuecomment-3202050752)
> The best alternative to printing a summary at configure time, is to generate it into a file at generate time with [`file(GENERATE)`](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/command/file.html#generate). This supports generator expressions.
I think there is value in printing a configure summary to stdout, so writing it only to a file could make it harder to quickly double-check if an option or compile flag has been applied.
✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Request for Review: Somali Translation and Explanation of Bitcoin Whitepaper"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33221)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33221)
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3202115220)
> What is being enabled here is nominally an optional feature (in the sense that _right now_ all the multiprocess binaries do is add the mining IPC service), but it's really the start of moving towards a multiprocess world, where the new binaries at some point become the "normal" way of using the Bitcoin Core daemon. Certainly at that point, I think ENABLE_IPC should be the default, and we should see capnp as a normal expected dependency, rather than an optional extra feature.
Right, but my t
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3202115220)
> What is being enabled here is nominally an optional feature (in the sense that _right now_ all the multiprocess binaries do is add the mining IPC service), but it's really the start of moving towards a multiprocess world, where the new binaries at some point become the "normal" way of using the Bitcoin Core daemon. Certainly at that point, I think ENABLE_IPC should be the default, and we should see capnp as a normal expected dependency, rather than an optional extra feature.
Right, but my t
...
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet: Remove isminetypes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#issuecomment-3202116489)
re-ACK 620abe985e5150c3151192d08746b7845a69dbbf
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#issuecomment-3202116489)
re-ACK 620abe985e5150c3151192d08746b7845a69dbbf
💬 naiyoma commented on pull request "test: rpc: add last block announcement time to getpeerinfo result":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27052#discussion_r2286253898)
I'm not sure I understand why this is optional. Originally, it was set to a sentinel value.
I don't see a situation where it wouldn't have a value.
My suggestion → `NodeSeconds oldest_block_announcement = NodeSeconds::max();`
That way `.has_value() `checks and `*oldest_block_announcement` can be avoided.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27052#discussion_r2286253898)
I'm not sure I understand why this is optional. Originally, it was set to a sentinel value.
I don't see a situation where it wouldn't have a value.
My suggestion → `NodeSeconds oldest_block_announcement = NodeSeconds::max();`
That way `.has_value() `checks and `*oldest_block_announcement` can be avoided.
💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3202119931)
(Sorry in advance for the meandering comment, I was reading the others coming in as I was typing this up)
> @achow101 @ryanofsky In my [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33190#issuecomment-3196869655) in the other PR regarding seeing this PR as a successor to that one, I failed the consider the possibility of enabling it in release builds without making it default in from-source builds, like Qt, ZMQ, USDT, so I saw it as two separate sequential decisions to be made, rather than
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3202119931)
(Sorry in advance for the meandering comment, I was reading the others coming in as I was typing this up)
> @achow101 @ryanofsky In my [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33190#issuecomment-3196869655) in the other PR regarding seeing this PR as a successor to that one, I failed the consider the possibility of enabling it in release builds without making it default in from-source builds, like Qt, ZMQ, USDT, so I saw it as two separate sequential decisions to be made, rather than
...