💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Fix compatibility with `-debuglogfile` command-line option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33215#discussion_r2288731766)
```suggestion
throw JSONRPCError(RPC_MISC_ERROR, "Unable to import mempool file, see debug log for details.");
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33215#discussion_r2288731766)
```suggestion
throw JSONRPCError(RPC_MISC_ERROR, "Unable to import mempool file, see debug log for details.");
```
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Fix compatibility with `-debuglogfile` command-line option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33215#discussion_r2288703479)
```suggestion
InitError(strprintf(_("A fatal internal error occurred, see %s for details: %s"), fs::PathToString(LogInstance().m_file_path.filename()), message));
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33215#discussion_r2288703479)
```suggestion
InitError(strprintf(_("A fatal internal error occurred, see %s for details: %s"), fs::PathToString(LogInstance().m_file_path.filename()), message));
```
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Fix compatibility with `-debuglogfile` command-line option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33215#discussion_r2288702414)
```suggestion
tfm::format(std::cerr, "Error during initialization - check %s for details\n", fs::PathToString(LogInstance().m_file_path.filename()));
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33215#discussion_r2288702414)
```suggestion
tfm::format(std::cerr, "Error during initialization - check %s for details\n", fs::PathToString(LogInstance().m_file_path.filename()));
```
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: use local `CBlockIndex` in block read hash mismatch check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33154)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33154)
👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "[29.x] 33106 backport and final changes for rc2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33226)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33226)
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#discussion_r2288751458)
Yes, will clean this up properly on the next push.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#discussion_r2288751458)
Yes, will clean this up properly on the next push.
👋 polespinasa's pull request is ready for review: "doc: truc packages allow sub min feerate transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33220)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33220)
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "kernel: improve BlockChecked ownership semantics":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33078#issuecomment-3207402503)
ACK 1d9f1cb4bd6b119e1d56cbdd7f6ce4d4521fffa3
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33078#issuecomment-3207402503)
ACK 1d9f1cb4bd6b119e1d56cbdd7f6ce4d4521fffa3
💬 janb84 commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3207403645)
> re: [#31802 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206751392)
>
> > They'll encounter the old `bitcoind` binary, a new `bitcoin` binary, and a new `bitcoin-node` binary in a weird directory that seems to do the same thing as `bitcoind` if they try to run it.
>
> This also seems like actionable feedback. Note there is also a `test_bitcoin` binary in the `libexec/` directory and a [readme](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/README.md) file in
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3207403645)
> re: [#31802 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206751392)
>
> > They'll encounter the old `bitcoind` binary, a new `bitcoin` binary, and a new `bitcoin-node` binary in a weird directory that seems to do the same thing as `bitcoind` if they try to run it.
>
> This also seems like actionable feedback. Note there is also a `test_bitcoin` binary in the `libexec/` directory and a [readme](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/README.md) file in
...
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3207416840)
@janb84 you can see for yourself with both `(sudo) cmake --install build` and a guix build that the `bitcoin-node` and `bitcoin-gui` binaries go into `libexec`. They're only in `build/bin` (not in PATH) when you build from source without installing.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3207416840)
@janb84 you can see for yourself with both `(sudo) cmake --install build` and a guix build that the `bitcoin-node` and `bitcoin-gui` binaries go into `libexec`. They're only in `build/bin` (not in PATH) when you build from source without installing.
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3207439196)
> It's not the `libexec` directory that's the issue , it's the `bin` directory ( packaged ), or will the v30 packaged also contain a libexec directory?
Yep, the v30 package will contain a `libexec/` directory alongside the `bin/` directory. This was implemented in #31679. In binary releases following that PR, the `libexec/` directory just contains a `test_bitcoin` file. (You can see the complete file list in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/files.md#installed-files.)
This
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3207439196)
> It's not the `libexec` directory that's the issue , it's the `bin` directory ( packaged ), or will the v30 packaged also contain a libexec directory?
Yep, the v30 package will contain a `libexec/` directory alongside the `bin/` directory. This was implemented in #31679. In binary releases following that PR, the `libexec/` directory just contains a `test_bitcoin` file. (You can see the complete file list in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/files.md#installed-files.)
This
...
🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "kernel: improve BlockChecked ownership semantics"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33078)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33078)
🤔 jlest01 reviewed a pull request: "wallet: Remove isminetypes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#pullrequestreview-3137706983)
reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523/commits/be776a1443fdf1a72e0d363c1566d71cb0cda8b5
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#pullrequestreview-3137706983)
reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523/commits/be776a1443fdf1a72e0d363c1566d71cb0cda8b5
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "net: Provide block templates to peers on request":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33191#issuecomment-3207511492)
@ismaelsadeeq
> How does this proposal prevent a scenario where an adversary stuff transactions that are harmful to peers, forcing them to validate and save them
There's no need to fully validate these transactions you are given. If they violate your own policy you just won't include them in your own mempool (or include them in a block template).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33191#issuecomment-3207511492)
@ismaelsadeeq
> How does this proposal prevent a scenario where an adversary stuff transactions that are harmful to peers, forcing them to validate and save them
There's no need to fully validate these transactions you are given. If they violate your own policy you just won't include them in your own mempool (or include them in a block template).
💬 TheBlueMatt commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3207513300)
> @TheBlueMatt I agree that having the experience be seamless for miners is the goal. I more meant for the purposes of SRI contributors and maybe a couple of brave miners who are willing to help with testing of Core and SV2, so we can avoid buggy code in releases.
After a few years of work, we're now at a point where I can (with only modest confidence) say that we need the ability to do proper mining job building in Bitcoin Core in the next six months or so, implying it needs to ship in v30 o
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3207513300)
> @TheBlueMatt I agree that having the experience be seamless for miners is the goal. I more meant for the purposes of SRI contributors and maybe a couple of brave miners who are willing to help with testing of Core and SV2, so we can avoid buggy code in releases.
After a few years of work, we're now at a point where I can (with only modest confidence) say that we need the ability to do proper mining job building in Bitcoin Core in the next six months or so, implying it needs to ship in v30 o
...
💬 darosior commented on pull request "[29.x] 33106 backport and final changes for rc2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33226#issuecomment-3207534823)
Concept ACK. Hopefully this speeds up recovery of block propagation on the network.
-------- Original Message --------
On 8/20/25 3:53 PM, Gloria Zhao wrote:
> Backports [#33106](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106) and includes final changes for 29.1rc2. Built on top of [#33225](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33225). I'll rebase shortly after that's in.
>
> I did not include [#32750](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32750) because it causes [#33177](https://github.c
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33226#issuecomment-3207534823)
Concept ACK. Hopefully this speeds up recovery of block propagation on the network.
-------- Original Message --------
On 8/20/25 3:53 PM, Gloria Zhao wrote:
> Backports [#33106](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106) and includes final changes for 29.1rc2. Built on top of [#33225](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33225). I'll rebase shortly after that's in.
>
> I did not include [#32750](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32750) because it causes [#33177](https://github.c
...
🤔 janb84 reviewed a pull request: "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#pullrequestreview-3137965774)
ACK ce7d94a492e61f2a43ea315e75be607d6aa71702
After reading all the comments, I fail to see the risk of the new binaries.
- If you want to play safe, just run `bitcoind` and `bitcoin-cli` as normal.
- if you want to test the more experimental options use the new binaries. eg. `bitcoin` (and you will accept the risks with that)
People who run bitcoin-core binaries are not novices, they will not get confused by some extra binaries (especially if contained in a separate dir). Novices will
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#pullrequestreview-3137965774)
ACK ce7d94a492e61f2a43ea315e75be607d6aa71702
After reading all the comments, I fail to see the risk of the new binaries.
- If you want to play safe, just run `bitcoind` and `bitcoin-cli` as normal.
- if you want to test the more experimental options use the new binaries. eg. `bitcoin` (and you will accept the risks with that)
People who run bitcoin-core binaries are not novices, they will not get confused by some extra binaries (especially if contained in a separate dir). Novices will
...
💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "wallet: Add `exportwatchonlywallet` RPC to export a watchonly version of a wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32489#discussion_r2289136538)
These were all removed in #32977.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32489#discussion_r2289136538)
These were all removed in #32977.
📝 ryanofsky opened a pull request: "multiprocess: Don't require bitcoin -m argument when IPC options are used"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33229)
sipa and theuni in #31802 pointed out that users shouldn't be exposed to multiprocess implementation details just to use IPC features, so current need to specify the `bitcoin -m` option in conjunction with `-ipcbind` could be seen as a design mistake and not just a usage inconvenience. This is easy to fix by having the `bitcoin` wrapper respect IPC settings. Was planning to do this anyway, but this provides a good excuse to do it now.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33229)
sipa and theuni in #31802 pointed out that users shouldn't be exposed to multiprocess implementation details just to use IPC features, so current need to specify the `bitcoin -m` option in conjunction with `-ipcbind` could be seen as a design mistake and not just a usage inconvenience. This is easy to fix by having the `bitcoin` wrapper respect IPC settings. Was planning to do this anyway, but this provides a good excuse to do it now.
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3208001779)
re: [#31802 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206701996)
> > I'm in favor of multiprocess happening when it's ready. We should have a point in time where we decide, as a project, to start moving everything to multiprocess. At that point, there will inevitably be a mental cost to users, but at least it can be explained then as "this gives you the benefit of process separation, being able to run wallets elsewhere, stop/start gui independently from node, ..."
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3208001779)
re: [#31802 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3206701996)
> > I'm in favor of multiprocess happening when it's ready. We should have a point in time where we decide, as a project, to start moving everything to multiprocess. At that point, there will inevitably be a mental cost to users, but at least it can be explained then as "this gives you the benefit of process separation, being able to run wallets elsewhere, stop/start gui independently from node, ..."
...