💬 hMsats commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3327325279)
I've used `-datacarrier` and `-datacarriersize` in the past but have removed them based on all the recent discussions (especially Gregory Maxwell on Reddit) and am in favor of the recent default settings in Bitcoin Core 30.0. However, I strongly oppose removing these options which so many people find useful to express their disgust for non-financial data in the block chain and therefore refuse to relay them. I also believe this documentation change is worth holding up the release for.
ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3327325279)
I've used `-datacarrier` and `-datacarriersize` in the past but have removed them based on all the recent discussions (especially Gregory Maxwell on Reddit) and am in favor of the recent default settings in Bitcoin Core 30.0. However, I strongly oppose removing these options which so many people find useful to express their disgust for non-financial data in the block chain and therefore refuse to relay them. I also believe this documentation change is worth holding up the release for.
ACK
💬 Kruwed commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3327350787)
>However, I strongly oppose removing these options which so many people find useful to express their disgust for non-financial data in the block chain and therefore refuse to relay them.
"Expressing disgust" is not a reasonable use case. Why do you think that Bitcoin Core should cater towards emotional outbursts?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3327350787)
>However, I strongly oppose removing these options which so many people find useful to express their disgust for non-financial data in the block chain and therefore refuse to relay them.
"Expressing disgust" is not a reasonable use case. Why do you think that Bitcoin Core should cater towards emotional outbursts?
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: static libxcb-cursor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3327376933)
> > but libxcb-cursor0 is unrelated to it.
>
> Installing libxcb-cursor fixes the windowing behaviour?
No, it doesn't. The user [tested](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33432#issuecomment-3312812001) different binaries, rather than running the same binary with and without libxcb-cursor installed.
> > Is there any particular reason to rush this PR into v30.0?
>
> I'd prefer if we were shipping a gui which didn't require non technical users to install runtime dependencies.
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3327376933)
> > but libxcb-cursor0 is unrelated to it.
>
> Installing libxcb-cursor fixes the windowing behaviour?
No, it doesn't. The user [tested](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33432#issuecomment-3312812001) different binaries, rather than running the same binary with and without libxcb-cursor installed.
> > Is there any particular reason to rush this PR into v30.0?
>
> I'd prefer if we were shipping a gui which didn't require non technical users to install runtime dependencies.
...
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: static libxcb-cursor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3327398830)
> No, it doesn't. The user tested different binaries, rather than running the same binary with and without libxcb-cursor installed.
The comment in this thread claims that a Guix build of this PR does not have the windowing bug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3312740332
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3327398830)
> No, it doesn't. The user tested different binaries, rather than running the same binary with and without libxcb-cursor installed.
The comment in this thread claims that a Guix build of this PR does not have the windowing bug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3312740332
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: static libxcb-cursor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3327410871)
> > No, it doesn't. The user tested different binaries, rather than running the same binary with and without libxcb-cursor installed.
>
> The comment in this thread claims that a Guix build of this PR does not have the windowing bug: [#33434 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3312740332)
Sure. It never had it. The windowing bug is observed when using Qt 6.4.2 on Ubuntu.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3327410871)
> > No, it doesn't. The user tested different binaries, rather than running the same binary with and without libxcb-cursor installed.
>
> The comment in this thread claims that a Guix build of this PR does not have the windowing bug: [#33434 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3312740332)
Sure. It never had it. The windowing bug is observed when using Qt 6.4.2 on Ubuntu.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: static libxcb-cursor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3327427018)
The initial issue was for a Guix built binary though: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3312489843 ?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3327427018)
The initial issue was for a Guix built binary though: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3312489843 ?
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: static libxcb-cursor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3327444588)
> The initial issue was for a Guix built binary though: [#33434 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3312489843) ?
That comment doesn’t make sense: "install libxcb-cursor0" cannot result in "removed dark mode". The user likely mixed up the binaries they ran.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3327444588)
> The initial issue was for a Guix built binary though: [#33434 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3312489843) ?
That comment doesn’t make sense: "install libxcb-cursor0" cannot result in "removed dark mode". The user likely mixed up the binaries they ran.
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-3327532508)
Updated 2ac9d60c54a777978101c369f5895a933208a44c -> 21b0503c2f19f5e4662cea1ceecb425b8460967b ([kernelApi_66](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_66) -> [kernelApi_67](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_67), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelApi_66..kernelApi_67))
* Expanded test coverage a bit more, no changes to the API.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-3327532508)
Updated 2ac9d60c54a777978101c369f5895a933208a44c -> 21b0503c2f19f5e4662cea1ceecb425b8460967b ([kernelApi_66](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_66) -> [kernelApi_67](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_67), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelApi_66..kernelApi_67))
* Expanded test coverage a bit more, no changes to the API.
💬 bitschmidty commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3327584051)
> This is the 3rd PR since #32406's merge discussing what the config options' docs should say.
Thank you to all who have reviewed and provided thoughtful feedback on this PR.
> I believe this PR tries to align the documentation with what users can expect. Usage of these options can cause the node to reject transactions that are likely to be mined, so the docs should discourage their use (to me, that means deprecated). However, it seems that removal in the near future is (1) unlikely and (
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3327584051)
> This is the 3rd PR since #32406's merge discussing what the config options' docs should say.
Thank you to all who have reviewed and provided thoughtful feedback on this PR.
> I believe this PR tries to align the documentation with what users can expect. Usage of these options can cause the node to reject transactions that are likely to be mined, so the docs should discourage their use (to me, that means deprecated). However, it seems that removal in the near future is (1) unlikely and (
...
🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "depends: static libxcb-cursor"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#pullrequestreview-3262163206)
Concept ACK. This is consistent with our [docs](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/depends/packages.md#secondary-dependencies).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#pullrequestreview-3262163206)
Concept ACK. This is consistent with our [docs](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/depends/packages.md#secondary-dependencies).
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: run s390x job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33436#issuecomment-3327728312)
> For the record a big-endian CI machine would have helped with #31144
It should be trivial to run the CI task locally, on demand. For development/debugging that should even be easier than to rely on a remove short-lived server. It should also be easy to temporarily add the config to the CI to trigger it on demand, if needed, similar to *BSD stuff, like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33435#discussion_r2364674969.
Again, I am not against adding this. My only concern is that this wo
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33436#issuecomment-3327728312)
> For the record a big-endian CI machine would have helped with #31144
It should be trivial to run the CI task locally, on demand. For development/debugging that should even be easier than to rely on a remove short-lived server. It should also be easy to temporarily add the config to the CI to trigger it on demand, if needed, similar to *BSD stuff, like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33435#discussion_r2364674969.
Again, I am not against adding this. My only concern is that this wo
...
💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: add (atleast one) *BSD job to the CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33438#issuecomment-3327754865)
This should be trivial to add, but requires a third-party action to be enabled. E.g.
* https://github.com/cross-platform-actions/action?tab=readme-ov-file#supported-platforms
* https://github.com/vmactions#hi-there-
* ...
So the main question here is how comfortable are we in trusting those actions to be enabled and run in this repo.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33438#issuecomment-3327754865)
This should be trivial to add, but requires a third-party action to be enabled. E.g.
* https://github.com/cross-platform-actions/action?tab=readme-ov-file#supported-platforms
* https://github.com/vmactions#hi-there-
* ...
So the main question here is how comfortable are we in trusting those actions to be enabled and run in this repo.
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: static libxcb-cursor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3327769226)
@laanwj
You might want to take a look at this PR.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33434#issuecomment-3327769226)
@laanwj
You might want to take a look at this PR.
💬 theDavidCoen commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3327813332)
> > This is the 3rd PR since #32406's merge discussing what the config options' docs should say.
>
> Thank you to all who have reviewed and provided thoughtful feedback on this PR.
>
> > I believe this PR tries to align the documentation with what users can expect. Usage of these options can cause the node to reject transactions that are likely to be mined, so the docs should discourage their use (to me, that means deprecated). However, it seems that removal in the near future is (1) unlik
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3327813332)
> > This is the 3rd PR since #32406's merge discussing what the config options' docs should say.
>
> Thank you to all who have reviewed and provided thoughtful feedback on this PR.
>
> > I believe this PR tries to align the documentation with what users can expect. Usage of these options can cause the node to reject transactions that are likely to be mined, so the docs should discourage their use (to me, that means deprecated). However, it seems that removal in the near future is (1) unlik
...
💬 janb84 commented on pull request "guix: documented shasum gathering command":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33472#issuecomment-3327869054)
Addressed all the feedback (including the linter's spelling sugestion )
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33472#issuecomment-3327869054)
Addressed all the feedback (including the linter's spelling sugestion )
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "docs: Undeprecate datacarrier and datacarriersize configuration options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3327870842)
> Tangibly, that would mean closing this PR
FWIW, I like the current PR more than these other ideas. I see these options as basically the same as other options. Not particularly dangerous, not particularly interesting, likely to be kept if used and there are contributors willing to maintain them, and likely to be removed if not used or they impose significant costs. I think having a warning which draws special attention to these options just amps up partisans on both sides and does not help t
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3327870842)
> Tangibly, that would mean closing this PR
FWIW, I like the current PR more than these other ideas. I see these options as basically the same as other options. Not particularly dangerous, not particularly interesting, likely to be kept if used and there are contributors willing to maintain them, and likely to be removed if not used or they impose significant costs. I think having a warning which draws special attention to these options just amps up partisans on both sides and does not help t
...
💬 trevarj commented on pull request "guix: documented shasum gathering command":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33472#issuecomment-3327942653)
ACK [d29ab99](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/d29ab9946f3c1916032f41e7a365dfcb26af2c46)
Thanks for this
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33472#issuecomment-3327942653)
ACK [d29ab99](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/d29ab9946f3c1916032f41e7a365dfcb26af2c46)
Thanks for this
💬 trevarj commented on pull request "contrib: Add zsh completion scripts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33402#issuecomment-3327956176)
@fanquake this seems useful and I think the bot made a mistake. Could it be reopened?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33402#issuecomment-3327956176)
@fanquake this seems useful and I think the bot made a mistake. Could it be reopened?
🤔 maflcko reviewed a pull request: "contrib: Add zsh completion scripts"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33402#pullrequestreview-3262619549)
You'd have to update the line in the docs? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/3b5e6121f58f0ca4663deabe793a26be38b0f535/contrib/README.md?plain=1#L45
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33402#pullrequestreview-3262619549)
You'd have to update the line in the docs? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/3b5e6121f58f0ca4663deabe793a26be38b0f535/contrib/README.md?plain=1#L45
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "contrib: Add zsh completion scripts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33402#discussion_r2375595433)
nit: for new files, you can drop the year range, or use `2025-present`, to avoid having to touch it again in the future.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33402#discussion_r2375595433)
nit: for new files, you can drop the year range, or use `2025-present`, to avoid having to touch it again in the future.