💬 brunoerg commented on issue "Fuzz: compare our AES implementation to AES-NI ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27548#issuecomment-3507064396)
> @brunoerg perhaps something to add to bitcoinfuzz? Otherwise if cryptofuzz gets revived, that might also be something (if it wasn't already in there).
Since cryptofuzz is not alive anymore, we could have it on bitcoinfuzz. I will open an issue there.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27548#issuecomment-3507064396)
> @brunoerg perhaps something to add to bitcoinfuzz? Otherwise if cryptofuzz gets revived, that might also be something (if it wasn't already in there).
Since cryptofuzz is not alive anymore, we could have it on bitcoinfuzz. I will open an issue there.
⚠️ vortexowll opened an issue: "Submission of a Historical & Experiential Report on the Creation of Bitcoin — Request for Dialogue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33829)
Hello Bitcoin Core contributors and community,
My name is Richard Krause. I’ve prepared a detailed document that combines a historical overview of the birth of Bitcoin and my firsthand account of parallel spiritual and computational frameworks of decentralization, sovereignty, energy circulation, and value.
The document is titled “Parallel Origins: A Personal Reflection on the Creation of Bitcoin and the Hidden Architecture of Energy and Trust.” It explores the overlap between technological i
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33829)
Hello Bitcoin Core contributors and community,
My name is Richard Krause. I’ve prepared a detailed document that combines a historical overview of the birth of Bitcoin and my firsthand account of parallel spiritual and computational frameworks of decentralization, sovereignty, energy circulation, and value.
The document is titled “Parallel Origins: A Personal Reflection on the Creation of Bitcoin and the Hidden Architecture of Energy and Trust.” It explores the overlap between technological i
...
✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "Submission of a Historical & Experiential Report on the Creation of Bitcoin — Request for Dialogue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33829)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33829)
💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Submission of a Historical & Experiential Report on the Creation of Bitcoin — Request for Dialogue":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33829#issuecomment-3507132268)
This should be posted on the [bitcoin-dev mailing list](https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev), the [Delving Bitcoin forum](https://delvingbitcoin.org/) or some other platform where broad, protocol-level concepts are discussed. Conceptual questions and most usage questions can be posted on [Stack Exchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/). The Bitcoin Core issue tracker is reserved for discussion about this specific software project only, its implementation and usage.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33829#issuecomment-3507132268)
This should be posted on the [bitcoin-dev mailing list](https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev), the [Delving Bitcoin forum](https://delvingbitcoin.org/) or some other platform where broad, protocol-level concepts are discussed. Conceptual questions and most usage questions can be posted on [Stack Exchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/). The Bitcoin Core issue tracker is reserved for discussion about this specific software project only, its implementation and usage.
🤔 sfgroupltd78-gif reviewed a pull request: "refactor: Add missing include in bitcoinkernel_wrapper.h"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33825#pullrequestreview-3439072081)
with the pull request files athttps:
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33825#pullrequestreview-3439072081)
with the pull request files athttps:
💬 sfgroupltd78-gif commented on pull request "refactor: Add missing include in bitcoinkernel_wrapper.h":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33825#issuecomment-3507272109)
Fan
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33825#issuecomment-3507272109)
Fan
📝 lancemitchell157-maker opened a pull request: "Create devcontainer.json"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33830)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33830)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...
📝 lancemitchell157-maker opened a pull request: "Create devcontainer.json"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33831)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33831)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...
💬 waketraindev commented on issue "Cache headers in REST":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33809#issuecomment-3507829348)
Cache-Control headers can be easily handled at the nginx layer. Rather than adding this logic directly in Bitcoin REST code, it might make sense to include a sample nginx config under contrib/ with reasonable defaults for REST endpoints.
```
# Example include: rest-cache.conf
location /rest/block/ {
# Cache block lookups by hash for a long time (immutable)
if ($uri ~ "^/rest/block/[0-9a-f]+\.json$") {
add_header Cache-Control "public, max-age=31536000, immutable";
}
# C
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33809#issuecomment-3507829348)
Cache-Control headers can be easily handled at the nginx layer. Rather than adding this logic directly in Bitcoin REST code, it might make sense to include a sample nginx config under contrib/ with reasonable defaults for REST endpoints.
```
# Example include: rest-cache.conf
location /rest/block/ {
# Cache block lookups by hash for a long time (immutable)
if ($uri ~ "^/rest/block/[0-9a-f]+\.json$") {
add_header Cache-Control "public, max-age=31536000, immutable";
}
# C
...
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "docs: add doc comment for SRD selection algorithm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33622#discussion_r2507900417)
I think I see now what you are getting on when you say "Budgeting separately". You're saying that by budgeting separately you are providing a value to be used for change_fee and any value used for change fee will be at least `CHANGE_LOWER`. If there is no other discussion on this i'll accept it and move on, but this is pretty confusing imo. It also doesn't make clear that you can just not "budget separately" and the change_fee will be equal to `CHANGE_LOWER`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33622#discussion_r2507900417)
I think I see now what you are getting on when you say "Budgeting separately". You're saying that by budgeting separately you are providing a value to be used for change_fee and any value used for change fee will be at least `CHANGE_LOWER`. If there is no other discussion on this i'll accept it and move on, but this is pretty confusing imo. It also doesn't make clear that you can just not "budget separately" and the change_fee will be equal to `CHANGE_LOWER`.
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "docs: add doc comment for SRD selection algorithm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33622#discussion_r2507913429)
I think ideally a default parameter value is used here: `CAmount change_fee = CHANGE_LOWER`. That way it's made more clear that either you budget separately for the `change_fee` or it will default to CHANGE_LOWER. In most cases CHANGE_LOWER should be plenty for a change_fee.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33622#discussion_r2507913429)
I think ideally a default parameter value is used here: `CAmount change_fee = CHANGE_LOWER`. That way it's made more clear that either you budget separately for the `change_fee` or it will default to CHANGE_LOWER. In most cases CHANGE_LOWER should be plenty for a change_fee.
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "docs: add doc comment for SRD selection algorithm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33622#discussion_r2507937182)
I updated the documentation per out discussion here to read:
`
If the maximum weight is exceeded, the OutputGroups with the lowest effective value are removed from the selection until weight is acceptable. By removing the lowest effective value, the average effective value per weight of the selection is increased and thus reducing the average selection size. If a solution is found, the resulting selection will produce a change output with an amount of at least CHANGE_LOWER.
`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33622#discussion_r2507937182)
I updated the documentation per out discussion here to read:
`
If the maximum weight is exceeded, the OutputGroups with the lowest effective value are removed from the selection until weight is acceptable. By removing the lowest effective value, the average effective value per weight of the selection is increased and thus reducing the average selection size. If a solution is found, the resulting selection will produce a change output with an amount of at least CHANGE_LOWER.
`
🤔 TheCharlatan reviewed a pull request: "kernel: Add block header support and validation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#pullrequestreview-3439843515)
Approach ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#pullrequestreview-3439843515)
Approach ACK
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Add block header support and validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#discussion_r2508027260)
Can you add `BOOST_CHECK_THROW(BlockHeader{hex_string_to_byte_vec("00")}, std::runtime_error);`?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#discussion_r2508027260)
Can you add `BOOST_CHECK_THROW(BlockHeader{hex_string_to_byte_vec("00")}, std::runtime_error);`?
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Add block header support and validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#discussion_r2507927303)
I think the variable name `state` should just be kept.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#discussion_r2507927303)
I think the variable name `state` should just be kept.
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Add block header support and validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#discussion_r2508070029)
This (and `btck_block_validation_state_copy` needs `BITCOINKERNEL_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#discussion_r2508070029)
This (and `btck_block_validation_state_copy` needs `BITCOINKERNEL_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT`
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Add block header support and validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#discussion_r2508041569)
I saw that in your own patch, you wrapped this call in a try-catch block. As far as I can tell we should not run into an exception here, but maybe it is still better to add it for defensive reasons?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#discussion_r2508041569)
I saw that in your own patch, you wrapped this call in a try-catch block. As far as I can tell we should not run into an exception here, but maybe it is still better to add it for defensive reasons?
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Add block header support and validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#discussion_r2508065115)
One thing that could be considered here is returning the `BlockValidationState` directly instead of having an in/out param. To safely do that I think we'd need to refactor `ProcessNewBlockHeaders` though, similarly to what was done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/74690f4ed82b1584abb07c0387db0d924c4c0cab. Not sure that is worth it.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#discussion_r2508065115)
One thing that could be considered here is returning the `BlockValidationState` directly instead of having an in/out param. To safely do that I think we'd need to refactor `ProcessNewBlockHeaders` though, similarly to what was done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/74690f4ed82b1584abb07c0387db0d924c4c0cab. Not sure that is worth it.
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Add block header support and validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#discussion_r2508035777)
I wouldn't add this length check here and would instead just rely on the exception. We do the same thing in the rpc too: `submitheader` just calls `DecodeHexBlockHeader`, which doesn't have a length check either.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33822#discussion_r2508035777)
I wouldn't add this length check here and would instead just rely on the exception. We do the same thing in the rpc too: `submitheader` just calls `DecodeHexBlockHeader`, which doesn't have a length check either.
👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "interfaces: enable cancelling running `waitNext` calls"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33676#pullrequestreview-3440065494)
ACK dcb56fd4cb59e6857c110dd87019459989dc1ec3
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33676#pullrequestreview-3440065494)
ACK dcb56fd4cb59e6857c110dd87019459989dc1ec3