💬 furszy commented on pull request "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#discussion_r1224766573)
done, deleted

💬 furszy commented on pull request "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#discussion_r1224767267)
done. Refactored to pass `exit_status` ref.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#discussion_r1224767427)
done

💬 furszy commented on pull request "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#discussion_r1224770367)
yeah, same note applies for the other loop that was moved out of the try catch. The one that calls `IsSwitchChar()`.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#issuecomment-1585125402)
Thanks @ryanofsky!
Feedback tackled. Small [diff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/61fe1af01418d8b93d38aba8aeb65aecfa6a95cd..da60d86bfbe7fe49ce7181b5b394c0e3d8c53854).

⚠️ lodembeep opened an issue: "Bitcoin's relay fee refactoring"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27847)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

It would be great to refactor the Bitcoin relay fee in a way that would benefit full nodes operators

### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.

Since BTC is getting bigger and bigger, the incentive to run a full bitcoin node is just ridiculous.
Data storage cost a lot, and laptp manufacturers doesn't give a damn about it.

### Describe the solution you'd like

It would be nice to reward full nodes with a few sa
...

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#pullrequestreview-1473159658)
Code review ACK da60d86bfbe7fe49ce7181b5b394c0e3d8c53854

Thanks for following up on earlier suggestions. Left some new comments below, but this also looks good in it's current form.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#discussion_r1224879234)
In commit "gui: return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors" (624340f9acbdd3c2d54c3824248e2c0cff4cf487)

Not necessary to address here, but with #10102 when the node and GUI are running in separate processes, `m_node->context()` will be null, so this will crash.

You could fix and future-proof this by adding a `interfaces::Node::setExitStatus()` function, or just update the existing [`appInitMain()`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/153a6882f42fff3fdc63bf770d4c86a62c46c448/src/node/
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#discussion_r1224882202)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#discussion_r1224765526

> That was my first idea too but `GuiMain()` is a static function with no direct access to the node interface.

I think it can just do `return app.node().getExitStatus();`. The `app.node()` method is public and already used in `GuiMain()`

💬 lodembeep commented on issue "Bitcoin's relay fee refactoring":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27847#issuecomment-1585247162)
to be more specific :

The objective behind this request is to get a real brainstorming, or at least gather data about a possible way to reward people for running a node, TBH i am 100% bitcoin believer but considering how much it costs to run a full node, i tend to rely on third parties and must trust them since i don't have the means to run a full node.

The main issue is that full nodes should be afordable in a way or another.

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Bitcoin's relay fee refactoring":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27847#issuecomment-1585273430)
What are your costs in this analysis? I can run a full node with -txindex for less than $100 in equipment and only around 200 MB/day of internet bandwidth. In pruned mode it can even get cheaper.

> It would be great to refactor the Bitcoin relay fee in a way that would benefit full nodes operators

The benefit is secure, private, direct, nearly un-censorable access to an unstoppable financial system.

💬 lodembeep commented on issue "Bitcoin's relay fee refactoring":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27847#issuecomment-1585286088)
Do you even know what 100$ is worth in non US countries ?
Bitcoin was made to bank the unbanked (among other things), 100$ in the US is not 100$ in other countries.

💬 sipa commented on issue "Bitcoin's relay fee refactoring":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27847#issuecomment-1585287013)
This discussion is off-topic here. Any potential solution to address this would need very invasive changes to the protocol, and belong on the bitcoin-dev mailing list as they affect the entire ecosystem. Not on the issue tracker for one implementation.

💬 lodembeep commented on issue "Bitcoin's relay fee refactoring":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27847#issuecomment-1585289087)
For sure this would be a huge change to the protocol, but it would also be a relief for many who cannot afford a full node, as i said, a solution should be found in a way o another.

💬 Dukdig2325 commented on issue "Bitcoin's relay fee refactoring":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27847#issuecomment-1585322712)
> ### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.
>
> It would be great to refactor the Bitcoin relay fee in a way that would benefit full nodes operators
>
> ### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.
>
> Since BTC is getting bigger and bigger, the incentive to run a full bitcoin node is just ridiculous.
> Data storage cost a lot, and laptop manufacturers doesn't give a damn about it.
>
> ### Describe the solution you'd like
>
> It would be nice to reward
...

💬 Dukdig2325 commented on issue "Sign PSBT: Can't verify change output":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/732#issuecomment-1585323556)
> ### Is there an existing issue for this?
>
> - [X] I have searched the existing issues
>
> ### Current behaviour
>
> When I load a PSBT from file to sign it, the dialog that appears looks like this:
>
> 
>
> There's no way for me to know that the second output belongs to me (it does). Without knowing this I'd feel really uncomfortable signing the PSBT.
>
> ### Ex
...

⚠️ Giszmo opened an issue: "Indefinite "Bitcoin Core is shutting down...""
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27848)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

After shutting down Bitcoin Core Qt, the window "Bitcoin Core is shutting down... Do not shut down the computer until this window disappears." remains open indefinitely (or at least 24h).

### Expected behaviour

Quick shutdown.

### Steps to reproduce

Try to stop Bitcoin-Qt

### Relevant log output

2023-06-09T01:32:58Z UPnP Port Mapping successful.
2023-06-09T01:37:38Z tor: Thread inte
...

💬 Giszmo commented on issue "Indefinite "Bitcoin Core is shutting down..."":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27848#issuecomment-1585492534)
I see #16778 but here I only see one process when I `ps -eLl | grep bitcoin`.

I see #25897 but here I see no process using any CPU.

💬 Dukdig2325 commented on issue "Add support for sighash flags in PSBT (like SINGLE|ANYONECANPAY)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/712#issuecomment-1585516611)
> **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.**
> When using Bitcoin Core's GUI to sign a PSBT that has a UTXO with `sighash=SINGLE|ANYONECANPAY`, it throws following error:
> ```
> Specified sighash value does not match value stored in PSBT
> ```
>
> **Describe the solution you'd like**
> I'd like it to successfully sign PSBTs containing `sighash=SINGLE|ANYONECANPAY`
>
> **Describe alternatives you've considered**
> The current non-idea workaround is to use the console wi
...

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "assumeutxo (2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27596#issuecomment-1585587421)
> This may look like a lot to review, but note that
>
> * 200 lines are duplicated in #24008

This should refer to #27746 now, shouldn't it?