💬 hebasto commented on pull request "qt: Defer transaction signing until user clicks Send":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33925#issuecomment-3566981166)
Please move this PR to the GUI repository: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pulls.

💬 151henry151 commented on pull request "qt: Defer transaction signing until user clicks Send":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33925#issuecomment-3566982934)
Moving this PR to the GUI repository as requested by @hebasto.

✅ 151henry151 closed a pull request: "qt: Defer transaction signing until user clicks Send"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33925)

📝 151henry151 opened a pull request: "qt: Defer transaction signing until user clicks Send"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/915)
Fixes #30070

When creating an unsigned PSBT from the GUI, the transaction was already signed during preparation, causing legacy inputs to have non-empty scriptSig fields. The PSBT parser then rejects them.

This defers signing until the user clicks "Send" instead of signing during preparation. Fee calculation still works since transactions can be created without signing.

Follows the approach suggested by @achow101 in the issue comments.

💬 151henry151 commented on pull request "Align legacy script policy with P2SH policy in AreInputsStandard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33926#issuecomment-3567065533)
Our change allows NONSTANDARD legacy scripts with acceptable sigop counts to pass AreInputsStandard, which breaks tests that relied on those scripts being rejected.

p2p_segwit.py uses a NONSTANDARD script (0 sigops) as self.utxo[0] that now passes instead of being rejected, so transactions that should be rejected are getting accepted.

feature_taproot.py has some spenders with NONSTANDARD scripts that are now allowed, so the test's standardness checks don't match the new policy.

I'll fix
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "qa: Remove no longer needed `feature_dirsymlinks.py`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33924#issuecomment-3567069472)
> Being able to symlink the dir seems like a Bitcoin Core feature that should be supported and tested?

If "a Bitcoin Core feature" is taken to mean something explicitly implemented in the Bitcoin Core codebase, then this PR would indeed reduce test coverage. But that is not the case here.

💬 hebasto commented on issue "`test_bitcoin` from pre-built 28.0rc2 tarball is failing for JSON parsing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30938#issuecomment-3567084620)
> This can be worked around by installing python3. An alternative would be something like done here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868/files#r1747435819 (but that diff currently does not compile, as can be seen in the CI output)

I’ve revisited this and now think it’s reasonable for a test of a feature that itself depends on Python (HWI) to use Python directly. The only requirement is a runtime check ensuring that Python is available in `PATH`.

The dependency on `coreutils` may not
...

⚠️ mosbygerry2-svg opened an issue: "HOW DO I GET MY LOST BITCOIN BACK FROM SCAMMERS? Through TechY Force Cyber Retrieval"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33927)
I recently had the opportunity to work with a skilled programmer who specialized in recovering crypto assets, and the results were nothing short of impressive. The experience not only helped me regain control of my investments but also provided valuable insight into the intricacies of cryptocurrency technology and cybersecurity. The journey began when I attempted to withdraw $183,000 from an investment firm, only to be met with a series of challenges that made it impossible for me to access my
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629#discussion_r2553391883)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#discussion_r2359774840

was already hashed over in other PR

💬 billythekid commented on issue ".":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33927#issuecomment-3567163720)
This is fantastic.

⚠️ SeaSquared24 opened an issue: "Fresh install version 30.0 bitcoin-cli kicks me out if adding rpc creds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33928)
I have already read this other [issue](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14627) and could not determine if it was relevant to mine.

This is a fresh install of Bitcoin Core 30.0 and I am using the conf file from Ministry of Nodes 2024 [guide](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-JJzodH2l8&list=PLCRbH-IWlcW0g0HCrtI06_ZdVVolUWr39&index=6) MINUS the rpc creds because I am too lazy at the moment to do the rpcauth.py stuff and found that I can use the node normally until I add lines for rpcuser=
...

📝 andrewtoth converted_to_draft a pull request: "validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads >20% faster IBD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132)
This PR parallelizes fetching all input prevouts of a block right before block connection, achieving up to 31% faster IBD performance[^1][^2][^3].

### Problem

Currently, when fetching inputs in `ConnectBlock`, each input is fetched from the cache sequentially. A cache miss requires a round trip to the disk database to fetch the outpoint and insert it into the cache. Since the database is read-only during `ConnectBlock`, we can fetch all inputs of a block in parallel on multiple threads whi
...

✅ RandyMcMillan closed a pull request: "rpcnestedtests.cpp:remove qtest-obsolete members"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/900)

💬 yuvicc commented on pull request "kernel, validation: Refactor ProcessNewBlock(Headers) to return BlockValidationState":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33856#discussion_r2553777710)
Makes sense. Thanks.

💬 yuvicc commented on pull request "kernel, validation: Refactor ProcessNewBlock(Headers) to return BlockValidationState":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33856#issuecomment-3567526785)
Thanks for the review @w0xlt
- Addressed the [suggestion](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33856#discussion_r2547248797) and added you as co-author

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Fresh install version 30.0 bitcoin-cli kicks me out if adding rpc creds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33928)

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Fresh install version 30.0 bitcoin-cli kicks me out if adding rpc creds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33928#issuecomment-3567596771)
Without `rpcuser` and `rpcpassword`, the RPC server creates an ephemeral user and password saved in `.cookie` in the datadir. `bitcoin-cli` will parse your `bitcoin.conf` for `rpcuser` and `rpcpassword` first, and if it doesn't find them, then it looks at `.cookie`. Since you haven't restarted Bitcoin Core yet, those new credentials aren't being used by the RPC server, but `bitcoin-cli` is trying to use them, hence an unauthorized error.

When you use `rpcauth`, the password is not included dire
...

💬 hebasto commented on issue "callgrind_annotate broken after cmake migration?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31957#issuecomment-3567810672)
> Maybe the prefix-map can be disabled by default or an option could be added to disable it, or it could be disabled on `-DWITH_CCACHE=NO`, as there is no need for it then?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/788c1324f3d840f7a39b8bc3537dcff26ca0b552 could be considered for reverting. However, doing so would resurface https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30799.

💬 hebasto commented on issue "callgrind_annotate broken after cmake migration?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31957#issuecomment-3567833333)
> > Maybe the prefix-map can be disabled by default or an option could be added to disable it, or it could be disabled on `-DWITH_CCACHE=NO`, as there is no need for it then?
>
> [788c132](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/788c1324f3d840f7a39b8bc3537dcff26ca0b552) could be considered for reverting. However, doing so would resurface [#30799](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30799).

And the latter could be addressed using another approach:
```diff
--- a/src/logging.cpp
+++ b/src
...

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Source code mapping for debugger has changed since cmake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31204#issuecomment-3567837050)
@pinheadmz

Does the approach proposed in both https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31957#issuecomment-3567810672 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31957#issuecomment-3567833333 make any difference to this issue?