💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: remove race in the user-agent reception check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27986#discussion_r1244951363)
> That is just another sanity check.

Might be better to check the length is one (unique), if the check is kept?

💬 vasild commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#discussion_r1244969873)
```
PR:
real 0m29.623s
user 10m58.337s
sys 0m51.187s

real 0m29.829s
user 10m58.359s
sys 0m50.912s

mocked_sockets.h:
real 0m29.528s
user 11m12.208s
sys 1m0.406s

real 0m28.831s
user 10m45.615s
sys 0m49.680s
```

I guess the "total CPU time" is real+sys from above. It all seems within noise. In both cases all tests would be recompiled, maybe I got @jonatack's comment wrong?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: remove duplicate bsdmainutils from CI configs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27987#issuecomment-1611106896)
What about the python3 package?

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Add interrupt class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27861#issuecomment-1611113265)
Rebased 001acf37dff40688d82c3b1a7ff9ed3901addb33 -> 6eb33bd0c21b3e075fbab596351cacafdc947472 ([kernelInterrupt_8](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/kernelInterrupt_8) -> [kernelInterrupt_9](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/kernelInterrupt_9), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelInterrupt_8..kernelInterrupt_9)).
* Fixed conflict with #27896

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#discussion_r1244981230)
> I guess the "total CPU time" is real+sys from above

user+sys, but thanks for re-checking.

💬 tansanDOTeth commented on issue "Keep getting errors after a while of syncing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27972#issuecomment-1611123854)
> Has anyone ever put the leveldb directory successfully on an external drive, I am not sure if this is even supported by leveldb?
>
> Edit: Alternatively, leveldb may not support your filesystem?

This looks like the fix. I am at 35% now and haven't had issues since reformatting as APFS. Seems like ExFAT is the culprit. I'm going to close this now, thank you!

✅ tansanDOTeth closed an issue: "Keep getting errors after a while of syncing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27972)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: remove duplicate bsdmainutils from CI configs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27987#issuecomment-1611145723)
> What about the `python3` package?

In `ci/test/00_setup_env_i686_centos.sh` as well?

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "ci: remove duplicate bsdmainutils from CI configs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27987#pullrequestreview-1502765481)
ACK 248a17addf3cb519cb5e0fb91b9f25ce8d003d85

💬 carnhofdaki commented on issue "Add maxrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27983#issuecomment-1611150049)
@MarcoFalke Thank you for feedback.

Last thing first: Yes, it does not make sense to implement it in the same way as `minrelaytxfee`. Such code would just add one more processing step to each transaction before it is broadcast further.

Back to your first concern: The miner may have a contract with someone who pays the fees for such recycling service off-chain.

In my view, a re-org _after_ the other miner (fee-sniper) gets the block from the P2P network and uses its all-fee transaction i
...

📝 MarcoFalke opened a pull request: "test: Use same timeout for all index sync"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27988)
Seems odd to use different timeouts.

Fix this by using the same timeout for all syncs.

May also fix ?

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "refactor: Move sock from util to common"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27989)
Networking code should not be required by the kernel.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "index: ThreadSanitizer: data race on vptr ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27355#issuecomment-1611154752)
This is getting too frequent. I recently encountered this 8 times in a row.

Maybe https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27988 makes it less frequent for now, by only modifying test code?

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "guix: Update `python-lief` package to 0.13.2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27813#pullrequestreview-1502778035)
ACK 529c92e837b28169b501562efe7b5b7120a2ebbb

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Add maxrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27983#issuecomment-1611162386)
> The miner may have a contract with someone who pays the fees for such recycling service off-chain.

If the fee is paid off-chain anyway and doesn't exists within the tx, then this whole feature request doesn't make sense either, because there is no fee to check.

Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base. General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.co
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "guix: Update `python-lief` package to 0.13.2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27813)

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "httpserver, rest: improving URI validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27253#discussion_r1242236262)
nit: no need to use a C-style string here I think
```suggestion
const std::string err{"URI parsing failed, it likely contained RFC 3986 invalid characters"};
```

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "httpserver, rest: improving URI validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27253#discussion_r1243780038)
Do we need this?

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "httpserver, rest: improving URI validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27253#discussion_r1245038873)
I don't think it's great that we're not doing the address-based checks before anything else. Since we're now adding validation into the constructor, how about we do it consistently and do it for all validation, so we can also control what we validate first? I'm still feeling a bit uneasy about coupling the construction of `HTTPRequest` with validation, but if we're doing it we might as well do it more consistently? Curious to hear @vasild's thoughts on this too.

<details>
<summary>git diff</
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "init: return error when block index is non-contiguous, fix feature_init.py file perturbation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27823#issuecomment-1611186437)
Could rebase for CI?