💬 kibnakamoto commented on pull request "Gitignore auto-generated Secp256k1 files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28032#issuecomment-1622422718)
> These files are not generated anymore; they're probably from an earlier compilation before the secp256k1 subtree was updated to a version that no longer uses the config file.

I used synced and pulled. Then compiled, these files were permenantly there.

As @kristapsk has mentioned, there are even more auto-generated files probably depending on the system one uses.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Gitignore auto-generated Secp256k1 files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28032#issuecomment-1622427360)
My guess is that these files are there from an earlier compilation, but weren't reported back then, because they used to be in (secp256k1's) .gitignore file. Now they are reported, but no longer created, because they're no longer in .gitignore.

See https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1178.

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "index: make startup more efficient"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#pullrequestreview-1515317576)
ACK 94c9b1f37e335c43c739b853bb9457737b67d73a

I reviewed the code again and did some additional tests with pruning on regtest.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Gitignore auto-generated Secp256k1 files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28032#issuecomment-1622466044)
> After syncing the repo and compiling, three new automatically generated files were not ignored by git.
>
> ```
> src/secp256k1/src/libsecp256k1-config.h
> src/secp256k1/src/libsecp256k1-config.h.in
> src/secp256k1/src/stamp-h1
> ```

Since https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e5c7fcb361d3379c254a52104b4ba25907cd07bb, these files are not generated by the build system.

> I added them to gitignore.

There is no need for this.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: Drop m_recently_announced_invs bloom filter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675#discussion_r1253457842)
eb4dc54 These changes seem needed due to the special member functions added to `CTxMemPoolEntry` in the same commit? If they are changed, a comment in the commit explaining why would be helpful.

🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "p2p: Drop m_recently_announced_invs bloom filter"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675#pullrequestreview-1515038131)
Approach ACK with some questions and feedback.

The last push changed from storing the entry time to using the sequence number in `mempool#GetSequence` per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675#discussion_r1230714110.

The `CTxMemPool::m_sequence_number` documentation could use updating in this case regarding its expanded role

```cpp
// In-memory counter for external mempool tracking purposes.
// This number is incremented once every time a transaction
// is added o
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: Drop m_recently_announced_invs bloom filter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675#discussion_r1253479064)
Unrelated to this pull, but seems odd that `entry_height` is set to 0 here when 1 is the usual initial value.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: Drop m_recently_announced_invs bloom filter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675#discussion_r1253438163)
eb4dc54 Are these special member functions [needed](https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#Rc-zero), and if yes, [declare them all?](https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#c21-if-you-define-or-delete-any-copy-move-or-destructor-function-define-or-delete-them-all) A comment in the commit explaining why they are added would be helpful.
```diff
+ CTxMemPoolEntry() = delete;
+ ~CTxMemPoolEntry() = default;
CTxMemPoolEntry(const CTxMemPoolEnt
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: Drop m_recently_announced_invs bloom filter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675#discussion_r1253501078)
ca6379eb While touching this, with guaranteed copy elision it's now almost always a pessimization to return `std::move(local)` (and the other remaining return values in this function are `return it->second;` and `{}`).

```suggestion
return txinfo.tx;
```

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: Drop m_recently_announced_invs bloom filter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675#discussion_r1253541014)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ca6379eba56ca8f669fea6c91877e9ecbb31451b why is `peer->m_wtxid_relay` added in this conditional? (in which case the comment just below would need updating)

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: Drop m_recently_announced_invs bloom filter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675#discussion_r1253548429)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ca6379eba56ca8f669fea6c91877e9ecbb31451b It looks like the documentation above needs updating, i.e. `s/current_time/current sequence/`, now that `tx_relay->m_last_inv_send_time = SteadyClock::now();` in this commit was changed to `tx_relay->m_last_inv_sequence = m_mempool.GetSequence();`

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: Drop m_recently_announced_invs bloom filter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675#discussion_r1253614165)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/eb4dc54b3c9b9edad9b469b07cbac0573bbf1a37 A Doxygen doc explaining the `for_relay` aspect and `last_sequence` logic would be handy.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1253452419)
Okay, will be reverting to `new_total_fee`

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1253624315)
I’ve been doing some staring at this today. It seems to me that the waste score of finished input sets should also be adjusted according to the bump fee discount. Gotta do more pondering, will get back to this.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1253454337)
Yes, thanks, I removed the earlier instances of ComputeAndSetWaste where the results get returned from the various coin selection algorithms and instead of selectively updating here, always calculate it here now. I just forgot to remove the comment.

🤔 achow101 reviewed a pull request: "Support JSON-RPC 2.0 when requested by client"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#pullrequestreview-1515315141)
I think we aren't handling missing `id`s correctly?

From the spec:

> id
> An identifier established by the Client that MUST contain a String, Number, or NULL value if included. If it is not included it is assumed to be a notification. The value SHOULD normally not be Null [1] and Numbers SHOULD NOT contain fractional parts [2]

When there is no `id`, we should treat the as a notification and can just ignore the request, rather than responding to it as we currently do. It seems like i
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Support JSON-RPC 2.0 when requested by client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#discussion_r1253614618)
In d11fb70b3fea7c1be5f48e32837d2c81dc7cbd10 "test: cover more HTTP error codes in interface_rpc.py"

This seems unnecessary?

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "wallet: Add wallet method to detect if a key is "active"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27216#issuecomment-1622495909)
@pinheadmz I'd do the simplest thing, or what @achow101 thinks on this and regarding progress on the https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20160 timeline.

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "test: bugfix, synchronize indexes synchronously"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28026#pullrequestreview-1515410110)
> > (An alternative, functionally equivalent to this, might be to just make the timeout infinite, see [#27988 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27988#issuecomment-1619218007), but I think this is fine as well.)
>
> I think I'd prefer that option because then we wouldn't need to add a test-only arg to `BaseIndex::Start`, plus having the same thread structure as in production seems more natural and more robust with respect to possible future changes of the init sequence and uni
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "test: remove race in the user-agent reception check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27986#discussion_r1253680561)
> test/functional/test_framework/test_node.py:7:1: F401 'asyncio' imported but unused

Agree, I see that as well with Python 3.11.4.