💬 emc99 commented on pull request "fuzz: Re-enable symbolize=1 in ASAN_OPTIONS":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28124#issuecomment-1646955442)
How do you fuzz? What does it mean to 'fuzz'?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28124#issuecomment-1646955442)
How do you fuzz? What does it mean to 'fuzz'?
💬 emc99 commented on pull request "build: pass sanitize flags to instrument libsecp256k1 code":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27991#issuecomment-1646956148)
> Maybe mark as draft for as long as CI is red?
When does CI happen? Why would CI be red in this case?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27991#issuecomment-1646956148)
> Maybe mark as draft for as long as CI is red?
When does CI happen? Why would CI be red in this case?
📝 jonatack opened a pull request: "rpc, util: deduplicate AmountFromValue() using util::Result"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28134)
See commit messages for details.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28134)
See commit messages for details.
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Remove UniValue from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#issuecomment-1646962287)
Updated b89567f51ade926af8c918e4787046b7ccec8eb0 -> a3774d1b2a5ce9aa6d6d3cedc2c9b9a5d2f68240 ([kernelRmUnivalue_4](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelRmUnivalue_4) -> [kernelRmUnivalue_5](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelRmUnivalue_5), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelRmUnivalue_4..kernelRmUnivalue_5))
* Addressed @jonatack's [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1271533741), fixing IWYU.
* Addres
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#issuecomment-1646962287)
Updated b89567f51ade926af8c918e4787046b7ccec8eb0 -> a3774d1b2a5ce9aa6d6d3cedc2c9b9a5d2f68240 ([kernelRmUnivalue_4](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelRmUnivalue_4) -> [kernelRmUnivalue_5](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelRmUnivalue_5), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelRmUnivalue_4..kernelRmUnivalue_5))
* Addressed @jonatack's [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1271533741), fixing IWYU.
* Addres
...
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "kernel: Remove UniValue from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#issuecomment-1646964712)
ACK a3774d1b2a5ce9aa6d6d3cedc2c9b9a5d2f68240
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#issuecomment-1646964712)
ACK a3774d1b2a5ce9aa6d6d3cedc2c9b9a5d2f68240
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1646966801)
> When you say "by default", do you mean that full-rbf would come by default as part of IBD or when you update Bitcoin Core? When would full-rbf be "by default"?
This pull-req has nothing to do with Initial Block Download (IBD).
It simply changes the default for the `-mempoolfullrbf` option to true/enabled. Previously the default was false/disabled. Users who update Bitcoin Core to a version containing this change would by default propagate and mine full-rbf replacements unless they had ch
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1646966801)
> When you say "by default", do you mean that full-rbf would come by default as part of IBD or when you update Bitcoin Core? When would full-rbf be "by default"?
This pull-req has nothing to do with Initial Block Download (IBD).
It simply changes the default for the `-mempoolfullrbf` option to true/enabled. Previously the default was false/disabled. Users who update Bitcoin Core to a version containing this change would by default propagate and mine full-rbf replacements unless they had ch
...
💬 theStack commented on pull request "BIP324 ciphersuite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1271567848)
`salt` is currently not used anywhere.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1271567848)
`salt` is currently not used anywhere.
👋 jonatack's pull request is ready for review: "rpc, util: deduplicate AmountFromValue() using util::Result"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28134)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28134)
📝 bitcoinfinancier opened a pull request: "v 25.0.3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28135)
semgrep ci integration for security and optimized images with AI to reduce storage and enhance quality.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28135)
semgrep ci integration for security and optimized images with AI to reduce storage and enhance quality.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "Remove C-style const-violating cast, Use reinterpret_cast":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28127#issuecomment-1646980929)
Concept ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28127#issuecomment-1646980929)
Concept ACK
💬 Ayms commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary restrictions on OP_RETURN by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1646981789)
@luke-jr the idea is not to store a video on bitcoin but indeed a reference to it like bittorrent
Now if someone wants to store things in a full block nobody can avoid this
Then this change just make things easier to avoid unwanted practices
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1646981789)
@luke-jr the idea is not to store a video on bitcoin but indeed a reference to it like bittorrent
Now if someone wants to store things in a full block nobody can avoid this
Then this change just make things easier to avoid unwanted practices
📝 bitcoinfinancier converted_to_draft a pull request: "v 25.0.3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28135)
semgrep ci integration for security and optimized images with AI to reduce storage and enhance quality.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28135)
semgrep ci integration for security and optimized images with AI to reduce storage and enhance quality.
👋 bitcoinfinancier's pull request is ready for review: "v 25.0.3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28135)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28135)
📝 bitcoinfinancier converted_to_draft a pull request: "v 25.0.3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28135)
semgrep ci integration for security and optimized images with AI to reduce storage and enhance quality.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28135)
semgrep ci integration for security and optimized images with AI to reduce storage and enhance quality.
💬 russeree commented on issue "Bitcoin Core v25.0 Crashes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28119#issuecomment-1646990896)
Corrupted timechain or hardware issue.
```
2023-07-23T14:28:38Z ERROR: ReadBlockFromDisk: Deserialize or I/O error - AutoFile::read: fread failed: iostream error at FlatFilePos(nFile=9, nPos=53762556)
2023-07-23T14:28:38Z *** Failed to read block
2023-07-23T14:28:38Z Error: A fatal internal error occurred, see debug.log for details
```
Rhe broken file is nfile = is the blk0009.dat. This could be a software or hardware issue.
To debug and fix this issue there are few possible solut
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28119#issuecomment-1646990896)
Corrupted timechain or hardware issue.
```
2023-07-23T14:28:38Z ERROR: ReadBlockFromDisk: Deserialize or I/O error - AutoFile::read: fread failed: iostream error at FlatFilePos(nFile=9, nPos=53762556)
2023-07-23T14:28:38Z *** Failed to read block
2023-07-23T14:28:38Z Error: A fatal internal error occurred, see debug.log for details
```
Rhe broken file is nfile = is the blk0009.dat. This could be a software or hardware issue.
To debug and fix this issue there are few possible solut
...
💬 ariard commented on pull request "Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1646993842)
On the first line of arguments, I think zero-conf business acceptance have the option to deploy additional full-nodes with good transaction-relay peering to obtain a reasonable view of network mempools, and therefore increase their odds of seeing a double-spend of a confirmation of interest. In practice, zero-conf applications have risk threshold, once those thresholds are reached they will deactivate zero-conf acceptance.
On the second line or arguments, mempool consistency with miners is be
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1646993842)
On the first line of arguments, I think zero-conf business acceptance have the option to deploy additional full-nodes with good transaction-relay peering to obtain a reasonable view of network mempools, and therefore increase their odds of seeing a double-spend of a confirmation of interest. In practice, zero-conf applications have risk threshold, once those thresholds are reached they will deactivate zero-conf acceptance.
On the second line or arguments, mempool consistency with miners is be
...
💬 ariard commented on pull request "policy: make unstructured annex standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27926#discussion_r1271603144)
> Can you give a concrete example of a future extended format that might interfere with the 0x00 + unstructured proposal?
Sure any future serialization format where the semantic “tag” is encoded on more than 8-bit to allow more than 256 types of payload without having to picked up which are the “most-used” 256 one when the consensus change. This is actually the serialization format on which the TLV proposal of the annex (with some other discussed tweaks for the length), see comment above `Va
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27926#discussion_r1271603144)
> Can you give a concrete example of a future extended format that might interfere with the 0x00 + unstructured proposal?
Sure any future serialization format where the semantic “tag” is encoded on more than 8-bit to allow more than 256 types of payload without having to picked up which are the “most-used” 256 one when the consensus change. This is actually the serialization format on which the TLV proposal of the annex (with some other discussed tweaks for the length), see comment above `Va
...
💬 ariard commented on pull request "policy: make unstructured annex standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27926#discussion_r1271606493)
> If it isn't that much of an increase, is it worth adding extra code for it?
From my experience of DoS discussion on the Core-side, even if we’re able to come with sound evaluation of the worst-case inputs payload one might submit during a time period, the host performance are always an unknown as you have low perf Umbrel and Raspy, and somehow preserving their processing capabilities has always been pursued during Bitcoin Core development for technical decentralization purpose, from my unde
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27926#discussion_r1271606493)
> If it isn't that much of an increase, is it worth adding extra code for it?
From my experience of DoS discussion on the Core-side, even if we’re able to come with sound evaluation of the worst-case inputs payload one might submit during a time period, the host performance are always an unknown as you have low perf Umbrel and Raspy, and somehow preserving their processing capabilities has always been pursued during Bitcoin Core development for technical decentralization purpose, from my unde
...
💬 ariard commented on pull request "policy: make unstructured annex standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27926#discussion_r1271609885)
For the timelocked vaults, yes there is a single party using presigned txes so it shouldn’t apply. For the other use-case e.g anchoring symbolic data in the chain, I think you might have multiple parties contributing to the transaction, though I’m less knowledgeable about those use-cases to be honest.
If there is the current annex deployment is not targeted for multi-party protocols, yes we don’t have discuss of the impact of annex DoS on fee-bumping reserve.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27926#discussion_r1271609885)
For the timelocked vaults, yes there is a single party using presigned txes so it shouldn’t apply. For the other use-case e.g anchoring symbolic data in the chain, I think you might have multiple parties contributing to the transaction, though I’m less knowledgeable about those use-cases to be honest.
If there is the current annex deployment is not targeted for multi-party protocols, yes we don’t have discuss of the impact of annex DoS on fee-bumping reserve.
✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "v 25.0.3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28135)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28135)