💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Rework validation logic for assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1272692040)
See @achow's explanation: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746/files#r1272483470
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1272692040)
See @achow's explanation: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746/files#r1272483470
💬 manfreddd commented on issue "Bitcoin Core v25.0 Crashes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28119#issuecomment-1648523348)
I ran the wmic command "diskdrive get status" and came back with status "Ok". I tried to run the CLI command "CHKDSK" but got message that disk was locked by another application. I reinitiated the computer and that included a disk repair job that ended with 100% completion. Also, I ran disk defragmentation, which hadn't been done in a while and took forever to complete.
I did the above to try and eliminate or minimize the incidence of any disk issues in future Bitcoin Core runs. I started Bit
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28119#issuecomment-1648523348)
I ran the wmic command "diskdrive get status" and came back with status "Ok". I tried to run the CLI command "CHKDSK" but got message that disk was locked by another application. I reinitiated the computer and that included a disk repair job that ended with 100% completion. Also, I ran disk defragmentation, which hadn't been done in a while and took forever to complete.
I did the above to try and eliminate or minimize the incidence of any disk issues in future Bitcoin Core runs. I started Bit
...
💬 hebasto commented on issue "ci: Future of macOS and Windows MSVC CI tasks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28098#issuecomment-1648548618)
Another consideration. AppVeyor still [has](https://www.appveyor.com/docs/build-configuration/#time-limitations):
> 60 minutes quota per build job.
That makes running functional tests questionable.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28098#issuecomment-1648548618)
Another consideration. AppVeyor still [has](https://www.appveyor.com/docs/build-configuration/#time-limitations):
> 60 minutes quota per build job.
That makes running functional tests questionable.
💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Rework validation logic for assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#issuecomment-1648555652)
Thanks all for the additional review. I pushed a branch that I think addresses all of @ryanofsky's latest feedback (previous branch is tagged [here](https://github.com/sdaftuar/bitcoin/commits/27746.3) for reference).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#issuecomment-1648555652)
Thanks all for the additional review. I pushed a branch that I think addresses all of @ryanofsky's latest feedback (previous branch is tagged [here](https://github.com/sdaftuar/bitcoin/commits/27746.3) for reference).
💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Rework validation logic for assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1272722353)
Done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1272722353)
Done.
💬 Kenshiro-28 commented on issue "Implement PayJoin / Pay-to-EndPoint":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19148#issuecomment-1648619222)
Optional payments with Payjoin would be great, even if it requires both parties are online.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19148#issuecomment-1648619222)
Optional payments with Payjoin would be great, even if it requires both parties are online.
📝 achow101 opened a pull request: "wallet: Allow users to create a wallet that encrypts all database records"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28142)
A couple of users have requested that we support wallets that encrypt everything, even if the wallet is watch-only, in order to have better privacy if the wallet is stolen. This PR introduces an `EncryptedDatabase` backend for the wallet which encrypts/decrypts each key-value record individually before reading from or writing to the database.
`EncryptedDatabase` is only supported for SQLite databases and descriptor wallets. This was done in order to have an easier way to get downgrade protect
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28142)
A couple of users have requested that we support wallets that encrypt everything, even if the wallet is watch-only, in order to have better privacy if the wallet is stolen. This PR introduces an `EncryptedDatabase` backend for the wallet which encrypts/decrypts each key-value record individually before reading from or writing to the database.
`EncryptedDatabase` is only supported for SQLite databases and descriptor wallets. This was done in order to have an easier way to get downgrade protect
...
📝 achow101 opened a pull request: "gui: Open fully encrypted wallets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/747)
Allows users to open wallets with encrypted databases (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28142) from the GUI.
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/747)
Allows users to open wallets with encrypted databases (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28142) from the GUI.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Allow users to create a wallet that encrypts all database records":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28142#issuecomment-1648634746)
cc @stevenroose
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28142#issuecomment-1648634746)
cc @stevenroose
💬 russeree commented on issue "Bitcoin Core v25.0 Crashes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28119#issuecomment-1648699398)
Very good to hear. I believe this issue can be closed since you are now sycing and at 5% which means you would have more than the previous number of block files that was possible. Thus showing the Bitcoin Core software **likely** was not the issue but instead the issue existed at a hardware or OS level.
With that said I do believe there are improvements that could be implemented to make data access errors easier to debug. This issue is no uncommon especially amongst node runners that use sec
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28119#issuecomment-1648699398)
Very good to hear. I believe this issue can be closed since you are now sycing and at 5% which means you would have more than the previous number of block files that was possible. Thus showing the Bitcoin Core software **likely** was not the issue but instead the issue existed at a hardware or OS level.
With that said I do believe there are improvements that could be implemented to make data access errors easier to debug. This issue is no uncommon especially amongst node runners that use sec
...
💬 manfreddd commented on issue "Bitcoin Core v25.0 Crashes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28119#issuecomment-1648715409)
Yes, I will just let it run and let you know the outcome. Thanks @russeree and @MarcoFalke for your guidance and support.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28119#issuecomment-1648715409)
Yes, I will just let it run and let you know the outcome. Thanks @russeree and @MarcoFalke for your guidance and support.
📝 mzumsande opened a pull request: "test: fix intermittent timeout in p2p_getaddr_caching.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28144)
Fixes #28133
In the consistency check, we not only need to check that our address/port is unique, but that the combination of source and target is. Otherwise the OS may reuse ports for connections on different `-addrbind`, which was happening in the failed runs.
While at it, the second commit cleans up duplicate `getaddr` messages in `p2p_getaddr_caching.py` that do nothing but generate `Ignoring repeated "getaddr"` log messages.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28144)
Fixes #28133
In the consistency check, we not only need to check that our address/port is unique, but that the combination of source and target is. Otherwise the OS may reuse ports for connections on different `-addrbind`, which was happening in the failed runs.
While at it, the second commit cleans up duplicate `getaddr` messages in `p2p_getaddr_caching.py` that do nothing but generate `Ignoring repeated "getaddr"` log messages.
💬 mzumsande commented on issue "p2p_getaddr_caching.py failure in TSan CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28133#issuecomment-1648816185)
See #28144 for a fix.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28133#issuecomment-1648816185)
See #28144 for a fix.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "test: fix intermittent failure in p2p_getaddr_caching.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28144#issuecomment-1648834265)
Concept ACK, thank you for looking into it.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28144#issuecomment-1648834265)
Concept ACK, thank you for looking into it.
🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "kernel: Remove UniValue from kernel library"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#pullrequestreview-1544505492)
ACK modulo a few comments
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#pullrequestreview-1544505492)
ACK modulo a few comments
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "kernel: Remove UniValue from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1272913872)
Should now be dropped.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1272913872)
Should now be dropped.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "kernel: Remove UniValue from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1272913933)
Should now be dropped.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1272913933)
Should now be dropped.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "kernel: Remove UniValue from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1272918229)
Seems a shame with the last change to now include this all of this only to access `SIGHASH_DEFAULT = 0`. It might be good to extract the signature hash types to their own unit.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1272918229)
Seems a shame with the last change to now include this all of this only to access `SIGHASH_DEFAULT = 0`. It might be good to extract the signature hash types to their own unit.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "kernel: Remove UniValue from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1272920359)
I like how this code is now similar to my suggestion in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1271496876 👍
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1272920359)
I like how this code is now similar to my suggestion in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1271496876 👍
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "kernel: Remove UniValue from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1272919241)
If you retouch, IIUC per our developer notes the `//!` Doxygen format is for describing a class member or a variable.
`/** ... */` would be for describing a function.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28113#discussion_r1272919241)
If you retouch, IIUC per our developer notes the `//!` Doxygen format is for describing a class member or a variable.
`/** ... */` would be for describing a function.