💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654647719)
Suggest running `test/lint/lint-whitespace.py` on this change to appease the lint CI.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654647719)
Suggest running `test/lint/lint-whitespace.py` on this change to appease the lint CI.
🤔 brunoerg reviewed a pull request: "test, rpc: invalid sighashtype coverage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28166#pullrequestreview-1550910355)
light crACK 90c8f79e945863f3818748b86572948d1558aec3
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28166#pullrequestreview-1550910355)
light crACK 90c8f79e945863f3818748b86572948d1558aec3
💬 aureleoules commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654657160)
Thanks @jonatack, I addressed your suggestions and rolled back some of my changes.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654657160)
Thanks @jonatack, I addressed your suggestions and rolled back some of my changes.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276879626)
FWIW it looks like this section dates back to 2012 or earlier!
```
Testing and code review is the bottleneck for development; we get more
pull requests than we can review and test. Please be patient and help
out, and remember this is a security-critical project where any
mistake might cost people lots of money.
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276879626)
FWIW it looks like this section dates back to 2012 or earlier!
```
Testing and code review is the bottleneck for development; we get more
pull requests than we can review and test. Please be patient and help
out, and remember this is a security-critical project where any
mistake might cost people lots of money.
```
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Silent Payments: send and receive":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27827#issuecomment-1654676047)
>Can you explain your reasoning for wanting to split it up? I'd prefer to keep them together only because I see no reason to merge sending without receiving support in Bitcoin Core.
1. The sooner sending is supported everywhere, the sooner it is *practical* for people to use it for receiving. Might as well get that ball rolling ASAP.
2. Sending support means the BIP isn't going to change under me (and break compatibility / risk coin loss) if I merge things in Knots first.
3. Core refuses t
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27827#issuecomment-1654676047)
>Can you explain your reasoning for wanting to split it up? I'd prefer to keep them together only because I see no reason to merge sending without receiving support in Bitcoin Core.
1. The sooner sending is supported everywhere, the sooner it is *practical* for people to use it for receiving. Might as well get that ball rolling ASAP.
2. Sending support means the BIP isn't going to change under me (and break compatibility / risk coin loss) if I merge things in Knots first.
3. Core refuses t
...
🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#pullrequestreview-1550942991)
A few more suggestions.
Just one opinion: in dark mode, which I use exclusively, I find the emojis are large and highly distracting from the text. If others agree, maybe remove them or make them smaller.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#pullrequestreview-1550942991)
A few more suggestions.
Just one opinion: in dark mode, which I use exclusively, I find the emojis are large and highly distracting from the text. If others agree, maybe remove them or make them smaller.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276887186)
```suggestion
We use the https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui repository solely for GUI development. Its master branch serves as a clone in all monotree repositories. It doesn't have release branches and tags, so it's only useful to fork it for development purposes.
```
or just s/tags there,/tags,/
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276887186)
```suggestion
We use the https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui repository solely for GUI development. Its master branch serves as a clone in all monotree repositories. It doesn't have release branches and tags, so it's only useful to fork it for development purposes.
```
or just s/tags there,/tags,/
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276886210)
```suggestion
Curious to know more? Find further details in [doc folder](/doc).
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276886210)
```suggestion
Curious to know more? Find further details in [doc folder](/doc).
```
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276888844)
Suggest dropping either "Important:" or "Please note," -- both seem to be too much.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276888844)
Suggest dropping either "Important:" or "Please note," -- both seem to be too much.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276896030)
We don't typically refer to "Bitcoind" like this
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276896030)
We don't typically refer to "Bitcoind" like this
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276895712)
Probably should be called `-stratumv2port`, unless it supports specifying an IP to bind to (probably a good idea)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276895712)
Probably should be called `-stratumv2port`, unless it supports specifying an IP to bind to (probably a good idea)
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276896582)
Should be added to the port number check earlier
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276896582)
Should be added to the port number check earlier
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276897878)
Code readability is more important than "less code"...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276897878)
Code readability is more important than "less code"...
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276896935)
Rather than prefixing with "sv2:", suggest a new log category.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276896935)
Rather than prefixing with "sv2:", suggest a new log category.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "init: changing -torcontrol help to specify that a default port is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28101#discussion_r1276902524)
>I used chatgpt to refine the sentence a bit more to this
Please redo this without ChatGPT involved. LLMs do not have a clear copyright status.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28101#discussion_r1276902524)
>I used chatgpt to refine the sentence a bit more to this
Please redo this without ChatGPT involved. LLMs do not have a clear copyright status.
📝 luke-jr opened a pull request: "CONTRIBUTING: Caution against using AI/LLMs (ChatGPT, Copilot, etc)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175)
There's been at least a few instances where someone tried to contribute LLM-generated content, but such content has a dubious copyright status.
Our contributing policy already implicitly rules out such contributions, but being more explicit here might help.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175)
There's been at least a few instances where someone tried to contribute LLM-generated content, but such content has a dubious copyright status.
Our contributing policy already implicitly rules out such contributions, but being more explicit here might help.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "CONTRIBUTING: Caution against using AI/LLMs (ChatGPT, Copilot, etc)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175#issuecomment-1654713459)
Concept ACK, makes sense, though IANAL.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175#issuecomment-1654713459)
Concept ACK, makes sense, though IANAL.
💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "test: Avoid intermittent issues due to async events in validationinterface_tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28150#issuecomment-1654856825)
> Interestingly, I can _not_ reproduce this easily with `rr`. I tried:
>
> ```
> while rr record --chaos ./src/test/test_bitcoin -t validationinterface_tests/unregister_all_during_call ; do true ; done
> ```
I was able to reproduce by adding -printtoconsole=1
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28150#issuecomment-1654856825)
> Interestingly, I can _not_ reproduce this easily with `rr`. I tried:
>
> ```
> while rr record --chaos ./src/test/test_bitcoin -t validationinterface_tests/unregister_all_during_call ; do true ; done
> ```
I was able to reproduce by adding -printtoconsole=1
💬 russeree commented on pull request "CONTRIBUTING: Caution against using AI/LLMs (ChatGPT, Copilot, etc)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175#issuecomment-1654866248)
Concept ACK.
The two thoughts that come to mind are that
1. This section could become a cat and mouse game between the various models. ```but not limited to, ChatGPT, GitHub Copilot, and Meta LLaMA``` which ones of these will still have relevance in the future.
2. LLMs right now are the benchmark for text to text models but there are other types of models as well example NLP and RNN models. So this language could become obsolete overtime.
This post was written by GPT4 ... Just K
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175#issuecomment-1654866248)
Concept ACK.
The two thoughts that come to mind are that
1. This section could become a cat and mouse game between the various models. ```but not limited to, ChatGPT, GitHub Copilot, and Meta LLaMA``` which ones of these will still have relevance in the future.
2. LLMs right now are the benchmark for text to text models but there are other types of models as well example NLP and RNN models. So this language could become obsolete overtime.
This post was written by GPT4 ... Just K
...
💬 jonatack commented on pull request " test: Extend stale_tip_peer_management test ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23352#issuecomment-1654878558)
> > I wonder if it's possible (and worth it) to tweak the test such that it would have caught #26172.
>
> I have a [test](https://github.com/LarryRuane/bitcoin/commit/3f847e4c4e5f89f812407eef39d421f45b0eea02) for that but haven't made the PR yet (I'll do that this week). I'll compare what I have to this PR since there's likely some overlap.
@LarryRuane any update on the test?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23352#issuecomment-1654878558)
> > I wonder if it's possible (and worth it) to tweak the test such that it would have caught #26172.
>
> I have a [test](https://github.com/LarryRuane/bitcoin/commit/3f847e4c4e5f89f812407eef39d421f45b0eea02) for that but haven't made the PR yet (I'll do that this week). I'll compare what I have to this PR since there's likely some overlap.
@LarryRuane any update on the test?