💬 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?
💬 russeree commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654878736)
My technical objection is that emoji illustrations vary between browsers, devices, and browser versions. The use of emojis would create an inconsistent experience between platforms.
My emotional and personal objection is and I mean this in the nicest way possible. I don't like the 'vibe' the changes to more informal language creates. It also makes the document less concise.
- The phrase ```Curious to know more? Find further details``` feels like a pitch almost as compared to the current `
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654878736)
My technical objection is that emoji illustrations vary between browsers, devices, and browser versions. The use of emojis would create an inconsistent experience between platforms.
My emotional and personal objection is and I mean this in the nicest way possible. I don't like the 'vibe' the changes to more informal language creates. It also makes the document less concise.
- The phrase ```Curious to know more? Find further details``` feels like a pitch almost as compared to the current `
...
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "net: Use serialization parameters for CAddress serialization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25284#issuecomment-1654879568)
Concept ACK, will have a look.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25284#issuecomment-1654879568)
Concept ACK, will have a look.
💬 ariard commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654897482)
I’m not sure keeping the project documentation as easy-to-read and engaging with emojis is that much a goal in itself considering Bitcoin Core is a security-first project underpinning a $567 billions ecosystem, where contributors would be rather invited to run their workflow on attack-surface minimized workstation. Rich graphical rendering requires lengthier and more opaque software supply chain.
Not a strong opinion, though there has been a [talk at DEFCON 30](https://media.defcon.org/DEF%20
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654897482)
I’m not sure keeping the project documentation as easy-to-read and engaging with emojis is that much a goal in itself considering Bitcoin Core is a security-first project underpinning a $567 billions ecosystem, where contributors would be rather invited to run their workflow on attack-surface minimized workstation. Rich graphical rendering requires lengthier and more opaque software supply chain.
Not a strong opinion, though there has been a [talk at DEFCON 30](https://media.defcon.org/DEF%20
...
💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "init: changing -torcontrol help to specify that a default port is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28101#discussion_r1277044095)
Valid point will change to the following
`"Tor control host and port to use if onion listening enabled (default: %s). If no port is specified, the default port will be used (default: %s)."`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28101#discussion_r1277044095)
Valid point will change to the following
`"Tor control host and port to use if onion listening enabled (default: %s). If no port is specified, the default port will be used (default: %s)."`
💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "CONTRIBUTING: Caution against using AI/LLMs (ChatGPT, Copilot, etc)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175#issuecomment-1654947763)
ACK [08f9f62](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175/commits/08f9f62dc4c1f2b2864d9a5f78b4f490b0debe87)
I was one of the mentioned PR's https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28101
Would make sense to have this in the CONTRIBUTING.md
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175#issuecomment-1654947763)
ACK [08f9f62](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175/commits/08f9f62dc4c1f2b2864d9a5f78b4f490b0debe87)
I was one of the mentioned PR's https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28101
Would make sense to have this in the CONTRIBUTING.md
🤔 ariard reviewed a pull request: "CONTRIBUTING: Caution against using AI/LLMs (ChatGPT, Copilot, etc)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175#pullrequestreview-1551270145)
To be honest, and after looking on some LLM-term of service and in basic knowledge of copyright law, there is an uncertainty on the status of LLM output. It sounds LLM or AI operating platforms in their terms of service do no make the claim they own the intellectual property of the LLM output, and if even if they do so it’s probably an unfounded claim. A user might mix an “original” or “creative” element by sending an individual prompt request, a determining factor in any matter of intellectual
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175#pullrequestreview-1551270145)
To be honest, and after looking on some LLM-term of service and in basic knowledge of copyright law, there is an uncertainty on the status of LLM output. It sounds LLM or AI operating platforms in their terms of service do no make the claim they own the intellectual property of the LLM output, and if even if they do so it’s probably an unfounded claim. A user might mix an “original” or “creative” element by sending an individual prompt request, a determining factor in any matter of intellectual
...
💬 ariard commented on pull request "CONTRIBUTING: Caution against using AI/LLMs (ChatGPT, Copilot, etc)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175#discussion_r1277040875)
I would recommend to drop any reference to a corporate entity, or one of its product in Bitcoin Core documentation, to avoid a mischaracterization of what they’re doing (whatever one personal opinion).
We already mentioned Github a lot in the contributing.md, though only as the technical platform where contributions are happening, not taking a stance on one of their product.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175#discussion_r1277040875)
I would recommend to drop any reference to a corporate entity, or one of its product in Bitcoin Core documentation, to avoid a mischaracterization of what they’re doing (whatever one personal opinion).
We already mentioned Github a lot in the contributing.md, though only as the technical platform where contributions are happening, not taking a stance on one of their product.
📝 kevkevinpal opened a pull request: "tests: add coverage to feature_addrman.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28176)
I added two new tests that will cover the nNew and nTried tests which add coverage to the if block by checking values larger than our range since we only check for negative values now
adding coverage to these lines
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/addrman.cpp#L273
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/addrman.cpp#L280
our test seem to only cover the `nTried < 0` and `nNew < 0` scenarios
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28176)
I added two new tests that will cover the nNew and nTried tests which add coverage to the if block by checking values larger than our range since we only check for negative values now
adding coverage to these lines
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/addrman.cpp#L273
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/addrman.cpp#L280
our test seem to only cover the `nTried < 0` and `nNew < 0` scenarios
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
...