💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Bump python minimum version to 3.9":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28211#issuecomment-1666542228)
>CentOS Stream also ships with 3.9
Isn't Stream a rolling release? What about RHEL?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28211#issuecomment-1666542228)
>CentOS Stream also ships with 3.9
Isn't Stream a rolling release? What about RHEL?
💬 BBezaire commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary restrictions on OP_RETURN by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1666543561)
Concept NACK
My node isn't your personal hard drive. It's for financial transactions, period.
We're already forced to store ordinals for free, while miners profit greatly off priority fees. Such a change will only make things worse for node operators, and destroy Bitcoin's credibility as a crypto currency.
This is a slap in the face to everything Satoshi worked towards.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1666543561)
Concept NACK
My node isn't your personal hard drive. It's for financial transactions, period.
We're already forced to store ordinals for free, while miners profit greatly off priority fees. Such a change will only make things worse for node operators, and destroy Bitcoin's credibility as a crypto currency.
This is a slap in the face to everything Satoshi worked towards.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#discussion_r1285087710)
??? this change makes no sense to me. `i` is an `int`, but `IsStandardTx` returns a bool...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#discussion_r1285087710)
??? this change makes no sense to me. `i` is an `int`, but `IsStandardTx` returns a bool...
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#discussion_r1285087863)
See b90ef78f7ab564fb5948583e7a5b5399f9798301 for how I fixed this in Knots
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#discussion_r1285087863)
See b90ef78f7ab564fb5948583e7a5b5399f9798301 for how I fixed this in Knots
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#discussion_r1285088166)
@luke-jr an `int` of 0 is falsey, non-zero is truthy.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#discussion_r1285088166)
@luke-jr an `int` of 0 is falsey, non-zero is truthy.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Libstandardness (edition 2023)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28220#issuecomment-1666554027)
Concept NACK.
> Bitcoin Core transaction relay policy.
This is not and should never become a thing. Every node has its own policies, and relying on any specific policy is broken by design.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28220#issuecomment-1666554027)
Concept NACK.
> Bitcoin Core transaction relay policy.
This is not and should never become a thing. Every node has its own policies, and relying on any specific policy is broken by design.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#discussion_r1285088823)
> PR updated.
You'll need to squash the updates required for the tests to pass into the same commit as the code change.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#discussion_r1285088823)
> PR updated.
You'll need to squash the updates required for the tests to pass into the same commit as the code change.
💬 zkfrio commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary restrictions on OP_RETURN by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1666560846)
> This is a slap in the face to everything Satoshi worked towards.
I agree Satoshi would never use witness or bare multisig or OP_RETURN. They preferred [coinbase](https://mempool.space/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f). Unfortunately only miners can use it.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1666560846)
> This is a slap in the face to everything Satoshi worked towards.
I agree Satoshi would never use witness or bare multisig or OP_RETURN. They preferred [coinbase](https://mempool.space/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f). Unfortunately only miners can use it.
💬 itme-brain commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary restrictions on OP_RETURN by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1666561974)
Concept ACK
The limit is nothing more than feel-good policy, people have been circumventing it forever.
Maybe if `OP_RETURN` never had an arbitrary 80 byte limit we would've never gotten JPEGs in tapscripts?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1666561974)
Concept ACK
The limit is nothing more than feel-good policy, people have been circumventing it forever.
Maybe if `OP_RETURN` never had an arbitrary 80 byte limit we would've never gotten JPEGs in tapscripts?
⚠️ Smiril opened an issue: "fuzz:crc32c::ExtendArm64 Undefined symbols for architecture arm64:"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28223)
### Is there an existing issue for this?
- [X] I have searched the existing issues
### Current behaviour
configure success
make failed
### Expected behaviour
make Failed
### Steps to reproduce
./configure --enable-fuzz --disable-asm
....
Build Options:
with external callbacks = no
with benchmarks = no
with tests = yes
with ctime tests = no
with coverage = no
with examples = no
module ecdh = no
modu
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28223)
### Is there an existing issue for this?
- [X] I have searched the existing issues
### Current behaviour
configure success
make failed
### Expected behaviour
make Failed
### Steps to reproduce
./configure --enable-fuzz --disable-asm
....
Build Options:
with external callbacks = no
with benchmarks = no
with tests = yes
with ctime tests = no
with coverage = no
with examples = no
module ecdh = no
modu
...
💬 russeree commented on pull request "Bech32 LocateErrors "Bech32 string too short" case":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28160#issuecomment-1666570008)
Thanks for your feedback.
Though the error locations for the too short condition are not aesthetically pleasing at longer lengths; it does look nicer at shorter lengths of a too short bech32 string.
### Rationale
The error_locations for this PR took inspiration from the current error_locations for the too long condition LocateErrors
that when triggered will display the positions of any ad
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28160#issuecomment-1666570008)
Thanks for your feedback.
Though the error locations for the too short condition are not aesthetically pleasing at longer lengths; it does look nicer at shorter lengths of a too short bech32 string.
### Rationale
The error_locations for this PR took inspiration from the current error_locations for the too long condition LocateErrors
that when triggered will display the positions of any ad
...
💬 jonatack commented on issue "fuzz:crc32c::ExtendArm64 Undefined symbols for architecture arm64:":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28223#issuecomment-1666570052)
Try this (from `doc/fuzzing.md`) -- it works for me with the same equipment.
```
./autogen.sh && ./configure --enable-fuzz --with-sanitizers=fuzzer,address,undefined --disable-asm CC=$(brew --prefix llvm)/bin/clang CXX=$(brew --prefix llvm)/bin/clang++ && make clean && make -j11
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28223#issuecomment-1666570052)
Try this (from `doc/fuzzing.md`) -- it works for me with the same equipment.
```
./autogen.sh && ./configure --enable-fuzz --with-sanitizers=fuzzer,address,undefined --disable-asm CC=$(brew --prefix llvm)/bin/clang CXX=$(brew --prefix llvm)/bin/clang++ && make clean && make -j11
```
💬 coinables commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666582128)
NACK, zero data to back-up PR claim that disallowing non-multisig p2sh would reduce spam, pure conjecture. A quick review of block data shows insignificant amount of non-multisig p2sh usage (not spam). If they pay the fee, it's not spam.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666582128)
NACK, zero data to back-up PR claim that disallowing non-multisig p2sh would reduce spam, pure conjecture. A quick review of block data shows insignificant amount of non-multisig p2sh usage (not spam). If they pay the fee, it's not spam.
💬 Fiach-Dubh commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666588537)
> NACK, zero data to back-up PR claim that disallowing non-multisig p2sh would reduce spam, pure conjecture. A quick review of block data shows insignificant amount of non-multisig p2sh usage (not spam). If they pay the fee, it's not spam.
with respect, I think there is [historical data AND precedent](https://blog.bitmex.com/dapps-or-only-bitcoin-transactions-the-2014-debate/) to suggest that default policies can reduce the amount of onchain spam. (ie the reduction in counterparty spam after
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666588537)
> NACK, zero data to back-up PR claim that disallowing non-multisig p2sh would reduce spam, pure conjecture. A quick review of block data shows insignificant amount of non-multisig p2sh usage (not spam). If they pay the fee, it's not spam.
with respect, I think there is [historical data AND precedent](https://blog.bitmex.com/dapps-or-only-bitcoin-transactions-the-2014-debate/) to suggest that default policies can reduce the amount of onchain spam. (ie the reduction in counterparty spam after
...
💬 1ma commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary restrictions on OP_RETURN by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1666594995)
> Concept ACK
>
> The limit is nothing more than feel-good policy, people have been circumventing it forever.
>
> Maybe if `OP_RETURN` never had an arbitrary 80 byte limit we would've never gotten JPEGs in tapscripts?
If `datacarriersize` is truly not effective in practice then surely there is no need for this PR at all, and it can be closed.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1666594995)
> Concept ACK
>
> The limit is nothing more than feel-good policy, people have been circumventing it forever.
>
> Maybe if `OP_RETURN` never had an arbitrary 80 byte limit we would've never gotten JPEGs in tapscripts?
If `datacarriersize` is truly not effective in practice then surely there is no need for this PR at all, and it can be closed.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1285117079)
Isn't the leading 0 optional? (Also the user might want to setgid or something weird)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1285117079)
Isn't the leading 0 optional? (Also the user might want to setgid or something weird)
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1285117042)
Not sure `StringToOctal` is the right place for this check.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1285117042)
Not sure `StringToOctal` is the right place for this check.
💬 moonsettler commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666596259)
Concept NACK; trying to discourage vandalism via policy incentivizes the emergence of mempool alternatives which could have quiet nasty consequences down the line.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666596259)
Concept NACK; trying to discourage vandalism via policy incentivizes the emergence of mempool alternatives which could have quiet nasty consequences down the line.
📝 TheCharlatan opened a pull request: "tests: Reset node context members on ~ChainTestingSetup"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28224)
The destruction/resetting of node context members in the tests should roughly follow the behavior of the `Shutdown` function in `init.cpp`.
This was originally requested by @MarcoFalke in this [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25065#discussion_r890161249) in response to the [original pull request](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25065) introducing the `kernel::Context`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28224)
The destruction/resetting of node context members in the tests should roughly follow the behavior of the `Shutdown` function in `init.cpp`.
This was originally requested by @MarcoFalke in this [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25065#discussion_r890161249) in response to the [original pull request](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25065) introducing the `kernel::Context`.
💬 HenrikJannsen commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary restrictions on OP_RETURN by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1666600410)
> > Allows for including signature by a third party other than that signing the keys controlling the inputs. E.g., service provider.
>
> 🚩🚩🚩 Sounds like maybe this is tied to some kind of KYC nonsense?
>
> There shouldn't be a "service provider" to begin with. (And if you really need such a signature, you could put it INSIDE the data which is being hashed.)
Would be interesting to hear the concrete use cases those who propose that have in mind.
Sounds a bit like a feature request fr
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1666600410)
> > Allows for including signature by a third party other than that signing the keys controlling the inputs. E.g., service provider.
>
> 🚩🚩🚩 Sounds like maybe this is tied to some kind of KYC nonsense?
>
> There shouldn't be a "service provider" to begin with. (And if you really need such a signature, you could put it INSIDE the data which is being hashed.)
Would be interesting to hear the concrete use cases those who propose that have in mind.
Sounds a bit like a feature request fr
...