💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1285232819)
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll take a look at `EvalCheckSig`!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1285232819)
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll take a look at `EvalCheckSig`!
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#issuecomment-1666916558)
@willcl-ark note that you ACK'd the wrong commit here.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#issuecomment-1666916558)
@willcl-ark note that you ACK'd the wrong commit here.
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213)
💬 zkfrio commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666921966)
> @zkfrio your statement is contradictory. If bare multisig inscribers can easily route around mempool policy then there's no reason to oppose the change. If you ACK this proposal everyone can have their slice of pie.
It is not contradictory if you understand how bitcoin works. This will create different mempool and P2P or incentivize a system that allows all transactions that follow consensus rules. It's a slippery slope.
If you think bare multisig is bad for multisig for bitcoin. Share o
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666921966)
> @zkfrio your statement is contradictory. If bare multisig inscribers can easily route around mempool policy then there's no reason to oppose the change. If you ACK this proposal everyone can have their slice of pie.
It is not contradictory if you understand how bitcoin works. This will create different mempool and P2P or incentivize a system that allows all transactions that follow consensus rules. It's a slippery slope.
If you think bare multisig is bad for multisig for bitcoin. Share o
...
💬 whycorn commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666923443)
> > @zkfrio your statement is contradictory. If bare multisig inscribers can easily route around mempool policy then there's no reason to oppose the change. If you ACK this proposal everyone can have their slice of pie.
>
> It is not contradictory if you understand how bitcoin works. This will create different mempool and P2P or incentivize a system that allows all transactions that follow consensus rules. It's a slippery slope.
>
> If you think bare multisig is bad for multisig for bitcoi
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666923443)
> > @zkfrio your statement is contradictory. If bare multisig inscribers can easily route around mempool policy then there's no reason to oppose the change. If you ACK this proposal everyone can have their slice of pie.
>
> It is not contradictory if you understand how bitcoin works. This will create different mempool and P2P or incentivize a system that allows all transactions that follow consensus rules. It's a slippery slope.
>
> If you think bare multisig is bad for multisig for bitcoi
...
💬 zkfrio commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666923869)
>cry harder ordilabs spammer, you can't tell me what's spam to my node - your monkey jpeggery is certainly spam to me.
Try this ad hominem on twitter
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666923869)
>cry harder ordilabs spammer, you can't tell me what's spam to my node - your monkey jpeggery is certainly spam to me.
Try this ad hominem on twitter
💬 Davidson-Souza commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666927056)
PSA (please don't kill the messenger, I'm just adding context to the pr) this pr will likely break BIP47 payment codes, at least version 3. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but I think at least a "heads-up" will be a good practice if this goes through.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666927056)
PSA (please don't kill the messenger, I'm just adding context to the pr) this pr will likely break BIP47 payment codes, at least version 3. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but I think at least a "heads-up" will be a good practice if this goes through.
📝 theStack opened a pull request: "test: check for specific bip157 disconnect reasons, add test coverage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28227)
This PR checks for specific disconnect reasons using `assert_debug_log` in the functional test `p2p_blockfilters.py`. With that we ensure that the disconnect happens for the expected reason and also makes it easier to navigate between implementation and test code, i.e. both the questions "do we have test coverage for this disconnect cause?" (from an implementation reader's perspective) and "where is the code handling this disconnect cause?" (from a test reader's perspective) can be answered simp
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28227)
This PR checks for specific disconnect reasons using `assert_debug_log` in the functional test `p2p_blockfilters.py`. With that we ensure that the disconnect happens for the expected reason and also makes it easier to navigate between implementation and test code, i.e. both the questions "do we have test coverage for this disconnect cause?" (from an implementation reader's perspective) and "where is the code handling this disconnect cause?" (from a test reader's perspective) can be answered simp
...
💬 zkfrio commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666938033)
> PSA (please don't kill the messenger, I'm just adding context to the pr) this pr will likely break BIP47 payment codes, at [least version 3](https://github.com/OpenBitcoinPrivacyProject/rfc/blob/master/obpp-05.mediawiki#user-content-Notification_Output). I'm not saying this is good or bad, but I think at least a "heads-up" will be a good practice if this goes through.
BIP 47 uses OP_RETURN
If anything else, we need their developers to comment else nobody cares about a project who is mak
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666938033)
> PSA (please don't kill the messenger, I'm just adding context to the pr) this pr will likely break BIP47 payment codes, at [least version 3](https://github.com/OpenBitcoinPrivacyProject/rfc/blob/master/obpp-05.mediawiki#user-content-Notification_Output). I'm not saying this is good or bad, but I think at least a "heads-up" will be a good practice if this goes through.
BIP 47 uses OP_RETURN
If anything else, we need their developers to comment else nobody cares about a project who is mak
...
💬 1ma commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666938634)
> PSA (please don't kill the messenger, I'm just adding context to the pr) this pr will likely break BIP47 payment codes, at [least version 3](https://github.com/OpenBitcoinPrivacyProject/rfc/blob/master/obpp-05.mediawiki#user-content-Notification_Output). I'm not saying this is good or bad, but I think at least a "heads-up" will be a good practice if this goes through.
This is IMO a valid objection. But to be precise BIP47 payments code are not broken as they use OP_RETURN, and v3 has not be
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666938634)
> PSA (please don't kill the messenger, I'm just adding context to the pr) this pr will likely break BIP47 payment codes, at [least version 3](https://github.com/OpenBitcoinPrivacyProject/rfc/blob/master/obpp-05.mediawiki#user-content-Notification_Output). I'm not saying this is good or bad, but I think at least a "heads-up" will be a good practice if this goes through.
This is IMO a valid objection. But to be precise BIP47 payments code are not broken as they use OP_RETURN, and v3 has not be
...
💬 Davidson-Souza commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666943944)
> BIP 47 uses OP_RETURN
Version one does. Version two uses a 1 of 2 MS in a p2sh and version 3 uses p2ms.
> This is IMO a valid objection. But to be precise BIP47 payment codes are not broken as they use OP_RETURN, and v3 has not been rolled out yet (?). Is there any reason the draft couldn't be amended to build v3 on OP_RETURN, too?
This is not a draft, this is the final spec implemented by Samurai (I think Blue Wallet and Sparrow also does). They didn't update BIP047 because of some d
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666943944)
> BIP 47 uses OP_RETURN
Version one does. Version two uses a 1 of 2 MS in a p2sh and version 3 uses p2ms.
> This is IMO a valid objection. But to be precise BIP47 payment codes are not broken as they use OP_RETURN, and v3 has not been rolled out yet (?). Is there any reason the draft couldn't be amended to build v3 on OP_RETURN, too?
This is not a draft, this is the final spec implemented by Samurai (I think Blue Wallet and Sparrow also does). They didn't update BIP047 because of some d
...
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "rpc: Add importmempool RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27460#discussion_r1268944205)
The default for `ImportMempoolOptions::mockable_fopen_function` isn't actually used anywhere since `LoadMempool` overrides it. Maybe drop `LoadMempool` entirely and call `kernel::ImportMempool` directly from init.cpp and the fuzz test?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27460#discussion_r1268944205)
The default for `ImportMempoolOptions::mockable_fopen_function` isn't actually used anywhere since `LoadMempool` overrides it. Maybe drop `LoadMempool` entirely and call `kernel::ImportMempool` directly from init.cpp and the fuzz test?
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "rpc: Add importmempool RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27460#discussion_r1268950369)
Might be worth adding a helper for the `isNull ? default : get_native()` pattern?
```c++
template<typename T>
T RPCDefaultArg(const UniValue&, T default);
template<>
bool RPCDefaultArg(const UniValue& uv, bool default) { return uv.isNull() ? default : uv.get_bool(); }
const auto use_current_time = RPCDefaultArg<bool>(request.params[1]["use_current_time"], true);
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27460#discussion_r1268950369)
Might be worth adding a helper for the `isNull ? default : get_native()` pattern?
```c++
template<typename T>
T RPCDefaultArg(const UniValue&, T default);
template<>
bool RPCDefaultArg(const UniValue& uv, bool default) { return uv.isNull() ? default : uv.get_bool(); }
const auto use_current_time = RPCDefaultArg<bool>(request.params[1]["use_current_time"], true);
```
💬 zkfrio commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666967075)
>This is not a draft, this is the final spec implemented by Samurai (I think Blue Wallet and Sparrow also does). They didn't update BIP047 because of some disagreements between the developers and the BIPs repo. But this is not relevant here, the latest version, to my knowledge is v3 that uses p2ms.
1. Samourai- nobody cares about that project who is making money from others efforts.
2. None of them use P2MS, do some research.
Still NACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666967075)
>This is not a draft, this is the final spec implemented by Samurai (I think Blue Wallet and Sparrow also does). They didn't update BIP047 because of some disagreements between the developers and the BIPs repo. But this is not relevant here, the latest version, to my knowledge is v3 that uses p2ms.
1. Samourai- nobody cares about that project who is making money from others efforts.
2. None of them use P2MS, do some research.
Still NACK
💬 printer-jam commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary restrictions on OP_RETURN by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1666976142)
> The individuals opposing this PR, believing they protect Bitcoin from centralization, ironically desire to dictate to all other people how they should and should not use Bitcoin.
Why create the PR to change Bitcoin? You are not stopped from using it within the current rules, yet you want to dictate to node runners that they must now store more arbitrary data, and if they don't agree they are the ones 'dictating' by opposing this PRs demands? Classic projection.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130#issuecomment-1666976142)
> The individuals opposing this PR, believing they protect Bitcoin from centralization, ironically desire to dictate to all other people how they should and should not use Bitcoin.
Why create the PR to change Bitcoin? You are not stopped from using it within the current rules, yet you want to dictate to node runners that they must now store more arbitrary data, and if they don't agree they are the ones 'dictating' by opposing this PRs demands? Classic projection.
💬 samouraiwallet commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666981146)
Ignoring the unwarranted ad hominem.
I have no desire to wade into what appears to be a bunch of meddling with the code base for no good reason (bare multsig outputs are not the cause of the increased spam, as I am sure you know).
I will simply confirm that Samourai Wallet implements Version 1 of BIP47 which doesn't use bare multsig but rather OP_RETURN. There are at least 200,000 BIP47 payment codes (that users have opted in to uploading to a public web directory) in the wild across thre
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666981146)
Ignoring the unwarranted ad hominem.
I have no desire to wade into what appears to be a bunch of meddling with the code base for no good reason (bare multsig outputs are not the cause of the increased spam, as I am sure you know).
I will simply confirm that Samourai Wallet implements Version 1 of BIP47 which doesn't use bare multsig but rather OP_RETURN. There are at least 200,000 BIP47 payment codes (that users have opted in to uploading to a public web directory) in the wild across thre
...
💬 Davidson-Souza commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666991867)
@samouraiwallet Thank you for your clarifications. I retract myself in claiming Samurai uses v3.
However, as noted:
> I don't think it is wise to assume that no one is using BIP47 Version 3
My comment still stands on, this is a valid additional context to reviewers.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1666991867)
@samouraiwallet Thank you for your clarifications. I retract myself in claiming Samurai uses v3.
However, as noted:
> I don't think it is wise to assume that no one is using BIP47 Version 3
My comment still stands on, this is a valid additional context to reviewers.
💬 furszy commented on pull request "test: create wallet specific for test_locked_wallet case":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28139#discussion_r1285273580)
> I wonder why implicit fee estimation passed in the first place. Previously there were two inputs and a fee of 550sat. Now there is a fee of 2200 sat with one input.
That is because the default wallets have a custom tx fee (set [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/b7138252ace6d21476964774e094ed1143cd7a1c/test/functional/wallet_fundrawtransaction.py#L100)), which is much lower than the one used in the wallet created by this test case (which runs the default fee estimation).
Side
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28139#discussion_r1285273580)
> I wonder why implicit fee estimation passed in the first place. Previously there were two inputs and a fee of 550sat. Now there is a fee of 2200 sat with one input.
That is because the default wallets have a custom tx fee (set [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/b7138252ace6d21476964774e094ed1143cd7a1c/test/functional/wallet_fundrawtransaction.py#L100)), which is much lower than the one used in the wallet created by this test case (which runs the default fee estimation).
Side
...
💬 ariard commented on pull request "Libstandardness (edition 2023)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28220#issuecomment-1667028032)
> 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.
While each node can set its own transaction relay policy, economically rational nodes are expected to follow the set of rules yielding the highest feerate traffic, at the very least for the ones partaking in block template construction if they wish to stay competitive mining entities.
If the default set of transaction relay rules do not yield the highest f
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28220#issuecomment-1667028032)
> 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.
While each node can set its own transaction relay policy, economically rational nodes are expected to follow the set of rules yielding the highest feerate traffic, at the very least for the ones partaking in block template construction if they wish to stay competitive mining entities.
If the default set of transaction relay rules do not yield the highest f
...
💬 russeree commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1667063615)
Concept NACK
1. **This PR won't stop utxo set bloat.** This would not stop bloat of the UTXO set because P2PK still exists. P2MS is just P2PK with the ability to bake up to 2 more pubkeys to the chain even if those pubkeys don't actually have known private keys.
2. **Long term storage** because of the nature of P2SH and P2WSH scripts for multisig. The user is responsible for not only their private keys but also the public keys to recreate the script to spend their funds. P2MS is an incredi
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1667063615)
Concept NACK
1. **This PR won't stop utxo set bloat.** This would not stop bloat of the UTXO set because P2PK still exists. P2MS is just P2PK with the ability to bake up to 2 more pubkeys to the chain even if those pubkeys don't actually have known private keys.
2. **Long term storage** because of the nature of P2SH and P2WSH scripts for multisig. The user is responsible for not only their private keys but also the public keys to recreate the script to spend their funds. P2MS is an incredi
...