💬 RobinLinus commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1667208040)
> We will go straight to mining pools [...] who include our high fee transactions

Making the spam attacks more costly is the rationale behind this change. And the guy who runs the attack is trying to stop this spam mitigation, which is a strong indicator that he believes this change will be effective.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "mempool: Persist with XOR":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28207#discussion_r1285419172)
Right, overlooked.

💬 Empact commented on pull request "refactor: Remove unused includes from wallet.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28200#issuecomment-1667258580)
Concept ACK

nit: IMO better to split the changes from the iwyu adds/removals in the spirit of the "[Pull Request Philosophy](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/b7138252ace6d21476964774e094ed1143cd7a1c/CONTRIBUTING.md#pull-request-philosophy)"

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: create wallet specific for test_locked_wallet case":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28139#discussion_r1285427110)
yeah, if the fee was hardcoded before, it makes sense to keep it hardcoded. Especially if removing the hard code makes the test fail.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: Remove unused includes from wallet.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28200#issuecomment-1667263372)
The second commit is basically iwyu on `src/blockfilter.h` and `wallet.cpp/h`, so I don't think it can be split further.

💬 Empact commented on pull request "refactor: Remove unused MessageStartChars parameters from BlockManager methods":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28191#issuecomment-1667267999)
utACK fa69e3a95c452c2ba3221b17c19fba5993b5d073

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: check for specific bip157 disconnect reasons, add test coverage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28227#discussion_r1285434896)
```suggestion
peer_1.wait_for_disconnect()
```

Generally I am not a fan of using `assert_debug_log` to sync. Especially when it is trivial to avoid by adding 4 spaces

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: check for specific bip157 disconnect reasons, add test coverage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28227#discussion_r1285435526)
same

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Use shared_ptr for CNode inside CConnman":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28222#issuecomment-1667275661)
> Also see #10738

:+1:

I guess it must be possible to do that without "reinventing the wheel aka introducing custom smart pointer types", like mentioned in the last comment.

💬 Empact commented on pull request "refactor: Remove unused includes from wallet.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28200#issuecomment-1667285417)
To be clear as to what I'm referring to, note your commit messages both end with "Also ...". This alludes to the fact that you're doing a variety of things in each, which is a burden (in this case a minor one) on review.

Feel free to disregard as a nit, but I think this is a good practice to keep in mind, that we may maintain discipline in how we structure our changes for the benefit of review.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "util/blockstorage: Add `TRACE_RAII`, slightly faster -reindex-chainstate with CBufferedFile":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28226#issuecomment-1667287962)
It may be better to modify `CAutoFile` in that case. The file handle in the auto-file should[1] always be unique and pinned to a single thread, so I using `fread_unlocked` seems better, as it improves performance everywhere. (Though, it looks like `std::fread_unlocked` does not exist in C++, so I wonder if it exists on Windows and macOS?)

[1] I may submit a related pull to better enforce this at compile-time.

💬 M-BTC commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1667335410)
Concept ACK. Bloating the UTXO set should be more costly, especially when the incentives are perfectly clear.


💬 Sun0fABeach commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1667370041)
> Concept NACK but I would be very amused to see this get merged. We will engineer around it, of course.
>
> We will go straight to mining pools if we have to (who LOVE to include our high fee transactions).

Since you're saying these changes won't cause any issues for you, we can agree to move forward with the PR.

> We will continue to use the permissionless Bitcoin protocol as we see fit. #FREEDOM

I'm sure you don't have any spam filters on your e-mail inbox since that would be cens
...

📝 TheCharlatan opened a pull request: "kernel: Run sanity checks on context construction"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28228)
Moving the kernel sanity check code to kernel context instantiation time ensures that it is impossible to create an invalid kernel context. This is based on a suggestion made in a [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25065#discussion_r882182549) by @theuni in the [original pull request](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25065) first introducing the `kernel::Context`.

Since this touches the daemon initialization logic, also fix a bug where it would be possible for a terminat
...

💬 viresinnumeris-1 commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1667376865)
NACK

Clearly, some are going to be adversely affected by this PR if it gets merged.

Bitcoin Core does not belong to any single group. It should not be used to push personal agendas.

Let the node runners decide. Please don't assume they don't know what they're doing and push what _you_ think is best onto others.

💬 russeree commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1667380163)
> Making the spam attacks more costly is the rationale behind this change. And the guy who runs the attack is trying to stop this spam mitigation, which is a strong indicator that he believes this change will be effective.

What about P2PK then? It could still be used for the exact same purpose to bloat the UTXO set.

💬 RobinLinus commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1667394446)
> used for the exact same purpose to bloat the UTXO set

It is more costly to bloat the UTXO set with P2PK, which is exactly the intended purpose of this spam mitigation.
Still, you're right that it makes sense to open a second PR to make p2pk non-standard as well when it gets abused.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: Remove unused includes from wallet.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28200#issuecomment-1667401501)
Thanks, I've split each commit to be iwyu targeted to one header/module. The overall force-push diff is zero.

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "p2p: Drop m_recently_announced_invs bloom filter"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675#pullrequestreview-1564808157)
My understanding is that there is a bit of a trade-off with respect to memory (correct me if the byte counting is off!):
While it saves 33kB per peer (so ~4MB with 125 peers; ~250kB for non-listening nodes with 8 peers), it also adds at least 8 bytes per mempool entry for `uint64_t entry_sequence`.
(for me, `sizeof(CTxMemPoolEntry)` even grows from 264 to 280 bytes - packing effects?).
This seems a bit unsatisfactory because the `entry_sequence` data won't be needed after a few seconds (i.e.
...

💬 viresinnumeris-1 commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1667417085)
Concept ACK

Bare multisig has barely any non-spam use cases left.