💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: more `Span<std::byte>` modernization & follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#discussion_r1292897098)
I've dropped it.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#discussion_r1292897098)
I've dropped it.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: more `Span<std::byte>` modernization & follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#discussion_r1292897136)
I've dropped it.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#discussion_r1292897136)
I've dropped it.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: more `Span<std::byte>` modernization & follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#discussion_r1292897165)
Done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#discussion_r1292897165)
Done.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: more `Span<std::byte>` modernization & follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#discussion_r1292897357)
I have instead used different argument names (`in_bytes` and `out_bytes`) to avoid a collision with the member variable altogether.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#discussion_r1292897357)
I have instead used different argument names (`in_bytes` and `out_bytes`) to avoid a collision with the member variable altogether.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: more `Span<std::byte>` modernization & follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#discussion_r1292897379)
Done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#discussion_r1292897379)
Done.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: more `Span<std::byte>` modernization & follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#discussion_r1292898612)
Indeed, I'm aware.
Just brainstorming at this point, but perhaps we don't want to actually add an overload for an STL class operator. Perhaps `std::ranges::equal` can be used instead.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#discussion_r1292898612)
Indeed, I'm aware.
Just brainstorming at this point, but perhaps we don't want to actually add an overload for an STL class operator. Perhaps `std::ranges::equal` can be used instead.
💬 ajtowns commented on issue "meta: Isolated fuzzing of net processing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27502#issuecomment-1676562940)
What is this going to fuzz exactly? The possible behaviour of an individual p2p message in isolation? The p2p protocol state machine for a single peer? Is this intended to be abstracted away from validation/mempool behaviours (ie, stubbing them out)?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27502#issuecomment-1676562940)
What is this going to fuzz exactly? The possible behaviour of an individual p2p message in isolation? The p2p protocol state machine for a single peer? Is this intended to be abstracted away from validation/mempool behaviours (ie, stubbing them out)?
💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: more `Span<std::byte>` modernization & follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#issuecomment-1676582994)
Rebased after merge of #28008, and addresses feedback. I've dropped the `Crypt` -> `Encrypt` / `Decrypt` change as I felt the duplication that resulted wasn't worth it anymore.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#issuecomment-1676582994)
Rebased after merge of #28008, and addresses feedback. I've dropped the `Crypt` -> `Encrypt` / `Decrypt` change as I felt the duplication that resulted wasn't worth it anymore.
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "[no merge, meta] refactor: net/net processing split":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28252#issuecomment-1676598108)
> I think we're just gonna disagree on what the right direction is
Isn't the point of opening this to discuss that and at least try to come to an agreement? Being immediately dismissed out of hand feels pretty frustrating.
> It's challenging right now because we are passing internal pointers around.
I don't really think that's at all true? Passing pointers to objects is a completely normal thing; and whether something is "internal" or not is just a matter of how you define the api -- i
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28252#issuecomment-1676598108)
> I think we're just gonna disagree on what the right direction is
Isn't the point of opening this to discuss that and at least try to come to an agreement? Being immediately dismissed out of hand feels pretty frustrating.
> It's challenging right now because we are passing internal pointers around.
I don't really think that's at all true? Passing pointers to objects is a completely normal thing; and whether something is "internal" or not is just a matter of how you define the api -- i
...
💬 sipa commented on pull request "net: transport abstraction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28165#discussion_r1292945676)
The `header` argument no longer exists (as the caller doesn't have any notion of headers anymore, that's local to the transport implementation). Instead there is an `m_header_to_send` variable, but it's reused across messages, so (repeated) reserving makes no sense.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28165#discussion_r1292945676)
The `header` argument no longer exists (as the caller doesn't have any notion of headers anymore, that's local to the transport implementation). Instead there is an `m_header_to_send` variable, but it's reused across messages, so (repeated) reserving makes no sense.
📝 stratospher opened a pull request: "crypto: BIP324 ciphersuite follow-up"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28267)
follow-up to #28008.
* move `dummy_tag` variable in FSChaCha20Poly1305 crypto_tests outside of the loop to be reused every time
* use easy to read `cipher.last()` in `AEADChaCha20Poly1305::Decrypt()`
* comment for initiator in `BIP324Cipher::Initialize()`
* systematically damage ciphertext with bit positions in bip324_tests
* use 4095 max bytes for `aad` in bip324 fuzz test
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28267)
follow-up to #28008.
* move `dummy_tag` variable in FSChaCha20Poly1305 crypto_tests outside of the loop to be reused every time
* use easy to read `cipher.last()` in `AEADChaCha20Poly1305::Decrypt()`
* comment for initiator in `BIP324Cipher::Initialize()`
* systematically damage ciphertext with bit positions in bip324_tests
* use 4095 max bytes for `aad` in bip324 fuzz test
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Add fuzz test for FSChaCha20Poly1305, AEADChacha20Poly1305":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28263#issuecomment-1676634167)
so split off the last commit into #28267 since they aren't related to the fuzz test. (included https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1277460913 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1283327643 there)
thinking about https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28263#discussion_r1292869677. will address it soon.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28263#issuecomment-1676634167)
so split off the last commit into #28267 since they aren't related to the fuzz test. (included https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1277460913 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1283327643 there)
thinking about https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28263#discussion_r1292869677. will address it soon.
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "BIP324 ciphersuite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1292949591)
done in #28267.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1292949591)
done in #28267.
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "BIP324 ciphersuite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1292949659)
done in #28267.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1292949659)
done in #28267.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: bugfixes, logic and logging improvements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28248#issuecomment-1676644423)
Updated to propose fixes for the issues observed with the improved logging.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28248#issuecomment-1676644423)
Updated to propose fixes for the issues observed with the improved logging.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: BIP324 ciphersuite follow-up":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28267#issuecomment-1676645268)
utACK d22d5d925c000bf25ad2410ca66c4c21eea75004
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28267#issuecomment-1676645268)
utACK d22d5d925c000bf25ad2410ca66c4c21eea75004
⚠️ Rlavington opened an issue: "Make it very obvious to the new people that the Bitcoin Core program first needs to be installed and run on the "C" drive. "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28268)
### Issues, reports or feature requests related to the GUI should be opened directly on the GUI repo
- [X] I still think this issue should be opened here
### Report
Hello developers,
I know that you probably think that this is so obvious and basic but it needs to be said.
When a new person wants to run a full BTC node on their computer for the first time can you make it very obvious to that person that the Bitcoin Core program needs to be downloaded and installed onto their "C" drive o
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28268)
### Issues, reports or feature requests related to the GUI should be opened directly on the GUI repo
- [X] I still think this issue should be opened here
### Report
Hello developers,
I know that you probably think that this is so obvious and basic but it needs to be said.
When a new person wants to run a full BTC node on their computer for the first time can you make it very obvious to that person that the Bitcoin Core program needs to be downloaded and installed onto their "C" drive o
...
💬 BitcoinErrorLog commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1676755450)
> Do you have an actual example of a real-world online merchant that accepts unconfirmed transactions for something of value immediately? Please provide a URL so we can check. I _still_ have not found such an example. GAP600 has claimed to have such customers. But so far their claims have not checked out. Without such an example your claim that you "personally value onchain payment use cases" is not relevant.
Many examples of 0conf acceptance have been provided, with consistency across years.
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1676755450)
> Do you have an actual example of a real-world online merchant that accepts unconfirmed transactions for something of value immediately? Please provide a URL so we can check. I _still_ have not found such an example. GAP600 has claimed to have such customers. But so far their claims have not checked out. Without such an example your claim that you "personally value onchain payment use cases" is not relevant.
Many examples of 0conf acceptance have been provided, with consistency across years.
...
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "crypto: BIP324 ciphersuite follow-up":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28267#issuecomment-1676834229)
cc @theStack
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28267#issuecomment-1676834229)
cc @theStack
💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: tx orphan handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28199#discussion_r1293136573)
Good point, moved from TestFramework to TestNode
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28199#discussion_r1293136573)
Good point, moved from TestFramework to TestNode