💬 samyan commented on issue "Regtest mode loses unspents after day":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1678033912)
> Thank you for clarify. So, today is: **2432724b29f73abdb2fc345db5e47a19d0ed286f7b7b85ad3485e2a53764f9b6**
>
> <img alt="image" width="662" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3801362/260568373-041a0f42-2cde-4b31-9c92-475c88946e72.png">
> It remains to try again tomorrow.

Thank you for clarify. So, today is: 2432724b29f73abdb2fc345db5e47a19d0ed286f7b7b85ad3485e2a53764f9b6

image
It remains to try again tomorrow.

💬 samyan commented on issue "Regtest mode loses unspents after day":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1678035427)
> > > Just in case, please also print the current tip hash vs tomorrow's tip hash.
> >
> >
> > What do you mean with "tip"? Sorry, i'm a bit new to some things. :)
>
> np. The `bitcoin-cli getbestblockhash` output.

Thank you for clarify. So, today is: **2432724b29f73abdb2fc345db5e47a19d0ed286f7b7b85ad3485e2a53764f9b6**


It remains to try again tomorrow.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1293963387)
https://github.com/achow101/bitcoin/commit/57d72b52ca5a442982907cb09c8b26e1ab5e9d59 can be squashed in here to remove the `Recipient` class.

💬 Daniel600 commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1678052992)
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 10:27:10PM -0700, Antoine Riard wrote: Aiming to roll the ball forward I do have few technical questions for the users running zero-conf in an economic fashion: - do you have already deployed “fire cut” thresholds if more than X of your incoming on-chain transaction traffic is double-spend ? - would you consider batch CPFP of incoming zero-conf transaction as enabled by package-relay to deter double-spend ? - have you privacy-preserving cryptographic proofs (see the [`t
...

👍 murchandamus approved a pull request: "fuzz: improve `coinselection`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27585#pullrequestreview-1577634359)
Please lower the minimum target, otherwise 1942ea0e44c8b4143c9d97f23ff31dc9a6f64a56 looks ready to me. Nits optional of course. :)

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "fuzz: improve `coinselection`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27585#discussion_r1293959610)
Nit: The “UTXO set” refers to the global state of the Bitcoin blockchain. A wallet’s available coins are its _UTXO pool_.

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "fuzz: improve `coinselection`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27585#discussion_r1293962878)
Nit: Maybe call this `manual_inputs`.

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "fuzz: improve `coinselection`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27585#discussion_r1293962271)
Nit:
```suggestion
std::set<std::shared_ptr<COutput>> utxo_pool;
for (const auto& utxo : utxos) {
utxo_pool.insert(std::make_shared<COutput>(utxo));
}
result.AddInputs(utxo_pool, subtract_fee_outputs);
```

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "fuzz: improve `coinselection`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27585#discussion_r1293965983)
While we don’t broadcast transactions with outputs of that amount (except OP_RETURN maybe), if it doesn’t break anywhere, a target of 1 ṩ should maybe be legal for coin selection?

IIRC, Bitcoin Core permits 294 ṩ for P2WPKH outputs, so it should at least not be bigger than that.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "Package Relay 1/3: Introduce TxPackageTracker as Orphan Resolution Module"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28031#pullrequestreview-1543694803)
Reworked this into a `TxDownloadManager` (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28031#discussion_r1262316909) and addressed most comments.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Package Relay 1/3: Introduce TxPackageTracker as Orphan Resolution Module":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28031#discussion_r1272393191)
Done :+1:
This now has 2 logs:
- TXPACKAGES "accepted orphan tx (wtxid)"
- MEMPOOL "AcceptToMemoryPool ... (txid)" which matches the one in `ProcessMessage` for a tx message

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Package Relay 1/3: Introduce TxPackageTracker as Orphan Resolution Module":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28031#discussion_r1272435787)
Done

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Package Relay 1/3: Introduce TxPackageTracker as Orphan Resolution Module":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28031#discussion_r1293973655)
Changed these to `if(!Assume(...)) return;`

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Package Relay 1/3: Introduce TxPackageTracker as Orphan Resolution Module":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28031#discussion_r1293972937)
Thanks, fixed

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Package Relay 1/3: Introduce TxPackageTracker as Orphan Resolution Module":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28031#discussion_r1272492061)
Dropped the commit instead

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Package Relay 1/3: Introduce TxPackageTracker as Orphan Resolution Module":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28031#discussion_r1293973180)
Fixed

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Package Relay 1/3: Introduce TxPackageTracker as Orphan Resolution Module":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28031#discussion_r1272428700)
Removed the prefix

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Package Relay 1/3: Introduce TxPackageTracker as Orphan Resolution Module":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28031#discussion_r1272426199)
Good point. The reason for excluding orphanage is actually not applicable yet so I have dropped it for now.

This is really only applicable when we are requesting the `ancpkginfo` for a tx. We want to exclude orphanage because otherwise, `AlreadyHaveTx` will return true and we will never request `ancpkginfo`s.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Package Relay 1/3: Introduce TxPackageTracker as Orphan Resolution Module":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28031#discussion_r1293974858)
Replaced the exposure of `Count` to `CheckIsEmpty()` functions

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Package Relay 1/3: Introduce TxPackageTracker as Orphan Resolution Module":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28031#discussion_r1293978623)
Added `MEMPOOLREJ` log and successful `AcceptToMemoryPool` log for both orphan and non-orphan tx results.