💬 sipa commented on pull request "Use LE hex-encoded representations in script ASM for pushed values <= 4 bytes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28824#discussion_r1395001686)
I expect this to be a controversial opinion, but I disagree with calling this "little endian". That's a term that applies to encoding numbers to bytes/bits. Since what's being encoded isn't a number, or to be interpreted as a number, endianness is inapplicable. It's just encoding bytes in hexadecimal format, in order.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28824#discussion_r1395001686)
I expect this to be a controversial opinion, but I disagree with calling this "little endian". That's a term that applies to encoding numbers to bytes/bits. Since what's being encoded isn't a number, or to be interpreted as a number, endianness is inapplicable. It's just encoding bytes in hexadecimal format, in order.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Use LE hex-encoded representations in script ASM for pushed values <= 4 bytes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28824#discussion_r1395004582)
It's not little endian, I agree.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28824#discussion_r1395004582)
It's not little endian, I agree.
💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "mempool / rpc: followup to getprioritisedtransactions and delete a mapDeltas entry when delta==0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28885#discussion_r1395005701)
good point let me change the title
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28885#discussion_r1395005701)
good point let me change the title
👋 kevkevinpal's pull request is ready for review: "mempool / rpc: followup to getprioritisedtransactions and delete a mapDeltas entry when delta==0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28885)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28885)
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Use serialization parameters for CTransaction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28438#issuecomment-1813525342)
> @ajtowns To avoid duplicate work, it would be good if you opened all follow-up pulls you wanted to do, or reply with a list here. Others can then take the remaining follow-ups :)
I think followups are:
* Drop `SER_*` #28451
* Drop version from `GetSerializeSize()` #28878
* Drop CAutoFile - sketch at https://github.com/ajtowns/bitcoin/commits/202311-autofile
* `CVectorWriter` to `VectorWriter`, drop version from `SpanReader`, allow psbt's to be serialized via `DataStream`
* Dro
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28438#issuecomment-1813525342)
> @ajtowns To avoid duplicate work, it would be good if you opened all follow-up pulls you wanted to do, or reply with a list here. Others can then take the remaining follow-ups :)
I think followups are:
* Drop `SER_*` #28451
* Drop version from `GetSerializeSize()` #28878
* Drop CAutoFile - sketch at https://github.com/ajtowns/bitcoin/commits/202311-autofile
* `CVectorWriter` to `VectorWriter`, drop version from `SpanReader`, allow psbt's to be serialized via `DataStream`
* Dro
...
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "doc: fixup help output for -upnp and -natpmp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28874#discussion_r1395033114)
`%s` will make `DEAULT_NATPMP` `"false"` here instead of "0", I think...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28874#discussion_r1395033114)
`%s` will make `DEAULT_NATPMP` `"false"` here instead of "0", I think...
💬 denavila commented on pull request "wallet: Deniability API (Unilateral Transaction Meta-Privacy)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27792#discussion_r1395034720)
Hmm, so it doesn't look like feebumper::CommitTransaction would let me bump a transaction if the RBF flag wasn't set on the original transaction. For now I worked around it by passing an extra flag into SpoofTransactionFingerprint to only signal no-rbf when RBF is not required (as is the case with deniabilizaiton transactions). Let me know if you have better ideas how to work around this and take advantage of full-RBF nodes bumping regardless of the flag ...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27792#discussion_r1395034720)
Hmm, so it doesn't look like feebumper::CommitTransaction would let me bump a transaction if the RBF flag wasn't set on the original transaction. For now I worked around it by passing an extra flag into SpoofTransactionFingerprint to only signal no-rbf when RBF is not required (as is the case with deniabilizaiton transactions). Let me know if you have better ideas how to work around this and take advantage of full-RBF nodes bumping regardless of the flag ...
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Remove version field from GetSerializeSize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28878#issuecomment-1813628680)
Rebased after #28438 was merged.
> Is this next after #28438? Or something else first?
Either this or #28451 seem good to go; I think they conflict due to the "Convert some CDataStream.." commit here though; shouldn't be a hard rebase in either case though, I think.
> Playing around locally, I was also able to drop the include in:
Taken.
> Also worth pointing out: libbitcoinkernel now only requires `version.h` for `signet.cpp`, which I assume will go away in one of these follow-up
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28878#issuecomment-1813628680)
Rebased after #28438 was merged.
> Is this next after #28438? Or something else first?
Either this or #28451 seem good to go; I think they conflict due to the "Convert some CDataStream.." commit here though; shouldn't be a hard rebase in either case though, I think.
> Playing around locally, I was also able to drop the include in:
Taken.
> Also worth pointing out: libbitcoinkernel now only requires `version.h` for `signet.cpp`, which I assume will go away in one of these follow-up
...
👋 ajtowns's pull request is ready for review: "Remove version field from GetSerializeSize"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28878)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28878)
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "contrib: use a raw string for a regular expression literal that contains backslashes in signet/miner":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28883#issuecomment-1813708851)
utACK defdf67765a3d757f4d3840602eef7ccdac9bb49
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28883#issuecomment-1813708851)
utACK defdf67765a3d757f4d3840602eef7ccdac9bb49
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "mempool / rpc: followup to getprioritisedtransactions and delete a mapDeltas entry when delta==0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28885#issuecomment-1813711869)
Could you make the PR description a standalone statement of what this PR is trying to do, and leave the links to previous comments and questions in a separate comment?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28885#issuecomment-1813711869)
Could you make the PR description a standalone statement of what this PR is trying to do, and leave the links to previous comments and questions in a separate comment?
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "[WIP] BIP300 (Drivechains) consensus-level logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28311#issuecomment-1813734556)
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 01:05:13PM -0800, Paul Sztorc wrote:
> Peter's "equivocation attack" is just him misunderstanding BMM -- specifically wrongly assuming it is like Namecoin (as he says in his linked article).
>
> Unlike Namecoin, which is its own Blockchain and can survive on its own, BMM assumes that L1 can be found -- the L2 therefore has full access to all of L1 already. L2 already sees everything on L1, and its order.
If that is your design assumption, forcing BMM commitments to be
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28311#issuecomment-1813734556)
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 01:05:13PM -0800, Paul Sztorc wrote:
> Peter's "equivocation attack" is just him misunderstanding BMM -- specifically wrongly assuming it is like Namecoin (as he says in his linked article).
>
> Unlike Namecoin, which is its own Blockchain and can survive on its own, BMM assumes that L1 can be found -- the L2 therefore has full access to all of L1 already. L2 already sees everything on L1, and its order.
If that is your design assumption, forcing BMM commitments to be
...
💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24748#issuecomment-1813782523)
Ah, I think if we have an unhandled exception like in my previous post, running the test directly (`python3 p2p_v2_earlykeyresponse.py`) will show success, but if we use the test_runner (`python3 test_runner.py p2p_v2_earlykeyresponse.py`) it will show failure, probably because things were written to stderr. So we need to do something about the case I mentioned above.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24748#issuecomment-1813782523)
Ah, I think if we have an unhandled exception like in my previous post, running the test directly (`python3 p2p_v2_earlykeyresponse.py`) will show success, but if we use the test_runner (`python3 test_runner.py p2p_v2_earlykeyresponse.py`) it will show failure, probably because things were written to stderr. So we need to do something about the case I mentioned above.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "RFC: Remove boost usage from kernel api / headers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28335#discussion_r1395234732)
use `using` for new code? Also could remove the duplicate `CTxMemPoolEntryRef` decl in this pull (see my diff from the last pull)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28335#discussion_r1395234732)
use `using` for new code? Also could remove the duplicate `CTxMemPoolEntryRef` decl in this pull (see my diff from the last pull)
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Replace sets of txiter with CTxMemPoolEntryRefs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28886#issuecomment-1813897056)
```
test 2023-11-15T23:32:10.957000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 132, in main
self.run_test()
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/test/fu
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28886#issuecomment-1813897056)
```
test 2023-11-15T23:32:10.957000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 132, in main
self.run_test()
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/test/fu
...
⚠️ shufps opened an issue: "Verfication of provided pruned database"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28887)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.
If I understood it right, the risk of using a pruned database from someone is that the UTXOs could be manipulated.
It would easily be possible to create a UTXO checksum that is compared with other nodes to find out if it is valid or not - instead of downloading the entire chain.
### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.
Downloading the entire chain takes a long time.
Problem is getting bigger and big
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28887)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.
If I understood it right, the risk of using a pruned database from someone is that the UTXOs could be manipulated.
It would easily be possible to create a UTXO checksum that is compared with other nodes to find out if it is valid or not - instead of downloading the entire chain.
### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.
Downloading the entire chain takes a long time.
Problem is getting bigger and big
...
💬 maflcko commented on issue "Verfication of provided pruned database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28887#issuecomment-1813979721)
Are you aware of assumeutxo?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28887#issuecomment-1813979721)
Are you aware of assumeutxo?
📝 TheCharlatan converted_to_draft a pull request: "refactor: Replace sets of txiter with CTxMemPoolEntryRefs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28886)
Currently the mempool returns and consumes sets of multiindex iterators in its public API. A likely motivation for this over working with references to the actual values is that the multi index interface works with these iterators and not with pointers or references to the actual values.
However, using the iterator type in the `setEntries` set provides little benefit in practice as applied currently. Its purpose, ownership, and safety semantics often remain ambiguous, and it is hardly used fo
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28886)
Currently the mempool returns and consumes sets of multiindex iterators in its public API. A likely motivation for this over working with references to the actual values is that the multi index interface works with these iterators and not with pointers or references to the actual values.
However, using the iterator type in the `setEntries` set provides little benefit in practice as applied currently. Its purpose, ownership, and safety semantics often remain ambiguous, and it is hardly used fo
...
💬 Retropex commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1813986420)
Congratulations, what some feared finally [happened](https://x.com/mononautical/status/1724943620888006802?s=20) without us doing anything.
@Glozow luke added the tests weeks ago, it is more than time to review this PR, you are in charge of the mempool and it is in a disastrous state with no less than 200,000 spam transactions.
This trend also seems to be accelerating with waves of spam getting closer and closer.
I may repeat myself but these spam transactions make the real usefulness o
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1813986420)
Congratulations, what some feared finally [happened](https://x.com/mononautical/status/1724943620888006802?s=20) without us doing anything.
@Glozow luke added the tests weeks ago, it is more than time to review this PR, you are in charge of the mempool and it is in a disastrous state with no less than 200,000 spam transactions.
This trend also seems to be accelerating with waves of spam getting closer and closer.
I may repeat myself but these spam transactions make the real usefulness o
...
💬 shufps commented on issue "Verfication of provided pruned database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28887#issuecomment-1813994660)
> Are you aware of assumeutxo?
Didn't know it. Thx a lot!
Bootstrapping from an UTXO snapshot is even better than just validating the UTXOs and actually it's been common practice in several crypto currencies for a long time.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28887#issuecomment-1813994660)
> Are you aware of assumeutxo?
Didn't know it. Thx a lot!
Bootstrapping from an UTXO snapshot is even better than just validating the UTXOs and actually it's been common practice in several crypto currencies for a long time.