💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "blockstorage: do not flush block to disk if it is already there":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039#discussion_r1133090332)

> 2\. The call to `AddBlock` you highlight here confuses and concerns me a bit - since we know a `known` block won't be written, why are we updating the metadata at all?

Because the block index LevelDB database (saved in `blocks/index`) is being wiped at the beginning of a reindex and needs to be rebuilt from scratch as we look at each block. Part of this database is meta info about each blockfile ([see bitcoin wiki](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Core_0.11_(ch_2):_Data_Storage#Block_in
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "blockstorage: do not flush block to disk if it is already there":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039#discussion_r1133091606)
ok make sense thanks. do you think my first point justifies the method of the test or is that just confusing then and I should remove it?

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "refactor: Split logging utilities from system.h":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27238#issuecomment-1464927718)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27238/commits/485ea8d400241506a6abe485b7b71b0cacfdc853

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1133106788)
this test is actually covering the `tried_count == 0` logic. if it were to hit line 746, it would sometimes select the tried table and sometimes the new table, which means it should fail 50% of the time. this coverage is ensuring that the `tried_count` has the proper interactions with `network`, which gets assigned earlier in the function-

```
if (network.has_value()) {
auto it = m_network_counts.find(*network);
if (it == m_network_counts.end()) return {};

au
...

👍 1440000bytes approved a pull request: "Improve address decoding errors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26514)
utACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26514/commits/962a0930e699b74b3c4d019427df6e2b3af5c831

---

> NACK on talking about "different networks". While this could in theory be Lightning or sidechains, it's more likely to lead users toward scamcoins.

Ideally it should have been 'chain' instead of network as networks are ipv4, ipv6, tor, i2p etc. although we should not be concerned about scammers if they ever use this software but use correct technical terms in errors IMO.

The com
...

✅ hebasto closed an issue: "wiadomośc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/718)

💬 1440000bytes commented on issue "Add support for sighash flags in PSBT (like SINGLE|ANYONECANPAY)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27141#issuecomment-1464941267)
This is a duplicate for https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/712 and can be closed

Cc: @hebasto

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1133112932)
if I am understanding this thread properly, it seems like there are two concepts being discussed:
1. changes to the bench tests
2. optimization to `AddrManImpl::Select_`

RE 1, I'm slightly confused as to the desired coverage. Without the network parameter, I would expect the worst case of the current `Select_` function to happen when addrman is practically empty, which is why we introduced `AddrManSelectFromAlmostEmpty`. On mainnet, this case would be unlikely, which is represented by `Addr
...

⚠️ 1440000bytes opened an issue: "Permission to comment on PR 27235"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27243)
### Motivation

I do not understand the reason for being restricted as new github accounts can comment on it

### Possible solution

_No response_

### Useful Skills

_No response_

### Guidance for new contributors

_No response_

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Permission to comment on PR 27235":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27243#issuecomment-1464970080)
This must be an issue with your account, as commenting is not restricted in that PR. i.e You may be blocked on GitHub by the PR author, which would prevent you from interacting with them.

That is not something that can be resolved by the project. I'm going to close this issue, however feel free to continue discussion.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Permission to comment on PR 27235"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27243)

💬 1440000bytes commented on issue "Permission to comment on PR 27235":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27243#issuecomment-1464971182)
@fanquake

> That is not something that can be resolved by the project. I'm going to close this issue, however feel free to continue discussion.

This has to be resolved by the project else authors can always block people they dont want to review in their pull requests.

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Permission to comment on PR 27235":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27243#issuecomment-1464972110)
> This has to be resolved by the project else authors can always block people they dont want to review in their pull requests.

Individuals are free to block whoever they wish, the project cannot force anyone to do anything. Github does not allow us to override this, the project cannot do anything to change that.

💬 1440000bytes commented on issue "Permission to comment on PR 27235":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27243#issuecomment-1464972798)
> > This has to be resolved by the project else authors can always block people they dont want to review in their pull requests.
>
> Individuals are free to block whoever they wish, the project cannot force anyone to do anything. Github does not allow us to override this, the project cannot do anything to change that.

What if I share example in which project has done things to override this? Is this a joke?

Can I open a pull request and block everyone? Is this the practice you are tryin
...

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Permission to comment on PR 27235":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27243#issuecomment-1464974699)
> What if I share example in which project has done things to override this?

Please do. I am not aware of any feature that allows us to override it.

However I am aware of a few instances where contributors have unblocked others after they realized that the block was preventing those people from commenting in their PRs, but these were done by those people voluntarily, not by the project.

> Can I open a pull request and block everyone?

You are free to do that, although it will likely b
...

💬 earonesty commented on issue "Permission to comment on PR 27235":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27243#issuecomment-1464975779)
if you want to comment, open a new PR with the same changes.

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1133131333)
good point, updated to `GetEntry` to match the naming style of `GetAddr`

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1133131478)
updated, my understanding is that `size_t` is unsigned and better optimizes for different platforms. does that track?

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1133131507)
updated

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1133131556)
done