💬 kiminuo commented on pull request "Add feerate histogram to getmempoolinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21422#issuecomment-1465033134)
> It would be good if the functional test actually verified that the values are correctly calculated after creating a few txns; ATM it is only really a smoke test that verifies the output structure. (by @jonatack)
> Test currently only cover the count and not the fees or sizes per feerate group. (by @0xB10C)

Added explicit assert lines in the test for this.

💬 kiminuo commented on pull request "Add feerate histogram to getmempoolinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21422#issuecomment-1465035161)
> Concept ACK!
>
> It might make sense to have the API be more similar to https://numpy.org/doc/stable/reference/generated/numpy.histogram.html

Honestly, I'm not sure. Anyone else who prefer that approach?

💬 earonesty commented on issue "Permission to comment on PR 27235":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27243#issuecomment-1465036230)
and yet he's perfectly free to open up a new PR with the same set of changes and comments all over it...

censorship doesn't exist

📝 fjahr opened a pull request: "http: Detect remote disconnect - 2nd attempt"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27245)
A revival of #19434 but with a few substantial changes.

The code is valuable but from my understanding, it is offset by the workaround code from #11593. So I have wrapped the code so it's only used for versions where the workaround does not apply. The original PR removed the workaround code but also led to failures in `test/functional/mining_getblocktemplate_longpoll.py` so I think this is not an option.

Since `libevent` 2.2 is still not out and it's hard to say when that will happen I am
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "http: Detect remote disconnect - 2nd attempt":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27245#issuecomment-1465047745)
@promag Is my understanding correct or did I miss something from #19434? There was no description on the WIP commit so this is just what I gathered on my own.

💬 donatocayurin commented on issue "Release schedule for 25.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549#issuecomment-1465081447)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27223

💬 donatocayurin commented on issue "Release schedule for 25.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549#issuecomment-1465081474)
❤️🙏

💬 izlan90 commented on issue "Release schedule for 25.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549#issuecomment-1465083775)
What hepn


Pada Ahd, 12 Mac 2023 11:22 PG donatocayurin ***@***.***>
menulis:

> ❤️🙏
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549#issuecomment-1465081474>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMGAK736R2NAEVNKFHMZQZTW3U6PVANCNFSM6AAAAAASGZKBPY>
> .
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
> ID: ***@***.***>
>

💬 donatocayurin commented on issue "Issue in `p2p_ibd_stalling.py` under Valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27208#issuecomment-1465084771)
❤️🙏

💬 donatocayurin commented on pull request "refactor: Consistently use context args over gArgs in node/interfaces":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27239#issuecomment-1465085018)
❤️❤️

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1133185828)
I was curious about a possible relation between `sum(CalculateBumpFees)` over all outpoints, and `CalculateTotalBumpFees` for the same outpoints / target feerate.
My naive thought was that taking the sum over `CalculateBumpFees` might overestimate the total bump fee by counting the bumping of some mempool txs twice if there is a shared ancestry, and that the quantities should be equal if there is no shared ancestry. As a result, `CalculateTotalBumpFees` should never be larger than the sum of `C
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "http: Detect remote disconnect - 2nd attempt":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27245#issuecomment-1465121106)
> Since libevent 2.2 is still not out and it's hard to say when that will happen

https://github.com/libevent/libevent/issues/1094

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#issuecomment-1465197246)
Concept ACK: I think, having network diversity in outbound connections is helpful and improves partition resistance.

>> In the above, the clearnet networks IPv4 and IPv6 are counted as one network because diversification between these doesn't make sense and is impossible in some network environments.
>
> Why it doesn't make sense? I think it is an extra effort to obtain IPv4 addresses if one has IPv6 addresses and the other way around. Why impossible in some network environments? After all
...

⚠️ desirepl opened an issue: "Bitcoin ignores datadir parameter in .conf when started without parameters"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27246)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

Registry has a REG_SZ key `HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Bitcoin\Bitcoin-Qt\strDataDir`
It is created by default when bitcoin-qt starts first time and after editing/accepting first start wizard.
Change database directory to non-default path, put there bitcoin.conf with datadir=databasepath and run bitcoin-qt (-cli/etc) and bitcoin ignores datadir path if no -datadir argument passed to a pro
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "net: Add -allowinbound config option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25718#issuecomment-1465226643)
Closing this for now as I currently don't have time to continue with this. I hope I can revisit it in the future.

✅ fjahr closed a pull request: "net: Add -allowinbound config option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25718)

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "Update src/secp256k1 subtree to upstream release v0.3.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27230)
ACK e5c7fcb361d3379c254a52104b4ba25907cd07bb

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Update src/secp256k1 subtree to upstream release v0.3.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27230)

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "assumeutxo: background validation completion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25740#discussion_r1133279555)
Just catching up... Not sure if intentional or not but maybe the XXX here was something you still wanted to address but missed @jamesob ?

💬 desirepl commented on issue "Bitcoin ignores datadir parameter in .conf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27246#issuecomment-1465235684)
@fanquake, I suppose it can be OS independent bug.