💬 shaavan commented on pull request "init: handle empty settings file gracefully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#discussion_r1438165814)
I see your point here. But wording like this provides a very unclear reason for failure.
Don't you think we would be throwing users in too many directions here?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "guix: Use DOS newlines for SHA256SUMS files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29147#issuecomment-1871985349)
> it only _enables_ us to do so if desired.

It would be good to list at least one benefit, otherwise the benefits of this change are unclear.

💬 kristapsk commented on pull request "init: handle empty settings file gracefully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#issuecomment-1871995364)
> It would probably be useful to introduce support for comments. This way, we can write something at the beginning of the file, ensuring that users and other software developers don't clean it up manually, thinking that it will be regenerated automatically.

This will not help if cause was full disk. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21340#issuecomment-876779561

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "test: doc: follow-up #28368"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29013#pullrequestreview-1798855735)
concept ACK, thanks for fixing the issue

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: doc: follow-up #28368":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29013#discussion_r1438169687)
75f0478e0c435c1ee9242007ee1b391d3175519e this doc seems unnecessary

💬 anibilthare commented on pull request "init: handle empty settings file gracefully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#discussion_r1438182115)
Can you please point out exactly what part of these statements might confuse the user?
Although we'll be asking the user to check for 2 things in the comment but I believe they are pretty straight forward, right?

1. Is there any space left on the disk.
2. Is settings.json empty or not?

If none of the above conditions hold true and user is still seeing the issue then we are indicating the possibility of corruption of the settings file itself.

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149)

💬 furszy commented on pull request "init: handle empty settings file gracefully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#issuecomment-1872060582)
> I get your point, @furszy, and I can see your approach helping with smoother handling of the "file empty" situation.
>
> However, pointing back again to ryanofsky comment
>
> > A zero-size settings file is a corrupt settings file.
>
> The interpretation I draw from this is if a file is empty (and hence corrupted once) there is no telling what could be the reason for that happening or whether such corruption could happen again. So, I believe being very critical and clear with the handl
...

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872063421)
@achow101 why is this pull request closed?

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "init: handle empty settings file gracefully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#discussion_r1438254888)
NACK for this PR

Core does not works for umbrel

This is external and need to maintain outside of core: https://community.umbrel.com/t/bitcoin-docker-container-keeps-restarting/2144

💬 furszy commented on pull request "test: test_bitcoin: allow -testdatadir=<datadir>":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26564#discussion_r1438256160)
```c++
fs::path dir = m_node.args->GetPathArg("-testdatadir");
// todo: check if path is valid
m_path_root = dir / "test_temp";
```

💬 furszy commented on pull request "test: test_bitcoin: allow -testdatadir=<datadir>":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26564#discussion_r1438257281)
> Good idea, but what do you mean by path correctness?

Probably we should fail when `-testdatadir` is an empty string.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "test: test_bitcoin: allow -testdatadir=<datadir>":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26564#discussion_r1438258663)
This should use the `EXIT_FAILURE` constant, not exit(1).

Also, I would move the print + exit to a standalone function to dedup code. Like `Shutdown(const std::string& err_msg);`.

⚠️ etfmoon opened an issue: "Mark Transactions with OFAC Addresses as Non-Standard"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29151)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

>Bitcoin core arbitrarily censors a lot of transactions, not just op_return data carrier size. There's an entire suite of functions in policy.cpp that define Bitcoin's censorship algorithm - isDust(), isValid(), isStandard(), isStandardTx(), AreInputsStandard(), IsWitnessStandard(). The original and sole purpose of those functions is to promote censorship.

https://x.com/AsherHopp/status/1740191968834310654

Use these functions to mak
...

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Mark Transactions with OFAC Addresses as Non-Standard"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29151)

💬 furszy commented on pull request "init: handle empty settings file gracefully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#discussion_r1438263758)
> Core does not works for umbrel

@1440000bytes, I did not know about umbrel existence until you pointed it out.

The PR tries to improve a confusing situation reported by users who did not understand why a settings parsing error occurred when the file was empty and did not know how to solve it.

📝 1440000bytes opened a pull request: "Remove luke from dns seeds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29152)
No reason shared to closed in this PR : https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28936

💬 kristapsk commented on issue "Mark Transactions with OFAC Addresses as Non-Standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29151#issuecomment-1872115179)
> Mark transactions containing OFAC addresses as non-standard to ensure that they are not relayed by bitcoin nodes.

You cannot enforce other people to run any code like this on their nodes. You are free to patch your node and do it yourself. But that doesn't mean such transactions can't be mined by the miners. 4G inscription transaction was non-standard, not relayed by nodes, was sent directly to miner and mined.

💬 benpbolton commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872130515)
> So it doesn't matter that much what features these initial peers support, as long as they can give us more peers.

But this seeder was

> intentionally excluding old nodes which didn't enforce Taproot.

and did so in a manner that was static (used a filtering method at the time that wasn't updated) and the DNS seed policy states ...

> ...the results may be randomized but must not single-out any group of hosts to receive different results unless due to an urgent technical necessity a
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872136121)
The issue with old nodes was resolved. There is no evidence otherwise that the seeder violates the DNS seed policy.