💬 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.
(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
(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.
(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
...
(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.
(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.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Remove luke from dns seeds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29152#issuecomment-1872136680)
Do not open duplicate PRs. If you believe a PR should be reopened, then you can comment and discuss on the closed one.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29152#issuecomment-1872136680)
Do not open duplicate PRs. If you believe a PR should be reopened, then you can comment and discuss on the closed one.
✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "Remove luke from dns seeds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29152)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29152)
📝 achow101 locked 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
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29152)
No reason shared to closed in this PR : https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28936
💬 etfmoon commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872161052)
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872136121
> A DNS seed operating organization or person is expected to follow good host security practices
> The DNS seed results must consist exclusively of fairly selected and functioning Bitcoin nodes from the public network to the best of the operator's understanding and capability.
Evidence: https://pastebin.com/raw/Cwk2a1xr
Maybe read descriptions and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/dnsseed-polic
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872161052)
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872136121
> A DNS seed operating organization or person is expected to follow good host security practices
> The DNS seed results must consist exclusively of fairly selected and functioning Bitcoin nodes from the public network to the best of the operator's understanding and capability.
Evidence: https://pastebin.com/raw/Cwk2a1xr
Maybe read descriptions and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/dnsseed-polic
...
💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872169440)
Do not close PRs. If you believe a PR should not need more research, then you can comment.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872169440)
Do not close PRs. If you believe a PR should not need more research, then you can comment.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872189682)
> > [#29149 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872136121)
>
> > A DNS seed operating organization or person is expected to follow good host security practices
> > The DNS seed results must consist exclusively of fairly selected and functioning Bitcoin nodes from the public network to the best of the operator's understanding and capability.
>
> Evidence: https://pastebin.com/raw/Cwk2a1xr
>
> Maybe read descriptions and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitco
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872189682)
> > [#29149 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872136121)
>
> > A DNS seed operating organization or person is expected to follow good host security practices
> > The DNS seed results must consist exclusively of fairly selected and functioning Bitcoin nodes from the public network to the best of the operator's understanding and capability.
>
> Evidence: https://pastebin.com/raw/Cwk2a1xr
>
> Maybe read descriptions and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitco
...
💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872200086)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872200086)
💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872201337)
Why not remove that policy doc that this point? bunch of hypocrites
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872201337)
Why not remove that policy doc that this point? bunch of hypocrites
💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1438330730)
Yeah, I meant to write how to pass the additional flags in the `[permissions@]`'s syntax format (the default behaviour should be without the `out` in it as `noban,in@1.2.3.4`, perhaps that's confusing?). Feel free to ignore if doesn't make sense to you.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1438330730)
Yeah, I meant to write how to pass the additional flags in the `[permissions@]`'s syntax format (the default behaviour should be without the `out` in it as `noban,in@1.2.3.4`, perhaps that's confusing?). Feel free to ignore if doesn't make sense to you.
💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: Increase inbound capacity for block-relay only connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28463#issuecomment-1872227505)
After discussing wit @amitiuttarwar I've now lowered the inbound percentage from 60% to 50% (leading to 95 instead of 113 slots for tx-relaying inbounds). This way, we'll be more aligned with the `typical` number of tx-relaying inbounds today, because nodes today usually have a significant number of block-relay-only inbounds as @0xB10C .
The previous number of 113 was aligned with the `maximum` number of tx-relaying inbounds.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28463#issuecomment-1872227505)
After discussing wit @amitiuttarwar I've now lowered the inbound percentage from 60% to 50% (leading to 95 instead of 113 slots for tx-relaying inbounds). This way, we'll be more aligned with the `typical` number of tx-relaying inbounds today, because nodes today usually have a significant number of block-relay-only inbounds as @0xB10C .
The previous number of 113 was aligned with the `maximum` number of tx-relaying inbounds.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872231344)
>...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 and disclosed.
To be clear, this refers to giving different results to different requesters. It does not forbid selection of which peers to return as results to everyone, which is quite normal for DNS seeds.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872231344)
>...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 and disclosed.
To be clear, this refers to giving different results to different requesters. It does not forbid selection of which peers to return as results to everyone, which is quite normal for DNS seeds.
💬 etfmoon commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872237278)
> To be clear
This pull request was close without any answers and we know the politics involved in it with reasons.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1872237278)
> To be clear
This pull request was close without any answers and we know the politics involved in it with reasons.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "guix: Use DOS newlines for SHA256SUMS files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29147#issuecomment-1872243366)
>It would be good to list at least one benefit, otherwise the benefits of this change are unclear.
Having a single file to download for the signatures is simpler for end users.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29147#issuecomment-1872243366)
>It would be good to list at least one benefit, otherwise the benefits of this change are unclear.
Having a single file to download for the signatures is simpler for end users.
👋 mzumsande's pull request is ready for review: "p2p: Increase inbound capacity for block-relay only connections"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28463)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28463)
⚠️ dooglus opened an issue: "new crash in v26.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29153)
### Is there an existing issue for this?
- [X] I have searched the existing issues
### Current behaviour
bitcoin-qt crashed while loading wallets at startup.
I used to see occasional crashes on startup a few years ago, but it hasn't been happening at all in the last couple of major releases.
I've been running v26.0 for a week or two and haven't had any problem with it crashing until today.
Here's a backtrace. I run it in gdb habitually because I used to see a lot of crashes and never
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29153)
### Is there an existing issue for this?
- [X] I have searched the existing issues
### Current behaviour
bitcoin-qt crashed while loading wallets at startup.
I used to see occasional crashes on startup a few years ago, but it hasn't been happening at all in the last couple of major releases.
I've been running v26.0 for a week or two and haven't had any problem with it crashing until today.
Here's a backtrace. I run it in gdb habitually because I used to see a lot of crashes and never
...