🤔 TheCharlatan reviewed a pull request: "build: Bump guix time-machine to unlock riscv64 metal"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29078#pullrequestreview-1799791543)
Post-merge ACK, reproduced @fanquake's hashes and ran into the same macOS build issue.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29078#pullrequestreview-1799791543)
Post-merge ACK, reproduced @fanquake's hashes and ran into the same macOS build issue.
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "miniscript: make operator""_mst consteval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28657#issuecomment-1873329569)
Concept ACK.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28657#issuecomment-1873329569)
Concept ACK.
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873377545)
> > > Until now there has been no signalling of this and no good option beyond solo mining. Ocean pool (disclaimer: my employer) provides this option but has not been around for even a month and it already enjoys 0.1% of the hashrate.
>
> >
>
> > What is not mentioned is the 0.1% is based on Ocean's investors' temporary subsidies:
>
> >
>
> > * 0% fee on revenue (for first 2 months, so 1 month left?)
>
> >
>
> > * bonus payout for first 8 blocks of work (about 5 blocks of work l
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873377545)
> > > Until now there has been no signalling of this and no good option beyond solo mining. Ocean pool (disclaimer: my employer) provides this option but has not been around for even a month and it already enjoys 0.1% of the hashrate.
>
> >
>
> > What is not mentioned is the 0.1% is based on Ocean's investors' temporary subsidies:
>
> >
>
> > * 0% fee on revenue (for first 2 months, so 1 month left?)
>
> >
>
> > * bonus payout for first 8 blocks of work (about 5 blocks of work l
...
⚠️ hebasto opened an issue: "`./configure` fails for clang-14 on Ubuntu 23.10"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29161)
```
$ clang-14 -v
Ubuntu clang version 14.0.6
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /usr/bin
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/13
Selected GCC installation: /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/13
Candidate multilib: .;@m64
Selected multilib: .;@m64
```
```
$ ./configure CC=clang-14 CXX=clang++-14
...
checking whether std::atomic can be used without link library... no
checking whether std::atomic needs -latomic... no
co
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29161)
```
$ clang-14 -v
Ubuntu clang version 14.0.6
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /usr/bin
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/13
Selected GCC installation: /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/13
Candidate multilib: .;@m64
Selected multilib: .;@m64
```
```
$ ./configure CC=clang-14 CXX=clang++-14
...
checking whether std::atomic can be used without link library... no
checking whether std::atomic needs -latomic... no
co
...
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "miniscript: make operator""_mst consteval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28657#issuecomment-1873407693)
Could the CI issues be due to Clang [partially](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/20) supporting `consteval` before clang-17?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28657#issuecomment-1873407693)
Could the CI issues be due to Clang [partially](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/20) supporting `consteval` before clang-17?
💬 BitcoinMechanic commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873420568)
>Ocean pool subsidizes hashrate (to incentivize it to join Ocean), at the expense of Ocean's investors
This is completely false. Zero miners have received any income that didn't come directly from blocks found which were made up 100% of transactions available to any miner. Nothing out of band has happened in any capacity. You simply do not understand how PPLNS or PPLNS reminiscent systems work and are arguing from a position of inexperience.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873420568)
>Ocean pool subsidizes hashrate (to incentivize it to join Ocean), at the expense of Ocean's investors
This is completely false. Zero miners have received any income that didn't come directly from blocks found which were made up 100% of transactions available to any miner. Nothing out of band has happened in any capacity. You simply do not understand how PPLNS or PPLNS reminiscent systems work and are arguing from a position of inexperience.
💬 pox commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873422305)
Peter Todd [wrote in length](https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-transactions-review) about this proposal. It would be helpful if his points could be addressed (not necessarily in this github issue of course). Specifically his point about the effect on mining centralization ought to be addressed IMHO.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873422305)
Peter Todd [wrote in length](https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-transactions-review) about this proposal. It would be helpful if his points could be addressed (not necessarily in this github issue of course). Specifically his point about the effect on mining centralization ought to be addressed IMHO.
💬 pox commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1873423380)
ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1873423380)
ACK
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873436982)
> >Ocean pool subsidizes hashrate (to incentivize it to join Ocean), at the expense of Ocean's investors
>
>
>
> This is completely false. Zero miners have received any income that didn't come directly from blocks found which were made up 100% of transactions available to any miner. Nothing out of band has happened in any capacity. You simply do not understand how PPLNS or PPLNS reminiscent systems work and are arguing from a position of inexperience.
Are you denying that Ocean temporarily h
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873436982)
> >Ocean pool subsidizes hashrate (to incentivize it to join Ocean), at the expense of Ocean's investors
>
>
>
> This is completely false. Zero miners have received any income that didn't come directly from blocks found which were made up 100% of transactions available to any miner. Nothing out of band has happened in any capacity. You simply do not understand how PPLNS or PPLNS reminiscent systems work and are arguing from a position of inexperience.
Are you denying that Ocean temporarily h
...
💬 darosior commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873490509)
@pox in the post you link Peter Todd argues against v3 transactions in 3 points:
1. [v3 does not fix all pinning vectors](https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-transactions-review#v3-transactions);
2. Using CPFP is [less optimal than using RBF](https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-transactions-review#replace-by-fee);
3. ["Anchor Outputs Are a Danger to Mining Decentralization"](https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-transactions-review#anchor-outputs-are-a-danger-to-mining-decentralization) :tm:
If we tune down t
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873490509)
@pox in the post you link Peter Todd argues against v3 transactions in 3 points:
1. [v3 does not fix all pinning vectors](https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-transactions-review#v3-transactions);
2. Using CPFP is [less optimal than using RBF](https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-transactions-review#replace-by-fee);
3. ["Anchor Outputs Are a Danger to Mining Decentralization"](https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-transactions-review#anchor-outputs-are-a-danger-to-mining-decentralization) :tm:
If we tune down t
...
💬 Willtech commented on issue "Tor ephemeral hidden service rejuvenation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17491#issuecomment-1873498851)
We think that is what the configuration is for, less digging in files. If we must all configuration can be added strictly by command line.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17491#issuecomment-1873498851)
We think that is what the configuration is for, less digging in files. If we must all configuration can be added strictly by command line.
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873500161)
@darosior You keep on saying that RBF is not incentive compatible.
Question: in my article, in the context of replace-by-fee for lightning commitment transactions, are you claiming that *those* replacements are not incentive compatible?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873500161)
@darosior You keep on saying that RBF is not incentive compatible.
Question: in my article, in the context of replace-by-fee for lightning commitment transactions, are you claiming that *those* replacements are not incentive compatible?
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873503767)
@darosior
> The v3 relay regime isn't perfect, it's just 100x better for this application than the current one. This is not a reason not to do v3.
Are you claiming that the anchor outputs in existing Lightning anchor channels are subject to transaction pinning?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873503767)
@darosior
> The v3 relay regime isn't perfect, it's just 100x better for this application than the current one. This is not a reason not to do v3.
Are you claiming that the anchor outputs in existing Lightning anchor channels are subject to transaction pinning?
💬 darosior commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873508568)
> @darosior You keep on saying that RBF is not incentive compatible.
> Question: in my article, in the context of replace-by-fee for lightning commitment transactions, are you claiming that those replacements are not incentive compatible?
I think there's been much confused talk about "incentive compatibility" in the past. It depends "what for" and "compared to what".
I'm not claiming that your proposal to pre-sign a bunch of transactions at different feerates is not incentive-compatible,
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873508568)
> @darosior You keep on saying that RBF is not incentive compatible.
> Question: in my article, in the context of replace-by-fee for lightning commitment transactions, are you claiming that those replacements are not incentive compatible?
I think there's been much confused talk about "incentive compatibility" in the past. It depends "what for" and "compared to what".
I'm not claiming that your proposal to pre-sign a bunch of transactions at different feerates is not incentive-compatible,
...
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873517708)
> > @darosior You keep on saying that RBF is not incentive compatible.
> > Question: in my article, in the context of replace-by-fee for lightning commitment transactions, are you claiming that those replacements are not incentive compatible?
>
> I think there's been much confused talk about "incentive compatibility" in the past. It depends "what for" and "compared to what".
>
> I'm not claiming that your proposal to pre-sign a bunch of transactions at different feerates is not incentive-
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873517708)
> > @darosior You keep on saying that RBF is not incentive compatible.
> > Question: in my article, in the context of replace-by-fee for lightning commitment transactions, are you claiming that those replacements are not incentive compatible?
>
> I think there's been much confused talk about "incentive compatibility" in the past. It depends "what for" and "compared to what".
>
> I'm not claiming that your proposal to pre-sign a bunch of transactions at different feerates is not incentive-
...
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873518209)
While I'm at it, Concept NACK, due to the problems outlined in https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-transactions-review and https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-txs-pinning-vulnerability
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873518209)
While I'm at it, Concept NACK, due to the problems outlined in https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-transactions-review and https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-txs-pinning-vulnerability
📝 LarryRuane opened a pull request: "bitcoin-cli help detail to show full help for all RPCs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29163)
Prints to stdout a concatenation of full help text as if you had run `bitcoin-cli help` on every RPC. This allows you to search help text when you can't remember the name of an RPC.
For example, suppose you remember there is an RPC that shows you orphaned chain branches but can't remember its name. This PR allows you to run:
```
bitcoin-cli help detail | less
```
and then search for "orphan", you'd immediately find `getchaintips`. It shows the category before each RPC's help text, which a
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29163)
Prints to stdout a concatenation of full help text as if you had run `bitcoin-cli help` on every RPC. This allows you to search help text when you can't remember the name of an RPC.
For example, suppose you remember there is an RPC that shows you orphaned chain branches but can't remember its name. This PR allows you to run:
```
bitcoin-cli help detail | less
```
and then search for "orphan", you'd immediately find `getchaintips`. It shows the category before each RPC's help text, which a
...
💬 rot13maxi commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#discussion_r1439121126)
have we seen protocols using `<data> OP_DROP` in the wild, or is this a pre-emptive check?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#discussion_r1439121126)
have we seen protocols using `<data> OP_DROP` in the wild, or is this a pre-emptive check?
💬 wizkid057 commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873573115)
Approach ACK.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Spam is already filtered at various levels in the code, and has been for over a decade. All this PR does is apply an existing limit on datacarriersize to data carrying of a different form of data carrying that is clearly an unintended exploit. This is a no brainer place to start with correcting that.
Discussion about OCEAN seems quite off topic here (perhaps only except for it being the only pool using this PR in practice), but it's
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873573115)
Approach ACK.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Spam is already filtered at various levels in the code, and has been for over a decade. All this PR does is apply an existing limit on datacarriersize to data carrying of a different form of data carrying that is clearly an unintended exploit. This is a no brainer place to start with correcting that.
Discussion about OCEAN seems quite off topic here (perhaps only except for it being the only pool using this PR in practice), but it's
...
💬 ns-xvrn commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873584540)
Concept ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873584540)
Concept ACK