📝 0xBEEFCAF3 opened a pull request: "Reenable OP_CAT "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29247)
Renabling OP_CAT, as per the [draft BIP](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1525)
This MR involves reinstating the legacy opcode by replacing OP_SUCCESS126. Currently, there are no proposed activation parameters.
### Relevant Links
[Btcd implementation](https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd/pull/2095)
[Signet MR](https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoin/pull/39)
[Mailing list post](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-October/022049.html)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29247)
Renabling OP_CAT, as per the [draft BIP](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1525)
This MR involves reinstating the legacy opcode by replacing OP_SUCCESS126. Currently, there are no proposed activation parameters.
### Relevant Links
[Btcd implementation](https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd/pull/2095)
[Signet MR](https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoin/pull/39)
[Mailing list post](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-October/022049.html)
👍 andrewtoth approved a pull request: "p2p: adaptive connections services flags"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#pullrequestreview-1820309688)
ACK 6c603490023317a84c7c96ef4b64f4f96ea03d1f modulo nits
For `peerman_tests.cpp`, we should prefer list initialization and constness for variables when possible.
For commit message of `net: move state dependent peer services flags` (b934bfd327f68d39aebb2d9ab52b39b7cd29525d),
the last sentence could be:
```
Additionally, this encapsulation enables us
to customize the connections decision-making process based on
new users' configurations in the future.
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#pullrequestreview-1820309688)
ACK 6c603490023317a84c7c96ef4b64f4f96ea03d1f modulo nits
For `peerman_tests.cpp`, we should prefer list initialization and constness for variables when possible.
For commit message of `net: move state dependent peer services flags` (b934bfd327f68d39aebb2d9ab52b39b7cd29525d),
the last sentence could be:
```
Additionally, this encapsulation enables us
to customize the connections decision-making process based on
new users' configurations in the future.
```
💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1451813298)
nit: `int64_t best_block_time{};`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1451813298)
nit: `int64_t best_block_time{};`
💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1451813562)
nit: prefer list initialization, could also make this `constexpr` since we're modifying it.
`constexpr ServiceFlags requiredServiceBits{SeedsServiceFlags()};`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1451813562)
nit: prefer list initialization, could also make this `constexpr` since we're modifying it.
`constexpr ServiceFlags requiredServiceBits{SeedsServiceFlags()};`
💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1451815522)
nit: Could be one line
```
// Limited peers are desirable when we are close to the tip.
if ((services & NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED) && ApproximateBestBlockDepth() < NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_MIN_BLOCKS) {
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1451815522)
nit: Could be one line
```
// Limited peers are desirable when we are close to the tip.
if ((services & NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED) && ApproximateBestBlockDepth() < NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_MIN_BLOCKS) {
```
💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1451815870)
nit: `2024`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1451815870)
nit: `2024`
💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1451818095)
nit
```
// By now, we tested that 'CheckForStaleTipAndEvictPeers' can update the connections desirable services flags.
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1451818095)
nit
```
// By now, we tested that 'CheckForStaleTipAndEvictPeers' can update the connections desirable services flags.
```
💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1451818200)
nit
```
// Verify a block close to the tip enables limited peers connections
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1451818200)
nit
```
// Verify a block close to the tip enables limited peers connections
```
👍 yahiheb approved a pull request: "Fix typos"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29246#pullrequestreview-1820328168)
ACK [a1b1798](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29246/commits/a1b1798b1652e93caf66e5e1c8353bcd7951f1c4)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29246#pullrequestreview-1820328168)
ACK [a1b1798](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29246/commits/a1b1798b1652e93caf66e5e1c8353bcd7951f1c4)
💬 Farnoosh85 commented on issue "ci: failure in `wallet_basic.py --descriptors`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29110#issuecomment-1891204537)
0xE7cF1C52C9f179B855D7a31eA79997882269057A send your bnb bep20 address my
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29110#issuecomment-1891204537)
0xE7cF1C52C9f179B855D7a31eA79997882269057A send your bnb bep20 address my
💬 torkelrogstad commented on pull request "rpc: validate fee estimation mode case insensitive":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29175#issuecomment-1891514722)
@ismaelsadeeq I fixed the tests per your comments. Note that I pass the arguments through both the `arg_` prefixed and non-prefixed versions. Figured we might as well validate that there's no behavior changes between passing as positional arguments or through `options`.
Also added a new commits with tests that validates that `estimate_mode` is passed together with a confirmation target.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29175#issuecomment-1891514722)
@ismaelsadeeq I fixed the tests per your comments. Note that I pass the arguments through both the `arg_` prefixed and non-prefixed versions. Figured we might as well validate that there's no behavior changes between passing as positional arguments or through `options`.
Also added a new commits with tests that validates that `estimate_mode` is passed together with a confirmation target.
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "log mempool loading progress":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29227#discussion_r1452031664)
Might be better if this information were also exposed to the gui? Perhaps something along the lines of:
```c++
auto& cm = active_chainstate.m_chainman;
if (!cm.IsInitialBlockDownload()) {
cm.GetNotifications().progress("Loading mempool...", percentage_done, false);
}
```
would make sense? (completely untested)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29227#discussion_r1452031664)
Might be better if this information were also exposed to the gui? Perhaps something along the lines of:
```c++
auto& cm = active_chainstate.m_chainman;
if (!cm.IsInitialBlockDownload()) {
cm.GetNotifications().progress("Loading mempool...", percentage_done, false);
}
```
would make sense? (completely untested)
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "log mempool loading progress":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29227#issuecomment-1891521307)
> "I wonder why Bitcoin Core takes so long to shutdown sometimes?" repeatedly from users.
I don't think that's due to dumping the mempool, but rather spinning on locks elsewhere in the code. I've seen very slow shutdowns myself, but been unable to nail it down precisely.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29227#issuecomment-1891521307)
> "I wonder why Bitcoin Core takes so long to shutdown sometimes?" repeatedly from users.
I don't think that's due to dumping the mempool, but rather spinning on locks elsewhere in the code. I've seen very slow shutdowns myself, but been unable to nail it down precisely.
👍 BrandonOdiwuor approved a pull request: "wallet: Reset chain notifications handler if AttachChain fails"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29243#pullrequestreview-1821161372)
Code Review ACK ea2551e55d260854a5cca8aa95034970d4adca1c
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29243#pullrequestreview-1821161372)
Code Review ACK ea2551e55d260854a5cca8aa95034970d4adca1c
💬 S3RK commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: `FundTransaction` refactor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28560#issuecomment-1891638400)
Code review ACK c856a1093009c6098c7c9fed5cc3f03fd0c0cf5b
Nice improvements removing duplication between `CreateRecipient` and `AddOutputs`, also embedding SFFO values in `CRecipient` instead of passing as a separate parameter to `FundTransaction`.
I'd still prefer `InterpretSubtractFeeFromOutputInstructions` to work with one type of SFFO option - `vector<int>` and process others at the call site. SFFO option can be in three different forms and `vector<int>` is the only form that used multi
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28560#issuecomment-1891638400)
Code review ACK c856a1093009c6098c7c9fed5cc3f03fd0c0cf5b
Nice improvements removing duplication between `CreateRecipient` and `AddOutputs`, also embedding SFFO values in `CRecipient` instead of passing as a separate parameter to `FundTransaction`.
I'd still prefer `InterpretSubtractFeeFromOutputInstructions` to work with one type of SFFO option - `vector<int>` and process others at the call site. SFFO option can be in three different forms and `vector<int>` is the only form that used multi
...
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[POC] guix: produce a fully `-static-pie` bitcoind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25573#issuecomment-1891768915)
> Looks like support in glibc will also be available soon: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-October/152132.html.
This has now landed: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=e0590f41fe1e7a54169e8f8828efe62b5064139e.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25573#issuecomment-1891768915)
> Looks like support in glibc will also be available soon: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-October/152132.html.
This has now landed: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=e0590f41fe1e7a54169e8f8828efe62b5064139e.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: remove dependency on Darwin libtool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29232#discussion_r1452167939)
It's weird that miniupnpc would add a special build system option for setting a single, Windows-only define. It's not really clear what the benefits of taht are over just using `CPPFLAGS`, which should always work. The only rationale from the PR author for not doing that was [`I don't like it.`](https://github.com/miniupnp/miniupnp/pull/659#issuecomment-1585595562).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29232#discussion_r1452167939)
It's weird that miniupnpc would add a special build system option for setting a single, Windows-only define. It's not really clear what the benefits of taht are over just using `CPPFLAGS`, which should always work. The only rationale from the PR author for not doing that was [`I don't like it.`](https://github.com/miniupnp/miniupnp/pull/659#issuecomment-1585595562).
✅ fanquake closed an issue: "ci: failure in `wallet_assumeutxo.py --descriptors`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29234)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29234)
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "wallet: Reset chain notifications handler if AttachChain fails"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29243)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29243)
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Remove all-lint.py script":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29228#issuecomment-1891802590)
> > Seems confusing to have a test runner that calls another runner (`all-lint.py`), which calls a subset of the lint tests.
>
> However, it is quite convenient to run `./test/lint/all-lint.py` locally, no?
Why would it be convenient, when it is called "all-lint", but at the same time skips checks such as the fs check, the subtree check, and the doc check?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29228#issuecomment-1891802590)
> > Seems confusing to have a test runner that calls another runner (`all-lint.py`), which calls a subset of the lint tests.
>
> However, it is quite convenient to run `./test/lint/all-lint.py` locally, no?
Why would it be convenient, when it is called "all-lint", but at the same time skips checks such as the fs check, the subtree check, and the doc check?