💬 1440000bytes commented on issue "Witness scripts being abused to bypass datacarriersize limit (CVE-2023-50428)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29187#issuecomment-1898437260)
> > It wont be discarded by default because they use less than 80 bytes for JSON
>
> You persist in not understanding that the goal is not only to protect the network from spam but also to give the node runners the tools to choose their mempool policies.

If some users really want such options, I had suggested an alternative approach in this comment: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1854442040

OR

You can add another config option which is enabled by default a
...

💬 joeyvee1986 commented on issue "Witness scripts being abused to bypass datacarriersize limit (CVE-2023-50428)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29187#issuecomment-1898442385)
this has seriously been a nonstop threat for me. i wish i could i could
more people to help me wipe all the bugs off this network because im
finding all kinds of weird code scattered throughout my network as i learn
more and more things. pretty sure someone either has some type of immutable
session cookie of mine or i never fully recovered after being sim swapped
last year.

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 10:25 AM Luke Dashjr ***@***.***>
wrote:

> The datacarriersize policy option is meant to
...

💬 instagibbs commented on issue "Timeout downloading block":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12291#issuecomment-1898473594)
@ArmchairCryptologist matches expectations. Any single stalling peer at chaintip should not stall node completely once your node is "warmed up" with compact block "high bandwidth" connections.

💬 russeree commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1898474891)
> > What is stopping the demand for P2MS from moving to P2PK?
>
> Or P2WSH

Or just just the script pubkey in general. I did a small test on testnet where I putt a dickbutt.jpg into the hashes of a witness program.

https://mempool.space/testnet/tx/9382f1504e8381a09773a7eeb9fd2e52c454cdd7263db155f0417a97f7d77c52

🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "test: wallet rescan with reorged parent + IsFromMe child in mempool"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29179#pullrequestreview-1829683082)
Post-merge re-ACK df30247705940c50c5eaafd74e2abbeb8b0cec07, I was still investigating the non-deterministic behaviour in `wallet_import_rescan` but I've now found the issue and it doesn't seem problematic enough to revert or immediately fix.

When rebasing these tests on top of e.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29019 as well as on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/453b4813ebc74859864803e9972b58e4be76a4d6~1, the [mempool variant tests](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/
...

👍 BrandonOdiwuor approved a pull request: "rpc: Fix race in loadtxoutset"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29262#pullrequestreview-1829703862)
Code Review ACK 5555d8db3313f893609eb0cf549bb597361d4466

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: remove dependency on Darwin libtool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29232#issuecomment-1898513919)
> Looks good.

I spoke too soon. There are multiple issues here.

The main one is differences in the upstream Autotools & CMake buildsystems that make master and this PR produce completely different output. One example, when building miniupnpc, its Autotools build sets `MINIUPNPC_GET_SRC_ADDR`, which means [`recvfrom`](https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/recv.2.html) is used. However its CMake build does not, meaning `recv` is used instead. i.e:
```bash
# master
nm -C depends/aarch6
...

💬 vostrnad commented on issue "Timeout downloading block":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12291#issuecomment-1898517930)
Looking through my logs, I've only had two block download timeouts since upgrading to 26.0, and both happened while synchronizing after a period of downtime. They did still cause the synchronization to stall for ~10 minutes each though.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Add max_tx_weight to transaction funding options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29264#discussion_r1457506894)
yeah I was mostly hot-patching here, making sure it never returns too big(because it did very often)

💬 Sun0fABeach commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1898572308)
Of course there is always some other way of putting garbage on the chain, but looking at this problem through an exclusively technical lense will inevitably lead to nihilism.
Closing this particular vector sends a message about what type of activity is welcome, which influences the social layer, which in turn influences how much VC money gets pumped into these projects, exacerbating the problem.

🤔 murchandamus reviewed a pull request: "Add max_tx_weight to transaction funding options"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29264#pullrequestreview-1829800323)
Concept ACK, but instead of bailing immediately, it would be better to extend the conditions that immediately return a result to also require adhering to the max_weight.

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Add max_tx_weight to transaction funding options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29264#discussion_r1457513036)
Instead, how about:

```diff
- if (group.GetSelectionAmount() == nTargetValue) {
+ if (group.GetSelectionAmount() == nTargetValue && group.m_weight <= max_weight) {
```

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "build: Pass sanitize flags to instrument `libsecp256k1` code"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28875#pullrequestreview-1829825893)
reACK e39bae122c79b8dfaa5f7e02ff199dc8c2051d8a

💬 t-bast commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1898606641)
> Which means they'll remain pinnable, due to the SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY signatures, allowing anyone to turn them into large, pinned, high fee/low fee-rate transactions by adding additional inputs (and outputs).

I may be missing something here, can you describe in more details how *anyone* could turn them into large pinning txs? They do require signatures from _both_ participants, and one of them is going to be `SIGHASH_ALL`. So the only participant that may play pinning games is the owner of t
...

📝 Sjors opened a pull request: "Support self-hosted Cirrus workers on forks (and multi-user)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274)
I find myself making pull requests against my fork (mostly on top of #28983), or asking others to do so. Currently only the Github actions are run on forks, because we use self-hosted runners for the Cirrus tasks.

While setting up my own self-hosted runners for my fork, I ran into a number of issues. This PR addresses those.

Replaces #29259 using the self hosted workers via Cirrus instead of Github.

You can see this PR in action on this pull request to my fork: https://github.com/Sjors/
...

✅ Sjors closed a pull request: "Support self hosted Github workers on forks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29259)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Support self hosted Github workers on forks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29259#issuecomment-1898625210)
Closing in favour of #29274

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1457552974)
Ah, fuzzer crash was because I had removed the "evict everything paying 0 fees in TrimToSize()` commit without removing that invariant check. I've added that back along with documentation for why it's relevant here. Sorry for the flip flop.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "Revert "build: Fix regression in "ARMv8 CRC32 intrinsics" test"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29226#issuecomment-1898634211)
Added documentation about the potential bug

💬 t-bast commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1898641197)
Thanks for the clarification @ariard, I think I understand your scenario better. But there's one point I don't understand: in step 6 (`Alice cannot over-pay in absolute fees to replace Mallory state due to "max at stake" 440k sats`), Alice doesn't want to replace Mallory's revoked commitment, she wants it to confirm to spend all the output to herself?

It's easy for Alice to make the revoked commitment confirm, she can use any output of that transaction to CPFP and she doesn't need to add any
...