💬 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
...

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "refactor: Fix prevector iterator concept issues"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29275)
Currently prevector iterators have many issues:

* Forward iterators (and stronger) must be default constructible (https://eel.is/c++draft/forward.iterators#1.2). Otherwise, some functions can not be instantiated, like `std::minmax_element`.
* Various `const` issues with random access iterators. For example, a `const iterator` is different from a `const_iterator`, because the first one holds a mutable reference and must also return it without `const`. Also, `operator+` must be callable regard
...

💬 Xaspr commented on issue "Unable to sync blockchain on laptop: ERROR: ReadBlockFromDisk: Deserialize or I/O error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29255#issuecomment-1898650298)
I had to stop the sync for a while due to traveling and now starting it up again. I'm now at block height 720.000 without issues.

The CPU temperature is pretty high, with one core going up to a peak of 95 degrees Celsius. Most cores go to max 80 Celsius.

What I've tried to get it working up to now:

- Reinstalled v26.0.0.
- Deleted antivirus software Bitdefender.
- Enabled Micros
...

🤔 dergoegge reviewed a pull request: "refactor: remove CTxMemPool::queryHashes()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29260#pullrequestreview-1829896476)

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "refactor: remove CTxMemPool::queryHashes()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29260#discussion_r1457572196)
Why is it ok to remove this assertion?

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "refactor: remove CTxMemPool::queryHashes()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29260#discussion_r1457573883)
Would be cool if we could use `infoAll` since that doesn't require the lock externally but we need the sequence to be in sync so we can't, oh well...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "[26.x] more backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29209#issuecomment-1898664679)
fixed commit messages.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Make (Read/Write)BinaryFile work with char vector":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29229#issuecomment-1898668856)
> However it made no sense to me to store a `CKey` as plain text

I guess that by "plain text" here you mean `std::string`, right? `std::string` can store arbitrary non-ASCII characters, including `'\0'`, so it is technically ok to use it for binary data.

More relevant in this case is that `CKey` stores sensitive data and takes care to wipe it from memory when freed. In https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28983 `Read/WriteBinaryData()` is used in a way that defeats that - the sensitive
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Support self-hosted Cirrus workers on forks (and multi-user)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274#discussion_r1457586467)
Is this needed? Won't this be skipped already by default if the worker is offline?