💬 BitcoinMechanic commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1902526507)
@eragmus MikeInSpace pontificating in a podcast to the tune of "hey, I helped with the fee market/security budget thing" is not a serious contribution to this discussion.
Visions for future revenue for miners never required invoking a broadening of use cases for bitcoin's blockchain to become a more generic medium for data storage. Such usage of bitcoin has never been considered anything other than harmful and conversations that lead to OP_RETURN (a mechanism to at least mitigate some of the
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1902526507)
@eragmus MikeInSpace pontificating in a podcast to the tune of "hey, I helped with the fee market/security budget thing" is not a serious contribution to this discussion.
Visions for future revenue for miners never required invoking a broadening of use cases for bitcoin's blockchain to become a more generic medium for data storage. Such usage of bitcoin has never been considered anything other than harmful and conversations that lead to OP_RETURN (a mechanism to at least mitigate some of the
...
💬 RobinLinus commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1902541143)
> "spam" is arbitrarily defined
Right, the attacker says he is [_"polluting the UTXO set [with] toxic waste"_](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJV_-EFZshU&t=286s).
The term _toxic waste_ emphasizes that the problem isn't just temporary but permanent. Important distinction.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1902541143)
> "spam" is arbitrarily defined
Right, the attacker says he is [_"polluting the UTXO set [with] toxic waste"_](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJV_-EFZshU&t=286s).
The term _toxic waste_ emphasizes that the problem isn't just temporary but permanent. Important distinction.
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1902554616)
> @eragmus MikeInSpace pontificating in a podcast to the tune of "hey, I helped with the fee market/security budget thing" is not a serious contribution to this discussion.
@BitcoinMechanic Hello. There was more context than that. If the argument is to justify a change because this guy admitted to attacking bitcoin, yet that is based on a few cherry-picked horrendous lines out of a 40 minute podcast, that seems pretty silly. The goal should be to understand what he actually thinks.
> Visions f
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1902554616)
> @eragmus MikeInSpace pontificating in a podcast to the tune of "hey, I helped with the fee market/security budget thing" is not a serious contribution to this discussion.
@BitcoinMechanic Hello. There was more context than that. If the argument is to justify a change because this guy admitted to attacking bitcoin, yet that is based on a few cherry-picked horrendous lines out of a 40 minute podcast, that seems pretty silly. The goal should be to understand what he actually thinks.
> Visions f
...
✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "net, refactor: extract Network and BIP155Network logic to node/network"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27385)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27385)
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "net, refactor: extract Network and BIP155Network logic to node/network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27385#issuecomment-1902607563)
Closing for now. Feel free to open a new pull, if this is still relevant, or leave a comment here, to have it reopened.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27385#issuecomment-1902607563)
Closing for now. Feel free to open a new pull, if this is still relevant, or leave a comment here, to have it reopened.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "Mempool util: Add RBF diagram checks for single chunks against clusters of size 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29242#issuecomment-1902638542)
In https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commits/pr29242 I pushed another commit which makes `CompareFeerateDiagram` not modify the diagrams in-place.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29242#issuecomment-1902638542)
In https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commits/pr29242 I pushed another commit which makes `CompareFeerateDiagram` not modify the diagrams in-place.
💬 crediblebytes commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1902643059)
With all due respect the "rough consensus" thing is shifting from representing the users of bitcoin to who has the most marketing dollars. In software development this means you are no longer building the "[right product](https://www.mojotech.com/blog/building-the-right-product-vs-building-the-product-right/)". The main use case is and always will be sound money. Not "freedom", "cypherpunk system", "database", or a "marketplace". This isn't your latest tech stack to build on. No go to AWS for th
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1902643059)
With all due respect the "rough consensus" thing is shifting from representing the users of bitcoin to who has the most marketing dollars. In software development this means you are no longer building the "[right product](https://www.mojotech.com/blog/building-the-right-product-vs-building-the-product-right/)". The main use case is and always will be sound money. Not "freedom", "cypherpunk system", "database", or a "marketplace". This isn't your latest tech stack to build on. No go to AWS for th
...
🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "init: handle empty settings file gracefully"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#pullrequestreview-1835355513)
Rebased to cleanup spurious CI failure.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#pullrequestreview-1835355513)
Rebased to cleanup spurious CI failure.
🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: simplify addressbook migration process"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#pullrequestreview-1835372627)
In response to feedback, the PR scope has been shortened, omitting the address book encapsulation commits. The current version includes only the subset of commits related to the address book from #28574. Decoupling this PR into two is also possible upon request.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#pullrequestreview-1835372627)
In response to feedback, the PR scope has been shortened, omitting the address book encapsulation commits. The current version includes only the subset of commits related to the address book from #28574. Decoupling this PR into two is also possible upon request.
👋 furszy's pull request is ready for review: "wallet: simplify addressbook migration process"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836)
💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: optimize migration process, batch db transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28574#issuecomment-1902683295)
Decoupled the address book cloning related commits to #26836.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28574#issuecomment-1902683295)
Decoupled the address book cloning related commits to #26836.
📝 furszy converted_to_draft a pull request: "wallet: optimize migration process, batch db transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28574)
The benchmark conducted locally showed a ~65% processing time reduction, on a SSD.
Results can be found at the end of the description.
#### Detailed Description:
The current wallet migration process performs only individual db writes. Accessing disk to
delete all legacy records, clone and clean each address book entry for every created wallet,
create each new descriptor (with their corresponding master key, caches and key pool), and
also clone and delete each transaction that requires to
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28574)
The benchmark conducted locally showed a ~65% processing time reduction, on a SSD.
Results can be found at the end of the description.
#### Detailed Description:
The current wallet migration process performs only individual db writes. Accessing disk to
delete all legacy records, clone and clean each address book entry for every created wallet,
create each new descriptor (with their corresponding master key, caches and key pool), and
also clone and delete each transaction that requires to
...
💬 RobinLinus commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1902691540)
@eragmus seems to be an accomplice of the attacker, which might explain his use of extensive, convoluted texts filled with manipulative rhetoric, aimed at distracting from the attack.
@eragmus continually accuses me of cherry-picking statements, which is untrue. In reality, the attacker has even pinned a clip to his Twitter profile, bragging about ["polluting the UTXO set with toxic waste"](https://twitter.com/mikeinspace/status/1669467334145179649). Additionally, the attacker frequently rep
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1902691540)
@eragmus seems to be an accomplice of the attacker, which might explain his use of extensive, convoluted texts filled with manipulative rhetoric, aimed at distracting from the attack.
@eragmus continually accuses me of cherry-picking statements, which is untrue. In reality, the attacker has even pinned a clip to his Twitter profile, bragging about ["polluting the UTXO set with toxic waste"](https://twitter.com/mikeinspace/status/1669467334145179649). Additionally, the attacker frequently rep
...
📝 achow101 locked a pull request: "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217)
The default activation of the `permitbaremultisig=0` option proposes an enhancement for the Bitcoin network. By refusing non-P2SH multisignature transactions from the outset, this modification would contribute to reducing spam attempts and maintaining a healthy decentralization by discouraging undesirable activities.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217)
The default activation of the `permitbaremultisig=0` option proposes an enhancement for the Bitcoin network. By refusing non-P2SH multisignature transactions from the outset, this modification would contribute to reducing spam attempts and maintaining a healthy decentralization by discouraging undesirable activities.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1902697653)
Keep discussion here civil or take your discussion somewhere else. Locking this as too heated for now.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1902697653)
Keep discussion here civil or take your discussion somewhere else. Locking this as too heated for now.
⚠️ mjdietzx opened an issue: "Build error on macOS, tag v26.0 builds fine"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29289)
### Is there an existing issue for this?
- [X] I have searched the existing issues
### Current behaviour
I can't build master on macOS, specifically when I include legacy wallet support
### Expected behaviour
Builds fine when I checkout tag v26.0. I don't remember getting this error in the past
### Steps to reproduce
Both build commands I've tried result in this error (I think I only get this error when I build w/ legacy wallet support, but don't fully remember):
```sh
./autogen.sh &&
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29289)
### Is there an existing issue for this?
- [X] I have searched the existing issues
### Current behaviour
I can't build master on macOS, specifically when I include legacy wallet support
### Expected behaviour
Builds fine when I checkout tag v26.0. I don't remember getting this error in the past
### Steps to reproduce
Both build commands I've tried result in this error (I think I only get this error when I build w/ legacy wallet support, but don't fully remember):
```sh
./autogen.sh &&
...
📝 s1Sharp opened a pull request: "refactor: Readable widget naming for debug window"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/790)
Fixed widget names in the debug window. Make it more developer friendly to avoid confusion inside Qt Designer.
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/790)
Fixed widget names in the debug window. Make it more developer friendly to avoid confusion inside Qt Designer.
💬 s1Sharp commented on pull request "refactor: Readable widget naming for debug window":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/790#issuecomment-1902752609)
Qt Designer view before changes:
Qt Designer view after changes:
And a few changes for other widget names that were not included in the screenshots
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/790#issuecomment-1902752609)
Qt Designer view before changes:
Qt Designer view after changes:
And a few changes for other widget names that were not included in the screenshots
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "test: Add test case for spending bare multisig":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29120#issuecomment-1902869601)
> I compiled with #28217, which sets default value of `permitbaremultisig` to false in `policy.h` and tried to run this test case with `'allowed': False` for expected result but the test fails. I would have expected that one to pass the test.
The test case already explicitly sets `permitbaremultisig=0`, so changing the default should have no effect. These spends should always be allowed, so if you change the test to assert that it's not allowed, the test should fail.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29120#issuecomment-1902869601)
> I compiled with #28217, which sets default value of `permitbaremultisig` to false in `policy.h` and tried to run this test case with `'allowed': False` for expected result but the test fails. I would have expected that one to pass the test.
The test case already explicitly sets `permitbaremultisig=0`, so changing the default should have no effect. These spends should always be allowed, so if you change the test to assert that it's not allowed, the test should fail.
🤔 ajtowns reviewed a pull request: "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#pullrequestreview-1835540987)
I find myself continually forgetting what the v3 rules are (particularly vs the ephemeral anchor rules, package relay rules, cluster mempool rules, or potential v4+ rules). It would be nice to have a really concise reference, that leaves the rationales/comparisons to an appendix or something. I think when stripped of historical baggage, it only needs to be:
unconfirmed v3 transactions:
* are always subject to rbf rules
* can have at most one unconfirmed v3 ancestor or one unconfirmed v3 d
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#pullrequestreview-1835540987)
I find myself continually forgetting what the v3 rules are (particularly vs the ephemeral anchor rules, package relay rules, cluster mempool rules, or potential v4+ rules). It would be nice to have a really concise reference, that leaves the rationales/comparisons to an appendix or something. I think when stripped of historical baggage, it only needs to be:
unconfirmed v3 transactions:
* are always subject to rbf rules
* can have at most one unconfirmed v3 ancestor or one unconfirmed v3 d
...