💬 totient commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913544845)
@petertodd Is it your view that all PR's should be ACK'd or NACK'd based on how much miners can profit from the PR?
There are a great many PR's I could imagine which could have an impact on miner profitability, but I don't think the Core client development path should depend on whether the community decides at any point in time to arbitrarily raise or lower miner profitability.
I don't understand how debating Bitcoin miner P&L statements is germane to optimizing the Core client codebase. P
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913544845)
@petertodd Is it your view that all PR's should be ACK'd or NACK'd based on how much miners can profit from the PR?
There are a great many PR's I could imagine which could have an impact on miner profitability, but I don't think the Core client development path should depend on whether the community decides at any point in time to arbitrarily raise or lower miner profitability.
I don't understand how debating Bitcoin miner P&L statements is germane to optimizing the Core client codebase. P
...
🤔 mccrudd3n reviewed a pull request: "bitcoin-cli help detail to show full help for all RPCs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29163#pullrequestreview-1847481729)
Concept ACK though I dont think this is needed due to the `./bitcoin-cli help` to view all cmds, and `./bitcoin-cli help [cmd]` to get additional information about that command
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29163#pullrequestreview-1847481729)
Concept ACK though I dont think this is needed due to the `./bitcoin-cli help` to view all cmds, and `./bitcoin-cli help [cmd]` to get additional information about that command
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913560193)
On January 28, 2024 12:17:35 PM GMT+02:00, totient ***@***.***> wrote:
>@petertodd Is it your view that all PR's should be ACK'd or NACK'd based on how much miners can profit from the PR?
Mining is a zero sum game, so PRs that increase or decrease profitability evenly usually don't matter.
This PR however changes profitability unevenly, giving large miners an advantage by preventing small miners from getting access to profitable information: fee paying transactions that use bare multi
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913560193)
On January 28, 2024 12:17:35 PM GMT+02:00, totient ***@***.***> wrote:
>@petertodd Is it your view that all PR's should be ACK'd or NACK'd based on how much miners can profit from the PR?
Mining is a zero sum game, so PRs that increase or decrease profitability evenly usually don't matter.
This PR however changes profitability unevenly, giving large miners an advantage by preventing small miners from getting access to profitable information: fee paying transactions that use bare multi
...
💬 josibake commented on pull request "indexes: Stop using node internal types and locking cs_main, improve sync logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24230#issuecomment-1913572083)
Concept ACK
Found this from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/5fbcc8f0560cce36abafb8467339276b7c0d62b6/src/index/base.cpp#L87 while working with the indexing code.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24230#issuecomment-1913572083)
Concept ACK
Found this from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/5fbcc8f0560cce36abafb8467339276b7c0d62b6/src/index/base.cpp#L87 while working with the indexing code.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Handle functional test disk-full error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29335#discussion_r1468839187)
nit: In python the `()` are not needed. Also, could use f-strings?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29335#discussion_r1468839187)
nit: In python the `()` are not needed. Also, could use f-strings?
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Handle functional test disk-full error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29335#discussion_r1468839064)
Where comes 50+16 from?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29335#discussion_r1468839064)
Where comes 50+16 from?
💬 BrandonOdiwuor commented on pull request "test: Handle functional test disk-full error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29335#discussion_r1468841627)
I based the values based on the discussions on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23100#issuecomment-941115724 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23100#discussion_r716825510 and
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29335#discussion_r1468841627)
I based the values based on the discussions on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23100#issuecomment-941115724 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23100#discussion_r716825510 and
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: ensure output is large enough to pay for its fees":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29283#discussion_r1468842089)
```
test 2024-01-27T00:59:20.405000Z TestFramework (ERROR): JSONRPC error
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-i686-pc-linux-gnu/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 131, in main
self.run_test()
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-i686-pc-linux-gnu/test/functiona
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29283#discussion_r1468842089)
```
test 2024-01-27T00:59:20.405000Z TestFramework (ERROR): JSONRPC error
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-i686-pc-linux-gnu/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 131, in main
self.run_test()
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-i686-pc-linux-gnu/test/functiona
...
💬 maflcko commented on issue "Clang 14 emits `-Wunreachable-code` warnings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29334#issuecomment-1913576851)
It is sometimes possible for older compilers to print false positive warnings.
This warning can safely be ignored.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29334#issuecomment-1913576851)
It is sometimes possible for older compilers to print false positive warnings.
This warning can safely be ignored.
💬 hebasto commented on issue "Clang 14 emits `-Wunreachable-code` warnings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29334#issuecomment-1913579542)
> It is sometimes possible for older compilers to print false positive warnings.
I agree.
> This warning can safely be ignored.
It might require some efforts if building routines involve `-Werror`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29334#issuecomment-1913579542)
> It is sometimes possible for older compilers to print false positive warnings.
I agree.
> This warning can safely be ignored.
It might require some efforts if building routines involve `-Werror`.
💬 ns-xvrn commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913598137)
@petertodd : I would suggest you to pay more attention to how Utreexo will work. It may not be as easy to alleviate the problems of UTXO bloat as you think. It might be good for mobile phone nodes if it successfully bootstraps via bridge nodes, assuming that entire network can transition to that quickly and securely might be a very bad assumption. It will also come at the cost of increased latency which you're often concerned about but conveniently ignore here.
We might have to do both i.e. wo
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913598137)
@petertodd : I would suggest you to pay more attention to how Utreexo will work. It may not be as easy to alleviate the problems of UTXO bloat as you think. It might be good for mobile phone nodes if it successfully bootstraps via bridge nodes, assuming that entire network can transition to that quickly and securely might be a very bad assumption. It will also come at the cost of increased latency which you're often concerned about but conveniently ignore here.
We might have to do both i.e. wo
...
💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "Support JSON-RPC 2.0 when requested by client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#issuecomment-1913628864)
ACK. Great work. I support the near-term goal of adding more correct handling of JSON-RPC 2.0 and the longer-term goal of deprecating 1.x, culminating in the eventual removal of 1.x support (and cleanup from refactoring out support of 1.x).
Noting findings/checks for archival purposes:
Cloned, checked out the PR branch (98031401c744ea3c2b62927fabf27c22b639c3cf), built, ran all functional tests (all passed), then executed bitcoind against a private signet. Issued RPC requests with curl. I
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#issuecomment-1913628864)
ACK. Great work. I support the near-term goal of adding more correct handling of JSON-RPC 2.0 and the longer-term goal of deprecating 1.x, culminating in the eventual removal of 1.x support (and cleanup from refactoring out support of 1.x).
Noting findings/checks for archival purposes:
Cloned, checked out the PR branch (98031401c744ea3c2b62927fabf27c22b639c3cf), built, ran all functional tests (all passed), then executed bitcoind against a private signet. Issued RPC requests with curl. I
...
🤔 tdb3 reviewed a pull request: "Support JSON-RPC 2.0 when requested by client"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#pullrequestreview-1847563884)
ACK. Great work. I support the near-term goal of adding more correct handling of JSON-RPC 2.0 and the longer-term goal of deprecating 1.x, culminating in the eventual removal of 1.x support (and cleanup from refactoring out support of 1.x).
Noting for archival purposes:
Cloned, checked out the PR branch (98031401c744ea3c2b62927fabf27c22b639c3cf), built, ran all functional tests (all passed), then executed bitcoind against a private signet. Issued RPC requests with curl (getblockchaininfo
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#pullrequestreview-1847563884)
ACK. Great work. I support the near-term goal of adding more correct handling of JSON-RPC 2.0 and the longer-term goal of deprecating 1.x, culminating in the eventual removal of 1.x support (and cleanup from refactoring out support of 1.x).
Noting for archival purposes:
Cloned, checked out the PR branch (98031401c744ea3c2b62927fabf27c22b639c3cf), built, ran all functional tests (all passed), then executed bitcoind against a private signet. Issued RPC requests with curl (getblockchaininfo
...
💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "Support JSON-RPC 2.0 when requested by client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#discussion_r1468881262)
nit:
Minor non-compliance to the JSON RPC 2.0 spec (`rpc call with an empty Array` in https://www.jsonrpc.org/specification#examples). Providing an empty array results in an empty array provided in the response, but should result in a single error response (e.g. `"jsonrpc": "2.0", "error": {"code": -32600, "message": "Invalid Request"}, "id": null}`).
A check for `valRequest.size() == 0` before entering the for loop in 236 could enable error response (rather than empty response array). P
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#discussion_r1468881262)
nit:
Minor non-compliance to the JSON RPC 2.0 spec (`rpc call with an empty Array` in https://www.jsonrpc.org/specification#examples). Providing an empty array results in an empty array provided in the response, but should result in a single error response (e.g. `"jsonrpc": "2.0", "error": {"code": -32600, "message": "Invalid Request"}, "id": null}`).
A check for `valRequest.size() == 0` before entering the for loop in 236 could enable error response (rather than empty response array). P
...
💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "Support JSON-RPC 2.0 when requested by client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#discussion_r1468881540)
Issuing an example command from https://developer.bitcoin.org/reference/rpc/getblockchaininfo.html resulted in error response `{"result":null,"error":{"code":-32600,"message":"JSON-RPC version not supported"}}` due to the example's use of `"jsonrpc":"1.0"`. It looks like JSON RPC spec for 1.0 had no version field in the spec, 1.1 (WD/ALT) had the "version" field to specify version, and 2.0 spec has "jsonrpc" (must be set to "2.0").
If a client uses a "jsonrpc" field other than "2.0" it wil
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#discussion_r1468881540)
Issuing an example command from https://developer.bitcoin.org/reference/rpc/getblockchaininfo.html resulted in error response `{"result":null,"error":{"code":-32600,"message":"JSON-RPC version not supported"}}` due to the example's use of `"jsonrpc":"1.0"`. It looks like JSON RPC spec for 1.0 had no version field in the spec, 1.1 (WD/ALT) had the "version" field to specify version, and 2.0 spec has "jsonrpc" (must be set to "2.0").
If a client uses a "jsonrpc" field other than "2.0" it wil
...
💬 RicYashiroLee commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913671308)
> > Why was my last comment to Peter Todd's comment, DELETED? Where can I find the reasoning for such deletion?
>
> Your comment was deleted because it was off topic, consisted of insults, and contributed nothing to the discussion. Continue to make such comments and you will be blocked from this repo.
@achow101 can I ask that my original comment, which originated your moderation, be shown here also in this "pushed aside" section of the PR? Just so anyone understands better your reasoning,
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913671308)
> > Why was my last comment to Peter Todd's comment, DELETED? Where can I find the reasoning for such deletion?
>
> Your comment was deleted because it was off topic, consisted of insults, and contributed nothing to the discussion. Continue to make such comments and you will be blocked from this repo.
@achow101 can I ask that my original comment, which originated your moderation, be shown here also in this "pushed aside" section of the PR? Just so anyone understands better your reasoning,
...
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913679571)
> > > Why was my last comment to Peter Todd's comment, DELETED? Where can I find the reasoning for such deletion?
> >
> >
> > Your comment was deleted because it was off topic, consisted of insults, and contributed nothing to the discussion. Continue to make such comments and you will be blocked from this repo.
>
> @achow101 can I ask that my original comment, which originated your moderation, be shown here also in this "pushed aside" section of the PR? Just so anyone understands better
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913679571)
> > > Why was my last comment to Peter Todd's comment, DELETED? Where can I find the reasoning for such deletion?
> >
> >
> > Your comment was deleted because it was off topic, consisted of insults, and contributed nothing to the discussion. Continue to make such comments and you will be blocked from this repo.
>
> @achow101 can I ask that my original comment, which originated your moderation, be shown here also in this "pushed aside" section of the PR? Just so anyone understands better
...
💬 RicYashiroLee commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913686703)
> > > > Why was my last comment to Peter Todd's comment, DELETED? Where can I find the reasoning for such deletion?
> > >
> > >
> > > Your comment was deleted because it was off topic, consisted of insults, and contributed nothing to the discussion. Continue to make such comments and you will be blocked from this repo.
> >
> >
> > @achow101 can I ask that my original comment, which originated your moderation, be shown here also in this "pushed aside" section of the PR? Just so anyone u
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913686703)
> > > > Why was my last comment to Peter Todd's comment, DELETED? Where can I find the reasoning for such deletion?
> > >
> > >
> > > Your comment was deleted because it was off topic, consisted of insults, and contributed nothing to the discussion. Continue to make such comments and you will be blocked from this repo.
> >
> >
> > @achow101 can I ask that my original comment, which originated your moderation, be shown here also in this "pushed aside" section of the PR? Just so anyone u
...
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913691938)
> You keep warning me that I can get blocked, you can imagine that creates a situation that is unpleasant and threatening to someone on a first warning immediately, should not sound like a last one, right?
A warning should include all information about what will happen if the violation occurs again. If you continue to make off topic and abusive posts, you will be temporarily blocked. If you continue to do so once that is up, you will be permanently block. So indeed, this warning is both your
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1913691938)
> You keep warning me that I can get blocked, you can imagine that creates a situation that is unpleasant and threatening to someone on a first warning immediately, should not sound like a last one, right?
A warning should include all information about what will happen if the violation occurs again. If you continue to make off topic and abusive posts, you will be temporarily blocked. If you continue to do so once that is up, you will be permanently block. So indeed, this warning is both your
...
💬 owenstrevor commented on pull request "Make provably unsignable standard P2PK and P2MS outpoints unspendable.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28400#issuecomment-1913693984)
So this would make all current and future STAMPS unspendable? Or just future ones? How would this affect other potential legitimate use cases?
What is the projected growth of node requirements if this situation were to get worse and how does that track with Moore's Law of the increase in computer performance? Or is there a better way to think about this?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28400#issuecomment-1913693984)
So this would make all current and future STAMPS unspendable? Or just future ones? How would this affect other potential legitimate use cases?
What is the projected growth of node requirements if this situation were to get worse and how does that track with Moore's Law of the increase in computer performance? Or is there a better way to think about this?