💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: gives seednode priority over dnsseed if both are provided":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28016#issuecomment-1915660249)
Rebased to fi CI

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1915664301)
Concept ACK

Not sure if it should be enabled for onion/i2p connections by default.

💬 TheBlueMatt commented on issue "Cluster mempool, CPFP carveout, and V3 transaction policy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29319#issuecomment-1915669008)
Looking at my code, I see `version: 2`, `lock_time: (0x20 << 8*3) | (random_garbage & 0xffffff)`,
one segwit non-wrapped input with `sequence: (0x80 << 8*3) | (random_garbage & 0xffffff)`, outputs sorted first by value, then by script_pubkey. There should always be at least one (sometimes two) outputs of exactly 330 sats and all outputs should be P2WSH.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1915676062)
looking at the [CI failure](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6469401004736512?logs=ci#L6015-L6015) very quickly without testing...
maybe you need to update this line too?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/292e716cde3325bef83e78f7804d2d0bddf03509/test/functional/test_framework/test_node.py#L208

💬 sipa commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1915679047)
Hmm, no. The issue is that previous releases may not even support the `-v2transport` flag, so to determine whether to set it, we need to know what version we're talking about.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1915687141)
> Hmm, no. The issue is that previous releases may not even support the `-v2transport` flag, so to determine whether to set it, we need to know what version we're talking about.

Sorry I deleted my comment cos I realised it was wrong as other tests would have failed... originally was:

>> looking at the [CI failure](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6469401004736512?logs=ci#L6015-L6015) very quickly without testing...
maybe you need to update this line too?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob
...

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: p2p: check disconnect due to lack of desirable service flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29279#issuecomment-1915723249)
Rebased on master (after the merge of #24748 :tada: ), and tackled https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29279#discussion_r1469196012. Note that I tried enabling v2 transport for this test, but it seems that it is non-trivial and needs some deeper changes in the test framework regarding the order of version messages sent (see slightly related comment https://mirror.b10c.me/bitcoin-bitcoin/24748/#discussion_r1465420112). Will tackle that in a follow-up.

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "test: Treat msg_version.relay as unsigned, Remove `struct` packing in messages.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29067#pullrequestreview-1849950870)
re-ACK 55556a64a8e4e6238f990cf66295c3b9594c2c3d

Checked that since my previous ACK, a rebase + [stickes' suggestion](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29067#discussion_r1468173825) of passing `signed=True` for (de)serializing the CBlockLocator version was applied.

💬 NicolasDorier commented on pull request "Make provably unsignable standard P2PK and P2MS outpoints unspendable.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28400#issuecomment-1915766303)
@1440000bytes the repartition you are showing is on outputs count, not size. Since ordinal, utxoset size been from 5GB to 10GB. Even if they are margin in term of output count, in term of size, it takes around 50% of the UTXO Set at the moment.

I haven't looked how they put JPEG and JSON files on the chain exactly, I assumed it was with invalid P2PK, but didn't look closely into it.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Make provably unsignable standard P2PK and P2MS outpoints unspendable.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28400#issuecomment-1915778170)
> I haven't looked how they put JPEG and JSON files on the chain exactly, I assumed it was with invalid P2PK, but didn't look closely into it.

Ordinal inscriptions don't use P2PK or bare multisig, they use P2TR with tapscripts. In order for an inscription to be in the blockchain, it must create and then spend a UTXO, so inscriptions themselves have no impact on the UTXO set. Ordinals may have an impact as there are people creating small outputs for their "rare" sats, but those are all perfect
...

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "test: p2p: check disconnect due to lack of desirable service flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29279#issuecomment-1916028804)
ACK d82eafb173d6bfa98a59e86a845013cc8528b65d.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1916079402)
ACK 0bef104.

💬 t-bast commented on issue "Cluster mempool, CPFP carveout, and V3 transaction policy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29319#issuecomment-1916166471)
Another approach that may be simpler is to imbue with v3 semantics only once one of the anchor output is being spent in the mempool (because if none are spent, there's no basically nothing to do). This way we can pattern match on the anchor output script which is very specific:

```
OP_PUSHDATA(<some_public_key>) OP_CHECKSIG OP_IFDUP OP_NOTIF OP_16 OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY OP_ENDIF
```

I think that this approach shouldn't generate any false positive. Once such an anchor transaction is ident
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24748#discussion_r1470738750)
nit: Please don't encode the default value in the syntax of the source code. Otherwise, it is hard to change the default value. Also, it is confusing to have to change two places to change one value. You could just use `self.Arg<bool>(2)`.

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "net: attempts to connect to all resolved addresses when connecting to a node":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28834#issuecomment-1916362642)
Concept ACK

💬 josibake commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1916364458)
reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347/commits/0bef1042ce6c459acb1de965cbccd98867a417f1

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "validation: fix misleading checkblockindex comments":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29299#issuecomment-1916369770)
ACK 9819db4ccaa03519a78d4d9ecce9f89f5be669e5

👍 naumenkogs approved a pull request: "doc: update `BroadcastTransaction` comment"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29308#pullrequestreview-1850572407)
ACK 31cce4a1bdbb48f57996615ee6c686e456cc0bea

💬 petertodd commented on issue "Cluster mempool, CPFP carveout, and V3 transaction policy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29319#issuecomment-1916377490)
@sdaftuar

> So I assume that means you don't believe that dropping the CPFP carveout rule should be a big deal either, is that a fair statement?

No, that's not a fair statement. While I have my reservations about CPFP, the fact is we've shipped a lot of Lightining implementations that rely on the CPFP carveout for safety and we have to continue to provide that functionality for the forseeable future. Indeed, this complexity is one reason why I'm dubious about rushing into the half-baked V
...

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "consensus: Store transaction nVersion as uint32_t":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29325#issuecomment-1916379223)
Concept ACK