💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1471073380)
Done

💬 Rucade commented on issue "bitcoin core v.26 shuts down without warning - Doesnt save blocks downloaded":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29348#issuecomment-1916672672)
> Please check your debug.log for possible causes; Alternatively you can upload it here.
>
> You can find the debug.log in your [data dir](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/files.md#data-directory-location).
>
> Please be aware that the debug log might contain personally identifying information.

[debug.log](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/files/14097173/debug.log)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1471074052)
Removed `PackageWithAncestorCounts`, now just using `Package`. Did a bit of refactoring inside `PackageV3Checks` so that we can use references instead of copies for the Txid and Wtxid.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1471074300)
Removed the duplicate check, nice

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1471074585)
Indeed! I've removed the duplicate check

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1471074986)
Not sure if this was a joke :sweat_smile: I've changed it to use `tx_v3_child_heavy['tx'].get_vsize()` now. Is that something that sometimes doesn't work?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1471076099)
I updated the comment to say "not strictly necessary" for packages.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "bitcoin core v.26 shuts down without warning - Doesnt save blocks downloaded":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29348#issuecomment-1916682936)
> 2024-01-19T10:49:39Z Bitcoin Core version v22.0.0 (release build)

Are you sure you are running 26.0? Your logs claim 22.0.

🤔 willcl-ark reviewed a pull request: "net: enable v2transport by default"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#pullrequestreview-1851002292)
If we are now defaulting v2 to enabled, do we want to enable v2transport on a few more of the p2p functional tests, here or in a followup? I currently see the following enabled/disabled variants running the test suite with default options:

<details>

<summary>P2P tests w/ v2 status</summary>

```log
p2p_add_connections.py | ✓ Passed | 7 s
p2p_addr_relay.py | ✓ Passed | 15 s
p2p_addrfetch.py
...

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "test: Treat msg_version.relay as unsigned, Remove `struct` packing in messages.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29067)

✅ glozow closed an issue: "assumeutxo: nTx and nChainTx violations in CheckBlockIndex"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29261)

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "validation: fix misleading checkblockindex comments"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29299)

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "doc: update `BroadcastTransaction` comment"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29308)

👍 ismaelsadeeq approved a pull request: "rpc: validate fee estimation mode case insensitive"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29175#pullrequestreview-1851027724)
Re-Ack be8ae64b82e2c5b003a8703668ce1751442288e4

💬 maflcko commented on issue "assumeutxo: nTx and nChainTx violations in CheckBlockIndex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29261#issuecomment-1916736479)
> The following checks do seem to work, though:

Pull requests welcome

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Policy: Report reason inputs are non standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#issuecomment-1916752768)
Rebased on master for green CI.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Treat msg_version.relay as unsigned, Remove `struct` packing in messages.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29067#issuecomment-1916764354)
The following command can be used to find single-byte conversion that can have one (default) argument dropped in Python 3.11. (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29067#issuecomment-1880721233)

```sh
git grep 'bytes(1, '

💬 BrandonOdiwuor commented on pull request "test: Handle functional test disk-full error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29335#discussion_r1471166805)
Looks like I need at least `1.25GB` (`sudo mount -t tmpfs -o size=1250M none /tmp`) to run the tests on my system with no errors

I have plotted a map using gnuplot from the data collected tracking the size of the tmpdir when running the tests using:
`watch -n 10 "sudo du -s /tmp/test_runner_₿_🏃_20240130_153709/ | awk '{print strftime(\"%H:%M:%S\"), int(\$1/1024)}' | tee -a ~/watch-tee1.log"`

![directory_size_plot1](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/assets/15610188/735e07ca-44ec-43d5-807
...

💬 Rucade commented on issue "bitcoin core v.26 shuts down without warning - Doesnt save blocks downloaded":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29348#issuecomment-1916810231)
> > 2024-01-19T10:49:39Z Bitcoin Core version v22.0.0 (release build)
>
> Are you sure you are running 26.0? Your logs claim 22.0.

You may be right there. I had v.22 but I downloaded v.26 later because of serious errors and it may have kept the debug log from 22 but I did erase all the blockdir and started again fresh. So, should I erase everything delete all the files in .bitcoin linux ubuntu and start fresh on windows?

💬 instagibbs commented on issue "Cluster mempool, CPFP carveout, and V3 transaction policy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29319#issuecomment-1916831473)
> I think that this approach shouldn't generate any false positive. Once such an anchor transaction is identified, we would imbue its parent from the input that matches that script with v3 semantics.

Reminder we probably have to be aware of simple taproot channels, or we should just move fast enough to get CPFP carveout replaced via v3+sibling eviction, then only focus on imbuing segwitv0 channels? We'll likely need @Roasbeef to weigh in