⚠️ dergoegge opened an issue: "Increase fuzz coverage in the wallet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27272)
The wallet has (almost) no coverage: https://marcofalke.github.io/btc_cov/fuzz.coverage/src/wallet/index-sort-l.html. We should change that!
Issues like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27271 should be quite easy for high level fuzz targets to find.
(For people that are interested but unfamiliar with the wallet (like me): I suspect that looking at the unit tests could be helpful for figuring out where to start)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27272)
The wallet has (almost) no coverage: https://marcofalke.github.io/btc_cov/fuzz.coverage/src/wallet/index-sort-l.html. We should change that!
Issues like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27271 should be quite easy for high level fuzz targets to find.
(For people that are interested but unfamiliar with the wallet (like me): I suspect that looking at the unit tests could be helpful for figuring out where to start)
📝 pinheadmz opened a pull request: "system: allow GUI to initialize default data dir"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27273)
closes #27246
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27273)
closes #27246
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139401775)
Even being a comment in `LookupHost`, you're right, the change is done in the next commit. Thanks
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139401775)
Even being a comment in `LookupHost`, you're right, the change is done in the next commit. Thanks
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139404408)
Seems a leftover from my part, didn't did it intentionally, thanks for noticing it. Fixed.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139404408)
Seems a leftover from my part, didn't did it intentionally, thanks for noticing it. Fixed.
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139406701)
Nice find, I think it's better to leave `BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE()` and using `return addr.value_or(CNetAddr{});`. Addressing it.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139406701)
Nice find, I think it's better to leave `BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE()` and using `return addr.value_or(CNetAddr{});`. Addressing it.
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139407547)
Nice!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139407547)
Nice!
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139409510)
Much more cleaner, nice!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139409510)
Much more cleaner, nice!
💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "test: Make the unlikely race in p2p_invalid_messages impossible?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27212#discussion_r1139398466)
I'd just remove this line, otherwise it will stay there for a long time.
After all we have an explanation for why this has failed that makes sense with the log of the failed run, plus a fix that avoid this.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27212#discussion_r1139398466)
I'd just remove this line, otherwise it will stay there for a long time.
After all we have an explanation for why this has failed that makes sense with the log of the failed run, plus a fix that avoid this.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "mempool: Add mempool tracepoints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26531#discussion_r1139414366)
It would probably make sense to include the time for all of the tracepoints added in this PR?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26531#discussion_r1139414366)
It would probably make sense to include the time for all of the tracepoints added in this PR?
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "Remove -mempoolfullrbf option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1472835026)
https://petertodd.org/2022/bitcoin-core-nodes-running-fullrbf
17% of Bitcoin Core v24.x nodes were running full-rbf ***and successfully propagating*** when I measured it, and full-rbf transactions propagate well. Quite a few services are using this flag too, eg BTCPay now activates full-rbf by default: https://github.com/btcpayserver/btcpayserver-docker/pull/736 Both Umbrel and Start9 Labs, among others, have added support for this flag to their node offerings.
Also full-RBF replacements are g
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1472835026)
https://petertodd.org/2022/bitcoin-core-nodes-running-fullrbf
17% of Bitcoin Core v24.x nodes were running full-rbf ***and successfully propagating*** when I measured it, and full-rbf transactions propagate well. Quite a few services are using this flag too, eg BTCPay now activates full-rbf by default: https://github.com/btcpayserver/btcpayserver-docker/pull/736 Both Umbrel and Start9 Labs, among others, have added support for this flag to their node offerings.
Also full-RBF replacements are g
...
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139429347)
Replaced it with `BOOST_REQUIRE()`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139429347)
Replaced it with `BOOST_REQUIRE()`
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#issuecomment-1472866874)
Force-pushed addressing @vasild's review. Thanks @vasild for your in-depth review and considerations!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#issuecomment-1472866874)
Force-pushed addressing @vasild's review. Thanks @vasild for your in-depth review and considerations!
💬 mxaddict commented on pull request "doc: fix typo in interface_usdt_utxocache.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27268#issuecomment-1472883070)
Sure
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 05:08 Michael Ford ***@***.***> wrote:
> Can you update the commit message to the same as what I've changed the PR
> title too: doc: fix typo in interface_usdt_utxocache.py.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27268#issuecomment-1472741835>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIDAKKCHF2RJJJUMIZHSJDW4N6MJANCNFSM6AAAAAAV5JB5UM>
> .
> You are receiving this because you aut
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27268#issuecomment-1472883070)
Sure
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 05:08 Michael Ford ***@***.***> wrote:
> Can you update the commit message to the same as what I've changed the PR
> title too: doc: fix typo in interface_usdt_utxocache.py.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27268#issuecomment-1472741835>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIDAKKCHF2RJJJUMIZHSJDW4N6MJANCNFSM6AAAAAAV5JB5UM>
> .
> You are receiving this because you aut
...
💬 antuun commented on pull request "[24.x] Backports for 24.0.1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26616#issuecomment-1472998839)
Is me José can you help me about l can't spend nothing and no body support me l desinstales Wallet of Bitcoin.org because Have malaware so what can l do ?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26616#issuecomment-1472998839)
Is me José can you help me about l can't spend nothing and no body support me l desinstales Wallet of Bitcoin.org because Have malaware so what can l do ?
💬 nostitos commented on pull request "Remove -mempoolfullrbf option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1473050580)
> I'm certainly not inclined to spend $0.60 in fees for an on-chain transaction to pay a $15 phone top-up on Bitrefill.
Not sure where that's getting at but my typical "refill" is for 500$ cards.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1473050580)
> I'm certainly not inclined to spend $0.60 in fees for an on-chain transaction to pay a $15 phone top-up on Bitrefill.
Not sure where that's getting at but my typical "refill" is for 500$ cards.
💬 ariard commented on pull request "Remove -mempoolfullrbf option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1473067644)
> Just reviving this. Four months have passed. What are the current stats on people flagging mempoolfullrbf=1?
>
> My guess is that literally only the hostile devs in this thread run it, and whichever miners they managed to persuade personally, and that there is no significant signal of support or usage of the feature in the wild, or am I wrong?
>
> It would be nice for the remaining thousands of users and merchants to not have to look over our shoulder and wonder if Core will sneak it on
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1473067644)
> Just reviving this. Four months have passed. What are the current stats on people flagging mempoolfullrbf=1?
>
> My guess is that literally only the hostile devs in this thread run it, and whichever miners they managed to persuade personally, and that there is no significant signal of support or usage of the feature in the wild, or am I wrong?
>
> It would be nice for the remaining thousands of users and merchants to not have to look over our shoulder and wonder if Core will sneak it on
...
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Ignore datacarrier limits for dataless OP_RETURN outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27261#issuecomment-1473155403)
NACK. If someone wants to allow a bare OP_RETURN and nothing more they can set `-datacarriersize=1`. There's no reason to ignore someone setting `-nodatacarrier` to indicate they don't want OP_RETURN outputs in their mempool.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27261#issuecomment-1473155403)
NACK. If someone wants to allow a bare OP_RETURN and nothing more they can set `-datacarriersize=1`. There's no reason to ignore someone setting `-nodatacarrier` to indicate they don't want OP_RETURN outputs in their mempool.
💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "mempool: Add mempool tracepoints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26531#discussion_r1139897157)
Not necessarily. Might be redundant. When a transaction is added and you pass the tracepoint arguments _directly_ to a tracing script (can't think of a reason why you would want to store it in a BPF map first for a while), then the time is very close to `now()`. Similar for rejected transactions and for the replacement transaction during RBF (the time when the replaced transaction entered is passed).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26531#discussion_r1139897157)
Not necessarily. Might be redundant. When a transaction is added and you pass the tracepoint arguments _directly_ to a tracing script (can't think of a reason why you would want to store it in a BPF map first for a while), then the time is very close to `now()`. Similar for rejected transactions and for the replacement transaction during RBF (the time when the replaced transaction entered is passed).
📝 Bushstar opened a pull request: "refactor: remove unused param from legacy pubkey interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27274)
Unused param present in legacy pubkey manager interface. This param will not be used and should be removed to prevent unintended usage.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27274)
Unused param present in legacy pubkey manager interface. This param will not be used and should be removed to prevent unintended usage.
📝 Bushstar opened a pull request: "build: ignore common editor files"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27275)
Add IntelliJ and Visual Studio Code editor files to .gitignore. Small QOL change :)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27275)
Add IntelliJ and Visual Studio Code editor files to .gitignore. Small QOL change :)