💬 realsetvin commented on issue "Bitcoin ubuntu ppa, outdated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29406#issuecomment-1932828277)

💬 realsetvin commented on issue "Bitcoin ubuntu ppa, outdated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29406#issuecomment-1932830802)
Linux and bitcoin are both open source systems, having substantial overlap. It makes it difficult to educate new people when nothing works. Our peer to peer digital cash should seek to be usable, otherwise people will continue to prefer exchanges over self custody and education.

💬 epiccurious commented on pull request "test: Fix SegwitV0SignatureMsg nLockTime signedness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29400#issuecomment-1932874890)
Tested ACK fab15723b0518acbb1015e64df47dcac0187e92f.

💬 realsetvin commented on issue "Bitcoin ubuntu ppa, outdated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29406#issuecomment-1932884048)
> From PPA description:
>
> > NOT MAINTAINED.

I wanted to say something else, you knew this comment would not be helpful. Obviously im opening this issue because it has not been maintained for a long time. Does this mean bitcoin is a dead project? Whats the deal?

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Proposed Timeline for Legacy Wallet and BDB removal":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20160#issuecomment-1932891713)
Seems unlikely that the bdb parser stuff will make it into 27.0, so pushed those back another release.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#discussion_r1482110161)
Sure. `__func__ ` removed.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#discussion_r1482110377)
Sure. `__func__ ` removed.

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#pullrequestreview-1868826371)
Updated per feedback. Thanks achow!. [Small diff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1f177ff9a6ab229bd6486941e46daa92ab22b622..86960cdb7f75eaa2ae150914c54240d1d5ef96d1).

Two changes:
1) Removed `__func__ ` usages in the logging messages.
2) Have divided the purpose and name erasing lines per [request](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29403#discussion_r1481997602).

💬 ziljah commented on pull request "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#issuecomment-1932967456)
👎

🤔 sr-gi reviewed a pull request: "rpc: addpeeraddress tried return error on failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28998#pullrequestreview-1868852542)
Approach ACK

It is a pity that `"failed-adding-to-tried"` cannot be tested on demand, however, this at least gets rid of the intermittent failure when a collision is found in `tried`.

I think the tests can be made more exhaustive though, check comment inline.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "rpc: addpeeraddress tried return error on failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28998#discussion_r1482129839)
This is a non-exhaustive case now. There are two potential error outcomes that can be triggered on demand, from which only one is being tested:

- a) The address is already in `new` and we are trying to add it again (to any table)
- b) The address is already in `tried` and we are trying to add it again (to any table)

In this case, only `b)` is being tested: we do so both with and without the "try to add to tried" flag, but the reality is that the reason why the function is failing is the e
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#issuecomment-1933039793)
ACK 86960cdb7f75eaa2ae150914c54240d1d5ef96d1

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: batch erase procedures and improve 'EraseRecords' performance"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29403#pullrequestreview-1868847059)
Updated per feedback. Thanks achow!

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: batch erase procedures and improve 'EraseRecords' performance":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29403#discussion_r1482179514)
> Instead of `assert`ing, I would prefer if this did `if (!Assume(activeTxn)) return false` so we didn't cause nodes to crash if a transaction were missing for whatever reason. `Assume` should still catch this for developers.

That would be risky in terms of consistency. `BerkeleyBatch::ErasePrefix` traverses the entire db, reading entries one by one, erasing the ones that match the key prefix. If we don't execute this function within a txn context, it's possible that certain records are remov
...

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: batch erase procedures and improve 'EraseRecords' performance":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29403#discussion_r1482126505)
> I'd prefer to have these occur separately so that a distinct error can be logged for each, that way we can discover which operation failed.

Sure. Also decoupled it in #26836.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "test: handle wallet_reorgrestore.py failed":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29395#discussion_r1482188486)
These changes aren't doing anything. The sync call is being done after obtaining the data from the node.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: batch erase procedures and improve 'EraseRecords' performance":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29403#discussion_r1482191573)
Sure, that's why I suggest using `Assume`, and `return false` if there is no `activeTxn`. The callers of this should already be checking the return value to know whether the records were actually erased from the database.

💬 epiccurious commented on pull request "mempool: Log added for dumping mempool transactions to disk":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29402#issuecomment-1933069979)
utACK 6312513b5074f160971ffec0b093b58b9d3cdaae. Planning to test as well.

👍 johnny9 approved a pull request: "release: Update translations for v27.0 soft translation string freeze"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29397#pullrequestreview-1869011331)
ACK 71927b24e5aceecd8a07cdaeb916898d45486bea

Reproduced by running update-translations.py and then `./configure && make -C src translate`. No diff when comparing my branch and this one.

https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/compare/230207-translation...johnny9:bitcoin:translation-check-27?expand=1

💬 ariard commented on issue "Update security.md with all PGP fingerprints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29366#issuecomment-1933238232)
As usual with any question posed in the OP, wait or ask first if the opener is satisfied (modulo basic trolling / gpt-spam ofc).

I’m asking a) for the full sec-list to be public b) for each member to have a PGP fingerprint available and c) a dedicated sec mail address for each endpoint instead or in redundancy of using an alias. I understand and I know the risk of targeted attacks on members, I think it has to be weighted with better accountability.

PGP every communications of sensitive in
...