โ ๏ธ Christewart opened an issue: "`keypoolrefill` doesn't fill keypool to specified parameter"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29924)
### Is there an existing issue for this?
- [X] I have searched the existing issues
### Current behaviour
According to the help manual the parameter is `newsize` and `keypoolrefill` fills the keypool to `newsize`. This was the behavior up to at least v21 of bitcoind. In v24 of bitcoind these semantics have changed. Related to https://github.com/bitcoin-s/bitcoin-s/pull/5496
```
$ bitcoin-cli -regtest getwalletinfo
{
"walletname": "",
"walletversion": 169900,
"format": "sqlite",
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29924)
### Is there an existing issue for this?
- [X] I have searched the existing issues
### Current behaviour
According to the help manual the parameter is `newsize` and `keypoolrefill` fills the keypool to `newsize`. This was the behavior up to at least v21 of bitcoind. In v24 of bitcoind these semantics have changed. Related to https://github.com/bitcoin-s/bitcoin-s/pull/5496
```
$ bitcoin-cli -regtest getwalletinfo
{
"walletname": "",
"walletversion": 169900,
"format": "sqlite",
...
๐ฌ TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: De-globalize fReindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#issuecomment-2067781043)
Re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#pullrequestreview-2006662114 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#pullrequestreview-2001088868
> For example, replacing all uses of ChainstateLoadOptions::reindex with BlockManager::m_reindex is a trivial code change and passes unit and functional tests
...
> I also really like stickies suggestion from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#pullrequestreview-2001088868 to delete the ChainstateLoadOptions::reindex variable
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#issuecomment-2067781043)
Re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#pullrequestreview-2006662114 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#pullrequestreview-2001088868
> For example, replacing all uses of ChainstateLoadOptions::reindex with BlockManager::m_reindex is a trivial code change and passes unit and functional tests
...
> I also really like stickies suggestion from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#pullrequestreview-2001088868 to delete the ChainstateLoadOptions::reindex variable
...
๐ฌ TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: De-globalize fReindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#issuecomment-2067787575)
Updated d9bcbbf2293ef427b37eefca30f074be5eeeca26 -> 9b2c9c2fce32fe858d1361e863c72108a384a5c8 ([noGlobalReindex_0](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/noGlobalReindex_0) -> [noGlobalReindex_1](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/noGlobalReindex_1), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/noGlobalReindex_0..noGlobalReindex_1))
* Addressed @stickies-v's [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#discussion_r1565782441), removed double definition o
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#issuecomment-2067787575)
Updated d9bcbbf2293ef427b37eefca30f074be5eeeca26 -> 9b2c9c2fce32fe858d1361e863c72108a384a5c8 ([noGlobalReindex_0](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/noGlobalReindex_0) -> [noGlobalReindex_1](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/noGlobalReindex_1), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/noGlobalReindex_0..noGlobalReindex_1))
* Addressed @stickies-v's [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#discussion_r1565782441), removed double definition o
...
๐ฌ luke-jr commented on pull request "[DO NOT MERGE] testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2067788551)
This seems too complicated for a testnet exception IMO. And it breaks the use case of someone testing being able to mine a block on-demand without actual mining hardware.
Shouldn't it be enough to just fix the timewarp bug?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2067788551)
This seems too complicated for a testnet exception IMO. And it breaks the use case of someone testing being able to mine a block on-demand without actual mining hardware.
Shouldn't it be enough to just fix the timewarp bug?
โ ๏ธ 1440000bytes opened an issue: "Add warnings or discontinue zip files for Windows and maOS "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29925)
1. One issue was shared in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27099#issuecomment-1610800583
Example URL: https://bitcoincore.orgโbinโbitcoin-core-27.0โ@bitcoin-27.0-win64.zip this will open attackers domain which in this case is `bitcoin-27.0-win64.zip`
2. Other issue: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/github-comments-abused-to-push-malware-via-microsoft-repo-urls/
Example URL: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/files/15049876/bitcoin-27.0-arm64-apple-darwin.zi
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29925)
1. One issue was shared in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27099#issuecomment-1610800583
Example URL: https://bitcoincore.orgโbinโbitcoin-core-27.0โ@bitcoin-27.0-win64.zip this will open attackers domain which in this case is `bitcoin-27.0-win64.zip`
2. Other issue: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/github-comments-abused-to-push-malware-via-microsoft-repo-urls/
Example URL: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/files/15049876/bitcoin-27.0-arm64-apple-darwin.zi
...
๐ฌ pinheadmz commented on issue "Add warnings or discontinue zip files for Windows and maOS ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29925#issuecomment-2067803749)
> 1. Example URL: [https://bitcoincore.orgโbinโbitcoin-core-27.0โ@bitcoin-27.0-win64.zip](https://bitcoincore.org%E2%88%95bin%E2%88%95bitcoin-core-27.0%E2%88%95@bitcoin-27.0-win64.zip)
The @ is pretty obvious to me. But regardless what can bitcoin core do to protect users who download software from links they find anywhere outside bitcoincore.org ?
Bitcoin core could stop serving releases altogether and replace the entire website with a warning, this .zip attack would be just as effective.
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29925#issuecomment-2067803749)
> 1. Example URL: [https://bitcoincore.orgโbinโbitcoin-core-27.0โ@bitcoin-27.0-win64.zip](https://bitcoincore.org%E2%88%95bin%E2%88%95bitcoin-core-27.0%E2%88%95@bitcoin-27.0-win64.zip)
The @ is pretty obvious to me. But regardless what can bitcoin core do to protect users who download software from links they find anywhere outside bitcoincore.org ?
Bitcoin core could stop serving releases altogether and replace the entire website with a warning, this .zip attack would be just as effective.
...
๐ฌ hebasto commented on pull request "depends: build libnatpmp with CMake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29708#issuecomment-2067807003)
My Guix builds:
```
x86_64
a134241bc9ff9823ce078ea10dbac544ff63536ee3f66fb557414ca191b1d62d guix-build-3c1ae3ee33d4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
f5a46ab7a5faae9ce50b2d084cf65d14372b354b9f8369178f1348b70a3b675b guix-build-3c1ae3ee33d4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-3c1ae3ee33d4-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
e2353ed4f0738026fe16cd90b503ef2f02f31e0b68ba42ea80924997225ae374 guix-build-3c1ae3ee33d4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-3c1ae3ee33d4-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
78060899
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29708#issuecomment-2067807003)
My Guix builds:
```
x86_64
a134241bc9ff9823ce078ea10dbac544ff63536ee3f66fb557414ca191b1d62d guix-build-3c1ae3ee33d4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
f5a46ab7a5faae9ce50b2d084cf65d14372b354b9f8369178f1348b70a3b675b guix-build-3c1ae3ee33d4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-3c1ae3ee33d4-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
e2353ed4f0738026fe16cd90b503ef2f02f31e0b68ba42ea80924997225ae374 guix-build-3c1ae3ee33d4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-3c1ae3ee33d4-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
78060899
...
๐ hebasto approved a pull request: "depends: build libnatpmp with CMake"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29708#pullrequestreview-2013186915)
ACK 3c1ae3ee33d4d9dbea046d5ab8ee924a12982759.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29708#pullrequestreview-2013186915)
ACK 3c1ae3ee33d4d9dbea046d5ab8ee924a12982759.
๐ฌ furszy commented on issue "Apple Clang 14.0 lacks support for `std::is_eq`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29918#issuecomment-2067809363)
Ventura 13.1.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29918#issuecomment-2067809363)
Ventura 13.1.
๐ฌ hebasto commented on issue "Apple Clang 14.0 lacks support for `std::is_eq`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29918#issuecomment-2067810384)
> Ventura 13.1.
Well. It seems Apple does not suggest any upgrade paths for Big Sur and Monterey, which are still supported platforms for [Bitcoin Core 27.0](https://bitcoincore.org/en/2024/04/16/release-27.0/).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29918#issuecomment-2067810384)
> Ventura 13.1.
Well. It seems Apple does not suggest any upgrade paths for Big Sur and Monterey, which are still supported platforms for [Bitcoin Core 27.0](https://bitcoincore.org/en/2024/04/16/release-27.0/).
๐ fjahr opened a pull request: "test: Fix multiprocess CI timeout in p2p_tx_download"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29926)
This addresses multiprocess CI failures in `p2p_tx_download.py`, likely introduced by #29827.
I was having a hard time reproducing or rationalizing the root cause of the issue but it seemed very likely the mock time wasn't working as expected without another reset and I got a successful run with it when I temporarily introduced it to another PR I am working on: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5109555795853312
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29926)
This addresses multiprocess CI failures in `p2p_tx_download.py`, likely introduced by #29827.
I was having a hard time reproducing or rationalizing the root cause of the issue but it seemed very likely the mock time wasn't working as expected without another reset and I got a successful run with it when I temporarily introduced it to another PR I am working on: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5109555795853312
๐ฌ fjahr commented on pull request "refactor: Use our own implementation of urlDecode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29904#issuecomment-2067814020)
CI failure can be ignored, it was introduced by #29827 and should hopefully be fixed by #29926
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29904#issuecomment-2067814020)
CI failure can be ignored, it was introduced by #29827 and should hopefully be fixed by #29926
๐ฌ pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464319)
I've made a combination of current state and your improvements, based on the feedback provided by @andrewtoth ([1](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1127232884), [2](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1127235671)). Please let me know what you think.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464319)
I've made a combination of current state and your improvements, based on the feedback provided by @andrewtoth ([1](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1127232884), [2](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1127235671)). Please let me know what you think.
๐ฌ pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464459)
It makes sense. Thanks!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464459)
It makes sense. Thanks!
๐ฌ pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464506)
[Same](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464459). Done!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464506)
[Same](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464459). Done!
๐ฌ pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464538)
[Same](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464459). Done!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464538)
[Same](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464459). Done!
๐ฌ pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464782)
@andrewtoth, now I've included `std::set::contains` as [you](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1383787269) and @jonatack [recommended](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1476755003).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573464782)
@andrewtoth, now I've included `std::set::contains` as [you](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1383787269) and @jonatack [recommended](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1476755003).
๐ฌ pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573465383)
It was also [suggested](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1383787269) by @andrewtoth, but C++20 wasn't supported at that time. Done!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573465383)
It was also [suggested](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1383787269) by @andrewtoth, but C++20 wasn't supported at that time. Done!
๐ฌ pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573465430)
It makes more sense, thanks! Done!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573465430)
It makes more sense, thanks! Done!
๐ฌ pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573465501)
True. Done!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1573465501)
True. Done!