📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "util, refactor: Switch to value-initialization"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30040)
This PR allows to avoid false positive `-Wmaybe-uninitialized` warnings when cross-compiling for Windows.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30040)
This PR allows to avoid false positive `-Wmaybe-uninitialized` warnings when cross-compiling for Windows.
⚠️ tuttheking81 opened an issue: "[](https://renovatebot.com)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30041)
[](https://renovatebot.com)
This PR contains the following updates:
| Package | Change | Age | Adoption | Passing | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [@privy-io/react-auth](https://togithub.com/orgs/privy-io/discussions) ([source](https://togithub.com/orgs/privy-io)) | [`^1.60.5` -> `^1.63.0`](https://renovatebot.com/diffs/npm/@privy-io%2freact-auth/1.60.5/1.63.0) | [
[](https://renovatebot.com)
This PR contains the following updates:
| Package | Change | Age | Adoption | Passing | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [@privy-io/react-auth](https://togithub.com/orgs/privy-io/discussions) ([source](https://togithub.com/orgs/privy-io)) | [`^1.60.5` -> `^1.63.0`](https://renovatebot.com/diffs/npm/@privy-io%2freact-auth/1.60.5/1.63.0) | [![age](https://developer.mend.io/api/mc/badges/age/npm/@pr
...
✅ tuttheking81 closed an issue: "[](https://renovatebot.com)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30041)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30041)
💬 vostrnad commented on pull request "Remove redundant `-datacarrier` option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29942#issuecomment-2094406830)
What is there to work on? CI passes and there are no merge conflicts. I know you suggested alternative approaches, but those can be implemented in different PRs if this one gets closed.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29942#issuecomment-2094406830)
What is there to work on? CI passes and there are no merge conflicts. I know you suggested alternative approaches, but those can be implemented in different PRs if this one gets closed.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "util, refactor: Switch to value-initialization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30040#issuecomment-2094542083)
CI still failing:
'''bash
In member function ‘bool prevector<N, T, Size, Diff>::is_direct() const [with unsigned int N = 28; T = unsigned char; Size = unsigned int; Diff = int]’,
inlined from ‘prevector<N, T, Size, Diff>::~prevector() [with unsigned int N = 28; T = unsigned char; Size = unsigned int; Diff = int]’ at ./prevector.h:474:23,
inlined from ‘CScript::~CScript()’ at ./script/script.h:413:7,
inlined from ‘CNoDestination::~CNoDestination()’ at ./addresstype.h:18:7,
inlined
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30040#issuecomment-2094542083)
CI still failing:
'''bash
In member function ‘bool prevector<N, T, Size, Diff>::is_direct() const [with unsigned int N = 28; T = unsigned char; Size = unsigned int; Diff = int]’,
inlined from ‘prevector<N, T, Size, Diff>::~prevector() [with unsigned int N = 28; T = unsigned char; Size = unsigned int; Diff = int]’ at ./prevector.h:474:23,
inlined from ‘CScript::~CScript()’ at ./script/script.h:413:7,
inlined from ‘CNoDestination::~CNoDestination()’ at ./addresstype.h:18:7,
inlined
...
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2094556322)
I've implemented DNSSEC
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2094556322)
I've implemented DNSSEC
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2094566343)
Thank you for giving more detail @emsit !
> I admit that I am also biased towards testnet3, as I have been operating https://coinfaucet.eu/ for 10 years and have distributed a total of 328,065.41 tBTC. So testnet is close to me, but I accept its successor.
Thank you!
> I'm just sorry that testnet4 probably won't address the biggest problem that bothers you, trading.
I think the act of resetting is addressing it. If it's sufficiently addressing it or if we need to do something more (l
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2094566343)
Thank you for giving more detail @emsit !
> I admit that I am also biased towards testnet3, as I have been operating https://coinfaucet.eu/ for 10 years and have distributed a total of 328,065.41 tBTC. So testnet is close to me, but I accept its successor.
Thank you!
> I'm just sorry that testnet4 probably won't address the biggest problem that bothers you, trading.
I think the act of resetting is addressing it. If it's sufficiently addressing it or if we need to do something more (l
...
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Prevent file descriptor exhaustion from too many RPC calls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27731#issuecomment-2094569003)
Pushed a rebase though currently I am working on removing libevent as a dependency which should be a quicker solution than waiting for 2.2.1 :)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27731#issuecomment-2094569003)
Pushed a rebase though currently I am working on removing libevent as a dependency which should be a quicker solution than waiting for 2.2.1 :)
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2094582107)
> What prevents someone malicious from writing an absurd number into the Version field?
Same thing that prevents you from changing the nBits randomly -- your block is invalid if you do. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/970c0c31e99bebe2b60ade930c96600d1d82f7ca#diff-4667f00c3a075be2753aa6ebdeea4bdbb66ef6e0b3d6df313a430f2eb8669ffdR47
> I guess to verify the number is actually correct worst case we would need to look further than our current difficulty adjustment period if it's a
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2094582107)
> What prevents someone malicious from writing an absurd number into the Version field?
Same thing that prevents you from changing the nBits randomly -- your block is invalid if you do. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/970c0c31e99bebe2b60ade930c96600d1d82f7ca#diff-4667f00c3a075be2753aa6ebdeea4bdbb66ef6e0b3d6df313a430f2eb8669ffdR47
> I guess to verify the number is actually correct worst case we would need to look further than our current difficulty adjustment period if it's a
...
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "rpc: Optimize serialization and enhance metadata of dumptxoutset output":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29612#discussion_r1590208842)
Me too :) Yes, that makes sense. I opted for the function to return the `ChainType` and then I use `ChainTypeToString` on the result.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29612#discussion_r1590208842)
Me too :) Yes, that makes sense. I opted for the function to return the `ChainType` and then I use `ChainTypeToString` on the result.
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "rpc: Optimize serialization and enhance metadata of dumptxoutset output":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29612#discussion_r1590208850)
done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29612#discussion_r1590208850)
done
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "rpc: Optimize serialization and enhance metadata of dumptxoutset output":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29612#discussion_r1590208854)
done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29612#discussion_r1590208854)
done
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "rpc: Optimize serialization and enhance metadata of dumptxoutset output":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29612#issuecomment-2094633415)
Rebased, resolved conflicts (the functional tests have changed a bit now), and addressed the open feedback. Thanks everyone for reviewing!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29612#issuecomment-2094633415)
Rebased, resolved conflicts (the functional tests have changed a bit now), and addressed the open feedback. Thanks everyone for reviewing!
💬 emsit commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2094635043)
> @jlopp has suggested a full Genesis block and mined it too, if he addresses the concern and adds a recent block hash to the message I will use it unless there is someone else here who also provides a full Genesis block that is mined with a different message that reviewers prefer over @jlopp s one. I simply don't want to mine the Genesis block myself over and over again as the message gets bikeshedded.
Does the genesis block need a message? It seems like a neutral stance to me.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2094635043)
> @jlopp has suggested a full Genesis block and mined it too, if he addresses the concern and adds a recent block hash to the message I will use it unless there is someone else here who also provides a full Genesis block that is mined with a different message that reviewers prefer over @jlopp s one. I simply don't want to mine the Genesis block myself over and over again as the message gets bikeshedded.
Does the genesis block need a message? It seems like a neutral stance to me.
💬 laanwj commented on pull request "guix: build with glibc 2.31":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29987#issuecomment-2094666355)
Same output as @fanquake (just stock ubuntu 24.04 amd64)
```
d5b65771bb9c1d2e4e49fbb78305e97a99ca43e608ced495f8c437855701d6af guix-build-f5a949b90881/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
113d77f864bac9382aa7598cb038a822aff2c961348ed9ca747a168ec87199bb guix-build-f5a949b90881/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-f5a949b90881-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
4a25c348e2921d27542f39cd5ccb6c7cf3aba72c89fecf69f4f66d63c4d5b623 guix-build-f5a949b90881/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-f5a949b90881-a
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29987#issuecomment-2094666355)
Same output as @fanquake (just stock ubuntu 24.04 amd64)
```
d5b65771bb9c1d2e4e49fbb78305e97a99ca43e608ced495f8c437855701d6af guix-build-f5a949b90881/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
113d77f864bac9382aa7598cb038a822aff2c961348ed9ca747a168ec87199bb guix-build-f5a949b90881/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-f5a949b90881-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
4a25c348e2921d27542f39cd5ccb6c7cf3aba72c89fecf69f4f66d63c4d5b623 guix-build-f5a949b90881/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-f5a949b90881-a
...
💬 laanwj commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2094679960)
> I've implemented DNSSEC
That's neat!
i think it's still missing some part, resolving through Google's DNS (which has more verbose error messages than my ISP) gives:
```sh
$ dig x9.dnsseed.signet.bitcoin.achow101.com. @1.1.1.1
⋮
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
; EDE: 10 (RRSIGs Missing): (failed to verify signatures for x9.dnsseed.signet.bitcoin.achow101.com. opt-out proof)
⋮
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2094679960)
> I've implemented DNSSEC
That's neat!
i think it's still missing some part, resolving through Google's DNS (which has more verbose error messages than my ISP) gives:
```sh
$ dig x9.dnsseed.signet.bitcoin.achow101.com. @1.1.1.1
⋮
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
; EDE: 10 (RRSIGs Missing): (failed to verify signatures for x9.dnsseed.signet.bitcoin.achow101.com. opt-out proof)
⋮
```
💬 theStack commented on pull request "contrib: add tool to convert compact-serialized UTXO set to SQLite database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27432#issuecomment-2094700451)
Rebased on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29612, supporting the latest format with enhanced metadata (magic bytes, version, network magic, block height, block hash, coins count).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27432#issuecomment-2094700451)
Rebased on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29612, supporting the latest format with enhanced metadata (magic bytes, version, network magic, block height, block hash, coins count).
⚠️ laanwj opened an issue: "upstream: GUIX closure contains too much unnecessary stuff"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30042)
The minimum guix closure contains X11 libraries as well as LaTeX and associated fonts. They should be unnecessary for minimum set of packages needed to build. Especially on slower CPUs (eg current RISC-V cores, qemu) it results in a large slowdown, it's also bad from a "minimum trusted set" point of view.
They're pulled in by `guix-manual`, as well as sometimes, package-specific documentation. Unfortunately, documentation is not behind an optional flag at the moment so there's nothing we can
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30042)
The minimum guix closure contains X11 libraries as well as LaTeX and associated fonts. They should be unnecessary for minimum set of packages needed to build. Especially on slower CPUs (eg current RISC-V cores, qemu) it results in a large slowdown, it's also bad from a "minimum trusted set" point of view.
They're pulled in by `guix-manual`, as well as sometimes, package-specific documentation. Unfortunately, documentation is not behind an optional flag at the moment so there's nothing we can
...
💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "include verbose "debug-message" field in testmempoolaccept response":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28121#issuecomment-2094743012)
I've played around a bit with this in https://github.com/0xB10C/find-non-standard-tx/pull/2.
I've seen output for the following reasons:
- `too-long-mempool-chain`: e.g.
- `exceeds descendant size limit for tx 9f95e53da39ece93ceba3cc78a443a1aef0fc656bf921bbd2aee7f6533f0604f [limit: 101000]`
- `exceeds ancestor size limit [limit: 101000]`
- `2256302dedb181f83bc51248215e51f680f77d07e11ad7e9e34c2e483ad10e7b [limit: 26]`
- `min relay fee not met`: e.g. `0 < 200`
Other reasons lik
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28121#issuecomment-2094743012)
I've played around a bit with this in https://github.com/0xB10C/find-non-standard-tx/pull/2.
I've seen output for the following reasons:
- `too-long-mempool-chain`: e.g.
- `exceeds descendant size limit for tx 9f95e53da39ece93ceba3cc78a443a1aef0fc656bf921bbd2aee7f6533f0604f [limit: 101000]`
- `exceeds ancestor size limit [limit: 101000]`
- `2256302dedb181f83bc51248215e51f680f77d07e11ad7e9e34c2e483ad10e7b [limit: 26]`
- `min relay fee not met`: e.g. `0 < 200`
Other reasons lik
...
💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: add MiniWallet tagging support to avoid UTXO mixing, use in `fill_mempool`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29939#discussion_r1590272199)
> Could also continue to get all the UTXOs up front?
Indeed. I thought it was a nice side-benefit of the ephemeral wallet if the manual coin selection wouldn't be needed anymore, but keeping it seems better than the alternatives. Thanks, done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29939#discussion_r1590272199)
> Could also continue to get all the UTXOs up front?
Indeed. I thought it was a nice side-benefit of the ephemeral wallet if the manual coin selection wouldn't be needed anymore, but keeping it seems better than the alternatives. Thanks, done.