💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "test: Add a few more corner cases to the base58 test suite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30035#discussion_r1590380169)
Thanks for checking @tdb3, the results would be similar, but since I assumed the spaces are rare in reality, I gave it different odds.
In my impl the probability that we won't have any leading (or trailing) spaces was `50% + 50%*10%`, in your impl it's 10%, so spaces would be in most samples.
I'm fine with both.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "dbwrapper: Bump LevelDB max file size to 128 MiB to avoid system slowdown from high disk cache flush rate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30039#issuecomment-2094905130)
> > Are there any drawbacks to this?
>
> I didn't notice any.
>
> It's worth mentioning that the total amount of data stored in this database is at least two orders of magnitude higher than even 128 MiB file size.

It would be great if there are few/no drawbacks. Do you mind sharing the methods used so far to test this? It would be great to have some data for comparison.

Other questions that come to mind (thinking out loud before I dig deeper or perform testing):
- Does the change
...

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: Add a few more corner cases to the base58 test suite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30035#discussion_r1590383244)
Thanks, that's right (higher probability of no spaces over rand range alone). I don't have a preference, just an observation.

📝 laanwj opened a pull request: "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP implementation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043)
Continues #30005. Closes #17012..

This PR replaces NAT-PMP port mapping with its successor PCP (Port Control Protocol) from [RFC6887](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6887). This adds, in addition to the existing IPv4 port mapping, support for IPv6 pinholing-that is, opening a port on the firewall to make it reachable.

PCP is a simple UDP-based protocol, and the implementation is self-contained, so this gets rid of lthe libnatpnp dependency without adding a new one. It should othe
...

✅ laanwj closed a pull request: "[PoC, nomerge] PCP IPv4 portmap+IPv6 pinhole test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30005)

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "[PoC, nomerge] PCP IPv4 portmap+IPv6 pinhole test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30005#issuecomment-2094906387)
Continued in #30043.

📝 hebasto converted_to_draft 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.

✅ hebasto closed a pull request: "util, refactor: Switch to value-initialization"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30040)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "util, refactor: Switch to value-initialization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30040#issuecomment-2094918672)
Closing.

> CI still failing:

FWIW, those false positive warnings are fixed in GCC 13.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "util, refactor: Switch to value-initialization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30040#discussion_r1590393699)
Concept ACK on adding value initialization here, seems like a good precaution in any case.

💬 laanwj commented on issue "Possible to Ban Clients by Name?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30036#issuecomment-2094939151)
NACK on adding functionality for banning by user agent. The user agent (subversion) an arbitrary string that clients can send, so this is super easy to circumvent, and a potential footgun (generally, you'd want to connect to as many different clients as possible to reduce the chance of the node ending up on an isolated "island").

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "dbwrapper: Bump LevelDB max file size to 128 MiB to avoid system slowdown from high disk cache flush rate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30039#issuecomment-2094958100)
> Might partially address https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29662

That issue is complaining about long compaction times. From https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/leveldb/include/leveldb/options.h#L111-L112:

> The downside will be longer compactions and hence longer latency/performance hiccups.

it seems this change would make compaction times longer, so would exacerbate that issue?

👍 laanwj approved a pull request: "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#pullrequestreview-2039807786)
All good now!

ACK ee218aa9a9eaac53030c31b099b4afe354197ba7

💬 maciejsszmigiero commented on pull request "dbwrapper: Bump LevelDB max file size to 128 MiB to avoid system slowdown from high disk cache flush rate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30039#issuecomment-2094981028)
> Do you mind sharing the methods used so far to test this?

I am simply watching the disk cache flush rate in `iostat(1)`.
In addition to that, the difference in the system interactivity is also pretty apparent.

> Does the change from 2MB to 128MB have any impact on consistent or transient RAM usage (i.e. for resource-constrained nodes)?

Did not observe any such effect, the RAM usage of the Bitcoin process seems to vary within roughly the same bounds when syncing with the Bitcoin net
...

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "dbwrapper: Bump LevelDB max file size to 128 MiB to avoid system slowdown from high disk cache flush rate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30039#discussion_r1590461048)
Should we make this a constant? Would it be appropriate to reuse `MAX_BLOCKFILE_SIZE`?

✅ IAmAdamRest closed an issue: "Possible to Ban Clients by Name?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30036)

💬 IAmAdamRest commented on issue "Possible to Ban Clients by Name?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30036#issuecomment-2095040466)
It is BTF and it is still happening. The subnets have been all over the place and even in many data centers. I'm not going to bother updating this because I have my own theories about who is behind this and where they are and spoke to the secret service today and turned over all of my logs for them to review and I was told I am NOT the only party to report this exact issue in the last week to them.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "msvc: Compile `test\fuzz\miniscript.cpp`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30031)

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "depends: pass verbose through to cmake based makefiles"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29960#pullrequestreview-2039871257)
ACK 7c69baf227252511455bc06e315f6a3c7fc5a398

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "depends: pass verbose through to cmake based makefiles"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29960)