💬 craigraw commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2106789221)
tACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/06c2c713c52b60231efc3e00d2c5eb0bf9e345f9

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "cli: Detect port errors in rpcconnect and rpcport":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29521#discussion_r1597970957)
```suggestion
port=ToIntegral<uint16_t>(rpcport_arg.value_or(0));
if (port == 0) {
```

if you treat `0` as invalid, there is no need to also have nullopt be invalid as well, no?

This should also fix the false-positive compiler warning?

An alternative would be to suppress the false-positive warning in the CI task config.

💬 Emzy commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2106805681)
tACK 06c2c71

I'm just tested mining with CPUs and a S9 ASIC.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Silent payment index (for light wallets and consistency check)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28241#discussion_r1597984017)
> only send me stuff where the UTXOs have a value of >= X

So now we need an index and efficient sorting.

> It might also be case of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole

For the index without cut-through I think BIP157 is fine. But to get the extra bandwidth savings of cut-through and a (custom) dust limit, it indeed seems we need something else. But ideally that shouldn't block shipping something that works, even if it uses a bit more bandwidth that we'd like.

It's worth cons
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: switch from curl to urllib for HTTP requests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29970#discussion_r1598001674)
> Should this change be in a new commit or should I force it on the previous commit?

Squashing seems fine?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: switch from curl to urllib for HTTP requests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29970#discussion_r1598004575)
If this is part of the standard library, I don't think you need to list it as a requirement.

💬 iw4p commented on pull request "test: switch from curl to urllib for HTTP requests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29970#discussion_r1598009105)
To rewrite the git history for having the last change on the last commit and ignore old ones, I forced it. I used squashing only for merging before that.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "crypto: add `NUMS_H` const":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30048#discussion_r1598013264)
I think that would require adding [sage](https://www.sagemath.org) to our test dependencies.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent payment index (for light wallets and consistency check)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28241#discussion_r1598018340)
> For the index without cut-through I think BIP157 is fine

Agree.

> It's worth considering at least adding the 546 sat dust limit to BIP352

I'd argue these are all implementation details/optimizations. The BIP itself should be reserved for describing the protocol. There also might be use cases where where the value of the output is not the primary concern.

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "contrib/signet/miner: miner won't consider --nbits parameter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30091#issuecomment-2106890826)
Ah I see!

So the 2:30 block times are expected then, and at the first difficulty adjustment I would be expecting the difficulty to increase to such a point that it would take my CPU 600 seconds to generate a block.

I did discuss this possiblilty with @pinheadmz late last night, but was too impatient to let my signet miner run to an adjustment to find out. Thanks @ajtowns

💬 S3RK commented on pull request "wallet: add coin selection parameter `add_excess_to_recipient_position` for changeless txs with excess that would be added to fees":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30080#issuecomment-2106892196)
Here are my initial thoughts on each of the options individually

`change_target`
IIUC you want a specific min value for the change UTXO. Would a following alternative work? You provide your change address in the list of recipients with desired min amount and specify it as change UTXO using `change_position`parameter. The downside compared to a new option is that we always have a change output. Not sure if that's a problem in your case.

`disable_algos`
This makes sense, and could be a fir
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "fuzz: a target for the block index database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28209#discussion_r1598055160)
Adding something to exercise `Erase` would also be nice.

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "fuzz: a target for the block index database"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28209#pullrequestreview-2051980268)
ACK ffee43efe845cbbfbf16d5e61a1d541cb316ef56

💬 josibake commented on pull request "refactor: Model the bech32 charlimit as an Enum":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30047#discussion_r1598073431)
Done.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "refactor: Model the bech32 charlimit as an Enum":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30047#discussion_r1598077078)
Would prefer to keep this PR focused on the `limit` and `CHECKSUM_SIZE` change, but perhaps a good change for #29607

💬 josibake commented on pull request "refactor: Model the bech32 charlimit as an Enum":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30047#discussion_r1598077219)
Done.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "refactor: Model the bech32 charlimit as an Enum":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30047#discussion_r1598078613)
Yes, this is checking that "The data part, which is at least 6 characters long" (from BIP173). Changed `pos + 7 >` to `pos + CHECKSUM_SIZE >=` throughout.

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "[DO NOT MERGE] Schnorr batch verification for blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29491#issuecomment-2106968575)
@willcl-ark and I ran a IBD benchmark vs master for this: IBD from a local node to height 840000 and currently only looking at the connect_block duration.

In the current draft implementation:
- master is currently faster
- batch validation is attempted even before taproot activated
- after taproot activation, batch validation is significantly slower than non-batch validation


![image](htt
...

💬 josibake commented on pull request "refactor: Model the bech32 charlimit as an Enum":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30047#issuecomment-2106970721)
Changed the limit name to BECH32 per @sipa 's suggestion and updated to use `CHECKSUM_SIZE` throughout per @paplorinc 's review.

💬 Saraeutsza commented on pull request "wallet: add coin selection parameter `add_excess_to_recipient_position` for changeless txs with excess that would be added to fees":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30080#issuecomment-2106972758)
I need help I'm not a programmer and don't understand the language.

รับ Outlook สำหรับ Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: S3RK ***@***.***>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 2:55:44 PM
To: bitcoin/bitcoin ***@***.***>
Cc: Sarawut Kaewyana ***@***.***>; Comment ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin/bitcoin] wallet: add coin selection parameter `add_excess_to_recipient_position` for changeless txs with excess that would be added to fees (PR #30080)


Here are
...