💬 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
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "[DO NOT MERGE] Schnorr batch verification for blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29491#issuecomment-2106978586)
> batch validation is attempted and decreases performance even before taproot activated

From a quick skim of the changes ISTM that we always use the `BatchingCachingTransactionSignatureChecker`, and there was no switch to the `CachingTransactionSignatureChecker`, but this could well be because this is only in WIP state. It doesnt account for why it's currently slower in all cases though.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Silent payment index (for light wallets and consistency check)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28241#discussion_r1598090674)
I just checked two things:

1. LevelDB does not support indexes. It also does not support SQL queries.

If we were to store the amount (of the largest taproot output) in the index, any value filtering has to be done at the time we query the index. Worst case 9000 entries per block (a 1 input 1 output taproot transaction is 111 vbyte). That might be fine, you'd have to benchmark.

If it _is_ a bottleneck, then we could refactor the base index to allow sqlite3 as a backend.

2. The only wa
...

💬 josibake commented on pull request "crypto: add `NUMS_H` const":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30048#discussion_r1598091393)
I don't see the value of running a test like this? The code here is not the definition of `H`, just one way of calculating the value, based on the definition in BIP341. For example, if the test were to fail, that would just mean the comment is out of date, not that our value for `H` is incorrect.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Silent payment index (for light wallets and consistency check)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28241#discussion_r1598094935)
Using `IsDust()` makes no different for the regular index: https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/commit/20aba5dfa34224432787ac450b8e9d3a66d8eea9

💬 josibake commented on pull request "refactor, wallet: get serialized size of `CRecipient`s directly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30050#discussion_r1598099088)
Trying to keep this a move-only refactor, so would prefer to leave it for now. I end up touching this code again in #28201; will make a note of this for that PR.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: build zeromq with CMake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29723#issuecomment-2107001990)
Fixed the Windows build error, but drafted while based on #30078.