💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: move ASAN job to GitHub Actions from Cirrus CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30193#issuecomment-2145060525)
Well, if you really wanted to do it, you could move it into the "test each commit" task, and make that one run every time, to keep the number of tasks the same.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30193#issuecomment-2145060525)
Well, if you really wanted to do it, you could move it into the "test each commit" task, and make that one run every time, to keep the number of tasks the same.
💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "Don't empty dbcache on prune flushes: >30% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28280#issuecomment-2145109407)
> `BatchWrite` already iterates the entire cache anyways
@achow101 I think this is what you might not be clear about. `BatchWrite` iterates the entire cache, but this patch does not. After this patch `BatchWrite` only iterates flagged entries, which is a much smaller subset of the cache.
I tried moving everything in the loop in `Sync` into `BatchWrite`, along with `cachedCoinsUsage` so it can be decremented as we delete spent coins from the child cache, and it looks like it will take many
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28280#issuecomment-2145109407)
> `BatchWrite` already iterates the entire cache anyways
@achow101 I think this is what you might not be clear about. `BatchWrite` iterates the entire cache, but this patch does not. After this patch `BatchWrite` only iterates flagged entries, which is a much smaller subset of the cache.
I tried moving everything in the loop in `Sync` into `BatchWrite`, along with `cachedCoinsUsage` so it can be decremented as we delete spent coins from the child cache, and it looks like it will take many
...
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Fee Estimation: Ignore all transactions that are CPFP'd":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30079#discussion_r1624421369)
Added the comment, thanks.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30079#discussion_r1624421369)
Added the comment, thanks.
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Fee Estimation: Ignore all transactions that are CPFP'd":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30079#discussion_r1624421583)
Fixed
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30079#discussion_r1624421583)
Fixed
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: add more coverage for `ScriptPubKeyMan`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30134)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30134)
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Fee Estimation: Ignore all transactions that are CPFP'd":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30079#issuecomment-2145153918)
> > > Do we have charts anywhere tracking % of transactions that are in a cluster size of 1?
> >
> >
> > I will analyze the percentage of cluster size 1 transactions mined in previous blocks.
>
> I tracked recent 1000 blocks from block `842457` to `843457`
>
> ~61% of transactions in the last 1000 blocks were confirmed in a cluster size > 1. ~38% of transactions in the last 1000 blocks were confirmed in a cluster size 1
>
> Transactions: 3974143 Cluster size 1 transactions: 1516505
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30079#issuecomment-2145153918)
> > > Do we have charts anywhere tracking % of transactions that are in a cluster size of 1?
> >
> >
> > I will analyze the percentage of cluster size 1 transactions mined in previous blocks.
>
> I tracked recent 1000 blocks from block `842457` to `843457`
>
> ~61% of transactions in the last 1000 blocks were confirmed in a cluster size > 1. ~38% of transactions in the last 1000 blocks were confirmed in a cluster size 1
>
> Transactions: 3974143 Cluster size 1 transactions: 1516505
...
💬 hebasto commented on issue "Guix builds are affected by external environment":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29754#issuecomment-2145155832)
> Can you confirm this is still an issue / provide a new reproducer / confirm if it's only happening on Ubuntu 23.10.
I can confirm the issue on Ubuntu 23.10, but not [able](https://bugs.launchpad.net/apparmor/+bug/2046844) to test on Ubuntu 24.04 using the system's `guix` package.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29754#issuecomment-2145155832)
> Can you confirm this is still an issue / provide a new reproducer / confirm if it's only happening on Ubuntu 23.10.
I can confirm the issue on Ubuntu 23.10, but not [able](https://bugs.launchpad.net/apparmor/+bug/2046844) to test on Ubuntu 24.04 using the system's `guix` package.
💬 TheCharlatan commented on issue "clang-format returns error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29214#issuecomment-2145163638)
Might be good to note that since #29251 it is also possible to manually specify a clang format binary with the `-binary` option. It should be trivial to install a newer clang format on ubuntu, so I think this can be closed?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29214#issuecomment-2145163638)
Might be good to note that since #29251 it is also possible to manually specify a clang format binary with the `-binary` option. It should be trivial to install a newer clang format on ubuntu, so I think this can be closed?
👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "policy: bump TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION to 3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29496#pullrequestreview-2093899899)
utACK 30a01134cdec37e7467fcd6eee8b0ae3890a131c
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29496#pullrequestreview-2093899899)
utACK 30a01134cdec37e7467fcd6eee8b0ae3890a131c
🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: optimize migration process, batch db transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28574#pullrequestreview-2093904324)
Rebased due a hidden conflict with #26606.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28574#pullrequestreview-2093904324)
Rebased due a hidden conflict with #26606.
✅ maflcko closed an issue: "make cov fails with lcov-2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28468)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28468)
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: JSON-RPC request Content-Type is application/json"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30215)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30215)
💬 hebasto commented on issue "Guix builds are affected by external environment":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29754#issuecomment-2145283596)
> I can't repro this on Ubuntu 24.04:
I can reproduce the issue on a fresh Ubuntu 24.04 installation with the default `guix` package installed and `apparmor` package uninstalled.
Using the master branch @ 80bdd4b6beb878c95478b5623c9f9ff0b948ad57 and the following commit on top of it:
```diff
commit 371a379235211504f81d10e55953f0de4b91a442 (HEAD -> 240603-test-29754.0)
Author: Hennadii Stepanov <32963518+hebasto@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Mon Jun 3 14:40:05 2024 +0100
depe
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29754#issuecomment-2145283596)
> I can't repro this on Ubuntu 24.04:
I can reproduce the issue on a fresh Ubuntu 24.04 installation with the default `guix` package installed and `apparmor` package uninstalled.
Using the master branch @ 80bdd4b6beb878c95478b5623c9f9ff0b948ad57 and the following commit on top of it:
```diff
commit 371a379235211504f81d10e55953f0de4b91a442 (HEAD -> 240603-test-29754.0)
Author: Hennadii Stepanov <32963518+hebasto@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Mon Jun 3 14:40:05 2024 +0100
depe
...
💬 fanquake commented on issue "Guix builds are affected by external environment":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29754#issuecomment-2145287807)
Seems like this need more information then, for us to be able to do anything.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29754#issuecomment-2145287807)
Seems like this need more information then, for us to be able to do anything.
💬 maflcko commented on issue "Guix builds are affected by external environment":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29754#issuecomment-2145298857)
Do the shasums for the 22 LTS result differ from the 24 LTS result?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29754#issuecomment-2145298857)
Do the shasums for the 22 LTS result differ from the 24 LTS result?
✅ mzumsande closed an issue: "clang-format returns error"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29214)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29214)
💬 mzumsande commented on issue "clang-format returns error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29214#issuecomment-2145311186)
> I'm guessing you switched to using a newer Clang here?
Well, lets's say I could have switched to a newer Clang if I wasn't so lazy about these kind of things and if I used clang-format more often...
But that's on me, and since there are multiple workarounds like the one by @TheCharlatan , I'll close.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29214#issuecomment-2145311186)
> I'm guessing you switched to using a newer Clang here?
Well, lets's say I could have switched to a newer Clang if I wasn't so lazy about these kind of things and if I used clang-format more often...
But that's on me, and since there are multiple workarounds like the one by @TheCharlatan , I'll close.
💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "init: fixes file descriptor accounting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30065#issuecomment-2145318356)
Nice catch @vasild, I've squashed that into one of the previous commits. It should be good now.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30065#issuecomment-2145318356)
Nice catch @vasild, I've squashed that into one of the previous commits. It should be good now.
💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "Don't empty dbcache on prune flushes: >30% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28280#issuecomment-2145320870)
Rebased, and added a small optimization based on @achow101's suggestion. In `BatchWrite`, we also clear the flags when not erasing if the coin is unspent. This reduces the amount of flagged entries needed to be iterated in `Sync` to find the spent entries to delete. We can also throw a logic error now if we find a flagged entry in `Sync` that is not spent.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28280#issuecomment-2145320870)
Rebased, and added a small optimization based on @achow101's suggestion. In `BatchWrite`, we also clear the flags when not erasing if the coin is unspent. This reduces the amount of flagged entries needed to be iterated in `Sync` to find the spent entries to delete. We can also throw a logic error now if we find a flagged entry in `Sync` that is not spent.
🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "policy: bump TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION to 3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29496#pullrequestreview-2093926915)
Concept ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29496#pullrequestreview-2093926915)
Concept ACK