💬 sipa commented on pull request "util: add BitSet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30160#discussion_r1626265719)
Yes; but on GCC/stdlibc++, `std::popcount` just uses `__builtin_popcount`, which in benchmarks seems to perform worse than the code here. The I've updated the comment to reflect that (it was written before the C++20 switch which introduced `std::popcount`).

💬 sipa commented on pull request "util: add BitSet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30160#discussion_r1626266141)
Done. Credit to @glozow.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "util: add BitSet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30160#discussion_r1626267484)
figured as much based on my investigation thanks

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "refactor: remove unused `CKey::Negate` method":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30218#issuecomment-2147894731)
ACK 8801e319d51209fe3a3b06e2aab5f96ceead290d
There are no API consistency arguments to keep this, negating isn't a conventional thing for keys.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "refactor: remove unused `CKey::Negate` method":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30218#issuecomment-2147912758)
ACK 8801e319d51209fe3a3b06e2aab5f96ceead290d

🤔 tdb3 reviewed a pull request: "test: Added test coverage to listsinceblock rpc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30195#pullrequestreview-2096517820)
Approach ACK

Thanks for adding test coverage.
Exercised test's ability to fail by commenting out the `rename` calls (failed as expected with no exception being raised).

Built and ran all unit/functional tests. All passed.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: Added test coverage to listsinceblock rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30195#discussion_r1626078619)
nit: The comment could be updated to match the current action, e.g. `# Restoring block file`.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: Added test coverage to listsinceblock rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30195#discussion_r1626100437)
Is this send necessary for this test? The test seems to work with or without it, and `listsinceblock` would return an empty array (rather than throw) if there were no transactions to show, right?

Maybe I'm missing something?

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: Added test coverage to listsinceblock rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30195#discussion_r1626084163)
nit: Could phrase this a little clearer:
`'Test the RPC error "Can't read block from disk"'`

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: Added test coverage to listsinceblock rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30195#discussion_r1626076767)
nit: The comment could be updated to match the current action, e.g. `# Renaming the block file to induce unsuccessful block read`.

💬 ffrediani commented on issue "Improve/simplify node sync for pruned nodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30220#issuecomment-2147939514)
I wish to contribute this way, having a proper and structured discussion about a topic which is still an issue. If you want to suggest other ways to contribute it is fine, but I hope you are not making it a must on the way I must contribute.
Creating this issue contributes to raise awareness to the issue (which currently exists), to discuss possible solution and have a solution implemented for it.

💬 ffrediani commented on issue "Improve/simplify node sync for pruned nodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30224#issuecomment-2147949569)
@pinheadmz if there are alternatives ways and strategies why just stay with what is there right now and not improve it for these scenarios ?

Seems some developers in this project don't like to have issues opened they can't or are unwilling to work on and arbitrarily close them. I still disagree with this autocratic behaviour and that it should be discussed elsewhere. Seems more a personal preference of some rather than how it really is.

This is a feature request and as such has a place in
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Improve/simplify node sync for pruned nodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30220#issuecomment-2147949594)
Can you explain how your discussion is different from the assumeutxo discussions already happening? I don't think it makes sense to have duplicate and redundant issues.

📝 aaservice opened a pull request: "Update and rename bitcoinkernel.cpp to bitcoinkernel.cppx"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30225)
Q

<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that i
...

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Update and rename bitcoinkernel.cpp to bitcoinkernel.cppx"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30225)

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "Update and rename bitcoinkernel.cpp to bitcoinkernel.cppx"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30225)
Q

<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that i
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "LevelDB read failure: Corruption: block checksum mismatch":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30159#issuecomment-2148033169)
Another thing you could try to debug this further is to put a swapfile, and the datadir on the same AWS gp3 SSD filesystem.

I am happy to create an AWS account to test this, but it would be good if there was a single (bash) script, which can be deployed to AWS, so that it is easy for anyone to reproduce your exact setup.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "util: add BitSet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30160#issuecomment-2148037183)
concept ACK

requested changes were included, will continue review

`git range-diff master 18ec3fc c99063e`

💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: 128-bit multiply support in MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29758#issuecomment-2148067460)
@hebasto Would you mind benchmarking with smaller realistic numbers (say fee and size both between 0 and 2^30)? If the top limb is equal, it's possible the naive code does worse.

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "Introduce Miner interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30200#pullrequestreview-2096918003)
Code review ACK 87ba70a2731951a16432ca2d8d55c62bad87dd41

re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30200#issuecomment-2140187315

> Let me know if I should expand the interface to cover more of `rpc/mining.cpp` or stick to this for now.

I think it's just important for the interface to be usable for stratum code so is not too tied to node internals. It should be ok for RPC code to go around the interface and not use it for everything.