📝 Sjors opened a pull request: "Have createNewBlock() return a BlockTemplate interface "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30440)
Suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29432#issuecomment-2225337100
An external program that uses the Mining interface may need quick access to some information in the block template, while it can wait a bit longer for the full raw transaction data.
This would be the case for a Stratum v2 Template Provider which needs to send a `NewTemplate` message (which doesn't include transactions) as quickly as possible.
Builds on #30356 to avoid rebase hell, but does not require it.
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30440)
Suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29432#issuecomment-2225337100
An external program that uses the Mining interface may need quick access to some information in the block template, while it can wait a bit longer for the full raw transaction data.
This would be the case for a Stratum v2 Template Provider which needs to send a `NewTemplate` message (which doesn't include transactions) as quickly as possible.
Builds on #30356 to avoid rebase hell, but does not require it.
...
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: bump boost to 1.85.0 and use new CMake buildsystem":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30434#discussion_r1675940381)
None of the compiled libraries are used, so if this is scoped to Boost, why would it make any difference?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30434#discussion_r1675940381)
None of the compiled libraries are used, so if this is scoped to Boost, why would it make any difference?
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "multiprocess: add bitcoin-mine test program":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-2225616156)
> filling in missing serialization for `CBlockTemplate`
You won't need that if you rebase on #30440, though maybe it's better to wait until that's merged to avoid too much code churn.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-2225616156)
> filling in missing serialization for `CBlockTemplate`
You won't need that if you rebase on #30440, though maybe it's better to wait until that's merged to avoid too much code churn.
🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#pullrequestreview-2175003345)
Thanks for updating! I think 6ccf7cb946bd3772b5fba92246be7e2281f59d09 is good to go.
WIP review on commit 3d63fc976d616436d64335b15a918ffba1883b9a but I initially find it confusing. The diffs below are between your commit and testing some modifications to it.
For instance, the tests that pass a wallet CLI option to a non-wallet CLI command (-generate) seem to be mixing issues under test...
```diff
- # Single or Multi wallet modes don't matter here as -generate command valid
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#pullrequestreview-2175003345)
Thanks for updating! I think 6ccf7cb946bd3772b5fba92246be7e2281f59d09 is good to go.
WIP review on commit 3d63fc976d616436d64335b15a918ffba1883b9a but I initially find it confusing. The diffs below are between your commit and testing some modifications to it.
For instance, the tests that pass a wallet CLI option to a non-wallet CLI command (-generate) seem to be mixing issues under test...
```diff
- # Single or Multi wallet modes don't matter here as -generate command valid
...
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "multiprocess: add bitcoin-mine test program":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-2225687227)
> > filling in missing serialization for `CBlockTemplate`
>
> You won't need that if you include #30440, though maybe it's better to wait until that's merged to avoid too much code churn.
Yeah definitely some of that should not be needed. Some parts will probably be needed though. For example, the initial version of this PR did not support deserializing `CTransaction` or `CBlock` objects (because `CTransaction` does not have an `Unserialize` method, and also requires a version parameter t
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-2225687227)
> > filling in missing serialization for `CBlockTemplate`
>
> You won't need that if you include #30440, though maybe it's better to wait until that's merged to avoid too much code churn.
Yeah definitely some of that should not be needed. Some parts will probably be needed though. For example, the initial version of this PR did not support deserializing `CTransaction` or `CBlock` objects (because `CTransaction` does not have an `Unserialize` method, and also requires a version parameter t
...
📝 Sjors opened a pull request: "[WIP] Add getCoinbaseMerklePath() to Mining interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30441)
Builds on #30440.
This adds `getCoinbaseMerklePath()` to the Mining interface.
Unlike the entire `Mining` interface so far, this is _not_ a refactor. It adds new functionality.
The Stratum v2 [NewTemplate](https://github.com/stratum-mining/sv2-spec/blob/main/07-Template-Distribution-Protocol.md#72-newtemplate-server---client) message is a short message intended to give miners something to do as quickly as possible. It does not include the serialized block transactions. In lieu of that i
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30441)
Builds on #30440.
This adds `getCoinbaseMerklePath()` to the Mining interface.
Unlike the entire `Mining` interface so far, this is _not_ a refactor. It adds new functionality.
The Stratum v2 [NewTemplate](https://github.com/stratum-mining/sv2-spec/blob/main/07-Template-Distribution-Protocol.md#72-newtemplate-server---client) message is a short message intended to give miners something to do as quickly as possible. It does not include the serialized block transactions. In lieu of that i
...
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "multiprocess: add bitcoin-mine test program":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-2225699350)
I'll certainly need `CBlock`. It's probably good to support `CTransaction` as well, as it might allow for more efficiently fetching only missing transactions in a template update, but that would be a future optimisation.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-2225699350)
I'll certainly need `CBlock`. It's probably good to support `CTransaction` as well, as it might allow for more efficiently fetching only missing transactions in a template update, but that would be a future optimisation.
💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet: add target for `CreateTransaction`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29936#issuecomment-2225719837)
> Does it improve if you call `SeedRandomForTest` before every execution of every fuzz input?
Yes, calling `SeedRandomForTest(SeedRand::ZEROS)` at the beginning of every iteration improves stability from 28% to 70%.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29936#issuecomment-2225719837)
> Does it improve if you call `SeedRandomForTest` before every execution of every fuzz input?
Yes, calling `SeedRandomForTest(SeedRand::ZEROS)` at the beginning of every iteration improves stability from 28% to 70%.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "optimization: Speed up Base58 encoding/decoding by 400%/200% via preliminary byte packing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29473#issuecomment-2225722849)
>would this optimization be more welcome in https://github.com/bitcoin/libbase58 instead?
The algorithm used in libbase58 is different, so not sure this even applies. Kinda doubt it would be worth the time to port/review either, unless a library consumer cares about performance or the other criteria explained already here.
If you're just looking for things to do, extending libbase58 to Bech32 might be worth doing. See https://github.com/bitcoin/libbase58/issues/6
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29473#issuecomment-2225722849)
>would this optimization be more welcome in https://github.com/bitcoin/libbase58 instead?
The algorithm used in libbase58 is different, so not sure this even applies. Kinda doubt it would be worth the time to port/review either, unless a library consumer cares about performance or the other criteria explained already here.
If you're just looking for things to do, extending libbase58 to Bech32 might be worth doing. See https://github.com/bitcoin/libbase58/issues/6
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet: add target for `CreateTransaction`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29936#issuecomment-2225766504)
> Yes, calling SeedRandomForTest(SeedRand::ZEROS) at the beginning of every iteration improves stability from 28% to 70%.
Cool, I'll address it.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29936#issuecomment-2225766504)
> Yes, calling SeedRandomForTest(SeedRand::ZEROS) at the beginning of every iteration improves stability from 28% to 70%.
Cool, I'll address it.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "rpc: net: follow-ups for #30062":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30183#issuecomment-2225772868)
@brunoerg thanks for the ping! Reviewing soon.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30183#issuecomment-2225772868)
@brunoerg thanks for the ping! Reviewing soon.
🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "fuzz: bound some miniscript operations to avoid fuzz timeouts"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30197#pullrequestreview-2174940978)
Changes look good, thanks for adding more documentation. Nits can be ignored but I think `HasTooManySubFrag` needs some fixes wrt return statement and type narrowing before ACK.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30197#pullrequestreview-2174940978)
Changes look good, thanks for adding more documentation. Nits can be ignored but I think `HasTooManySubFrag` needs some fixes wrt return statement and type narrowing before ACK.
💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "fuzz: bound some miniscript operations to avoid fuzz timeouts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30197#discussion_r1675958515)
grammar nit
```suggestion
// The fuzzer may generate an input with a ton of parentheses. Rule out pathological cases.
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30197#discussion_r1675958515)
grammar nit
```suggestion
// The fuzzer may generate an input with a ton of parentheses. Rule out pathological cases.
```
💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "fuzz: bound some miniscript operations to avoid fuzz timeouts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30197#discussion_r1675989072)
Should this be `return true`?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30197#discussion_r1675989072)
Should this be `return true`?
💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "fuzz: bound some miniscript operations to avoid fuzz timeouts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30197#discussion_r1676029258)
Suggested simplifications & fixes incorporated in the below snippet:
- typo fixes `prepanded`->`prepended`and `column`->`colon`, `is`->`are`
- remove "Since the miniscript parsing logic...want to limit too large such occurences" since that's not a concern of this function (and already documented in the callsites)
- remove some duplication in the end
```suggestion
// We want to detect nested wrappers. A wrapper is a character prepended to a fragment, separated by a colon. There
//
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30197#discussion_r1676029258)
Suggested simplifications & fixes incorporated in the below snippet:
- typo fixes `prepanded`->`prepended`and `column`->`colon`, `is`->`are`
- remove "Since the miniscript parsing logic...want to limit too large such occurences" since that's not a concern of this function (and already documented in the callsites)
- remove some duplication in the end
```suggestion
// We want to detect nested wrappers. A wrapper is a character prepended to a fragment, separated by a colon. There
//
...
💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "fuzz: bound some miniscript operations to avoid fuzz timeouts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30197#discussion_r1675984593)
nit: could be more consistent by not using a global for one and a default param for the other:
_(note: these diffs do not include the `return true` comment made further down)_
<details>
<summary>git diff on 0d961c1d97</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/src/test/fuzz/util/descriptor.cpp b/src/test/fuzz/util/descriptor.cpp
index c2aa6d9b6a..804fd1cd33 100644
--- a/src/test/fuzz/util/descriptor.cpp
+++ b/src/test/fuzz/util/descriptor.cpp
@@ -87,16 +87,13 @@ bool HasDeepDerivPath(const Fu
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30197#discussion_r1675984593)
nit: could be more consistent by not using a global for one and a default param for the other:
_(note: these diffs do not include the `return true` comment made further down)_
<details>
<summary>git diff on 0d961c1d97</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/src/test/fuzz/util/descriptor.cpp b/src/test/fuzz/util/descriptor.cpp
index c2aa6d9b6a..804fd1cd33 100644
--- a/src/test/fuzz/util/descriptor.cpp
+++ b/src/test/fuzz/util/descriptor.cpp
@@ -87,16 +87,13 @@ bool HasDeepDerivPath(const Fu
...
📝 paplorinc opened a pull request: "Precalculate SipHash constant XOR with k0 and k1 in SaltedOutpointHasher"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30442)
Continuing the IBD-related micro-optimizations (started in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30326), here I'm precalculating the SipHash constants XOR with k0 and k1 for the map hash calculations and short-circuit COutPoint equality check for when collisions happen.
Added benchmarks indicate:
```Python
COutPoint_equality_match - 958,547,217.74/993,139,589.12 - 3.5% slower
COutPoint_equality_mismatch - 2,293,399,716.04/992,569,755.37 - 231% faster
SaltedOutpointHasherBenchmark_create
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30442)
Continuing the IBD-related micro-optimizations (started in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30326), here I'm precalculating the SipHash constants XOR with k0 and k1 for the map hash calculations and short-circuit COutPoint equality check for when collisions happen.
Added benchmarks indicate:
```Python
COutPoint_equality_match - 958,547,217.74/993,139,589.12 - 3.5% slower
COutPoint_equality_mismatch - 2,293,399,716.04/992,569,755.37 - 231% faster
SaltedOutpointHasherBenchmark_create
...
📝 Sjors opened a pull request: "Introduce waitFeesChanged() mining interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30443)
This adds `waitFeesChanged()` to the `Mining` interface.
The Stratum v2 protocol allows pushing out templates as fees in the mempool increase. This interface lets us know when it's time to do so.
Without Cluster Mempool however the implementation is "fake", instead returning every time a transaction is added to the mempool. So for now I'm keeping this draft. It's here to provide a complete and stable Mining interface for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437 to build on.
Unlike
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30443)
This adds `waitFeesChanged()` to the `Mining` interface.
The Stratum v2 protocol allows pushing out templates as fees in the mempool increase. This interface lets us know when it's time to do so.
Without Cluster Mempool however the implementation is "fake", instead returning every time a transaction is added to the mempool. So for now I'm keeping this draft. It's here to provide a complete and stable Mining interface for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437 to build on.
Unlike
...
💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "net: Allow -proxy=[::1] on nodes with IPV6 lo only":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30245#discussion_r1676117378)
Probably, but the examples I've seen are all typically small and exit the program if `getaddrinfo()` returns non-zero.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30245#discussion_r1676117378)
Probably, but the examples I've seen are all typically small and exit the program if `getaddrinfo()` returns non-zero.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "multiprocess: add bitcoin-mine test program":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-2225852563)
I opened draft PRs for all interface changes that I think I will need, see updated comment above: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-2225416191
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-2225852563)
I opened draft PRs for all interface changes that I think I will need, see updated comment above: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-2225416191