💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#issuecomment-2292561601)
Built and ran tests successfully with 67b1e236334f38ec4e4d2251dbdfb790f20ed88b
More details:

Debian 12.6
cmake version 3.25.1
gcc/g++ (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0

```
cmake -B build
cmake --build build -j18
ctest --test-dir build
```

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Replace ParseHex with consteval HexLiteral":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30377#discussion_r1719324036)
Is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29369 related or possibly a fix?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Replace ParseHex with consteval HexLiteral":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30377#discussion_r1719345193)
style nit in 84c830f27fd62db4a9cb93bf6d28a86f7751e504: Could use `std::byte` as default? (See below for reasoning)

(Reply to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30377#discussion_r1719000295)

I think your link should say https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30377#discussion_r1716903532

This is a newly introduced function, so I think changing it should not extend to untouched files.
To clarify, I am not saying that you should switch callers to use `std::byte`, only the default.

...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Replace ParseHex with consteval HexLiteral":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30377#discussion_r1719367069)
> It's because part of my goal with this PR was to etch these bytes into the runtime binary. Things that can be done at compile time without too much hassle should be done at compile time IMO.
>
> If we go the `Vec(HexLiteral` route at least it becomes shorter.

Makes sense, thanks for looking into it!

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: Faster utxo_snapshot fuzz target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30644#discussion_r1719382540)
Sure, fixed the style

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: Faster utxo_snapshot fuzz target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30644#discussion_r1719384643)
Sure, removed the ranges include.

(Maybe another reason to enforce iwyu in the CI)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Move maximum timewarp attack threshold back to 600s from 7200s":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30647#issuecomment-2292976404)
@maflcko for this test I set `enforce_BIP94 = true` for regtest. I just updated the branch to set `nPowTargetTimespan` to 144.

@TheBlueMatt feel free to take all or some of that code. Otherwise I'll open a followup.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Move maximum timewarp attack threshold back to 600s from 7200s":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30647#issuecomment-2293002597)
> `enforce_BIP94 = true` for regtest

I guess it is fine to do, but if this change is taken, it would be good to add a short release note snippet with a `Tests` section about this change. Otherwise people may wonder why their fancy regtest chain isn't working anymore due to a testnet4 rule (`time-timewarp-attack`). (Also, the code comment could be updated to say testnet4/regtest)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Move maximum timewarp attack threshold back to 600s from 7200s":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30647#issuecomment-2293028876)
@maflcko added

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: add functional test for XORed block/undo files (`-blocksxor` option)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30657#discussion_r1719562102)
```
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/nvme0n1p2 468G 110G 335G 25% /
```
It worked with gcc. `./configure` didn't like libc++-17. After reboot I can't get it to fail anymore (also I don't mean to hold up this PR)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: add functional test for XORed block/undo files (`-blocksxor` option)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30657#issuecomment-2293114610)
ACK faa1b9b0e6d

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: [refactor] Use g_rng/m_rng directly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30571#discussion_r1719563783)
q in f1c1b37d2247eed49156c0467daa68aa38497bb8: Can you explain why this change is correct? `SeedRandomForTest` is doing two things:

* Set the internal global RNGState
* Reseed the passed `g_insecure_rand_ctx`

Removing `g_insecure_rand_ctx` does not remove the need to make the fuzz tests deterministic and stable.

I'll drop this change as well.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: [refactor] Use g_rng/m_rng directly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30571#discussion_r1719563882)
> so it could still be used conveniently to seed m_rng.

Not sure. The "feature" is only used in three places, two of which will be removed in the last commit.

So it just seems easier to drop this change and instead move the call to `Reseed` from this function to the only place that needs it.

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "3 more security enhancements"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30663)
Please see the detailed description in the commits below.

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "Adding security"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30662)
Adding two security enhancements. Please see the detailed description in the two commits below.
Thanks.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: add functional test for XORed block/undo files (`-blocksxor` option)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30657#discussion_r1719575839)
> After reboot I can't get it to fail anymore (also I don't mean to hold up this PR)

Thanks for checking. This is really helpful to make sure that the feature isn't shipped to users with bugs included.

My random guess would be that there was a process running on your machine which accidentally or intentionally put files into all folders in `/tmp/`. However, based on your check with `ls --all` on the temp folder, which didn't reveal any hidden files, this may be something else, or a race (a
...

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "ci: failure in `wallet_multiwallet.py --legacy-wallet` - (`void wallet::UnloadWallet(std::shared_ptr<CWallet> &&): Assertion 'it.second' failed.`)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29073)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: failure in `wallet_multiwallet.py --legacy-wallet` - (`void wallet::UnloadWallet(std::shared_ptr<CWallet> &&): Assertion 'it.second' failed.`)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29073#issuecomment-2293145694)
Closing for now. I think the test may still fail intermittently, however the bitcoind *crash* should be fixed.

I'd say it is the best to open a new issue for the test failure, once it happens again.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "cluster mempool: optimized candidate search":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30286#discussion_r1719620550)

Here's what I get on 255571339e7:
```
| ns/op | op/s | err% | total | benchmark
|--------------------:|--------------------:|--------:|----------:|:----------
| 724,714.00 | 1,379.85 | 2.4% | 0.01 | `Linearize32TxWorstCase15000Iters`
| 245,712.75 | 4,069.79 | 0.3% | 0.01 | `Linearize32TxWorstCase5000Iters`
| 688,589.50 | 1,452.24 | 5.2% | 0.01 | :wavy_dash: `Linearize48
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: [refactor] Use g_rng/m_rng directly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30571#discussion_r1719621319)
Done: Force pushed to remove this presumed bug in the last commit