💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "mempool: disallow txns under min relay fee, even in packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#discussion_r1164429604)
name the 200 `low_fee_amt` and reuse everywhere?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#discussion_r1164429604)
name the 200 `low_fee_amt` and reuse everywhere?
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "mempool: disallow txns under min relay fee, even in packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#discussion_r1164445008)
use `parent_fee`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#discussion_r1164445008)
use `parent_fee`
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "mempool: disallow txns under min relay fee, even in packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#discussion_r1164445361)
use `child_fee`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#discussion_r1164445361)
use `child_fee`
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Allow configuring target block time for a signet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27446#discussion_r1164490851)
Any reason to leak implementation details (`__func__`) to the user when it doesn't add any value? `-signetblocktime cannot be set without -signetchallenge` should be self-explanatory?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27446#discussion_r1164490851)
Any reason to leak implementation details (`__func__`) to the user when it doesn't add any value? `-signetblocktime cannot be set without -signetchallenge` should be self-explanatory?
💬 earuak commented on pull request "Remove BIP35 mempool p2p message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27426#issuecomment-1505730664)
Concept ACK
The BIP35 mempool P2P message, as you mentioned, was originally introduced as a way to share the txids in a node's mempool. However, as you also mentioned, it is no longer widely used and has been closed behind the NetPermissionFlags::Mempool flag due to privacy concerns.
Based on this, it seems reasonable to simplify the P2P code by removing this message, as long as this can be done without changing the protocol version. However, before doing so, it is important to ensure t
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27426#issuecomment-1505730664)
Concept ACK
The BIP35 mempool P2P message, as you mentioned, was originally introduced as a way to share the txids in a node's mempool. However, as you also mentioned, it is no longer widely used and has been closed behind the NetPermissionFlags::Mempool flag due to privacy concerns.
Based on this, it seems reasonable to simplify the P2P code by removing this message, as long as this can be done without changing the protocol version. However, before doing so, it is important to ensure t
...
👍 pinheadmz approved a pull request: "Fix logging RPC and -debugexclude with 0/none values, add test coverage, improve docs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#pullrequestreview-1381837068)
ACK e9f6fd0e028e6a5669926926792c70c31a26c403
reviewed code, built and ran tests locally. played with feature in regtest, tried to break it, couldn't break it.
just one non-busting question below
<details><summary>Show Signature</summary>
```
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
ACK e9f6fd0e028e6a5669926926792c70c31a26c403
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE5hdzzW4BBA4vG9eM5+KYS2KJyToFAmQ29zkACgkQ5+KYS2KJ
yTqh4hAAwBBMTmfeyYhdSTLpO2hma6GolZdUdvzOYdMhADsu
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#pullrequestreview-1381837068)
ACK e9f6fd0e028e6a5669926926792c70c31a26c403
reviewed code, built and ran tests locally. played with feature in regtest, tried to break it, couldn't break it.
just one non-busting question below
<details><summary>Show Signature</summary>
```
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
ACK e9f6fd0e028e6a5669926926792c70c31a26c403
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE5hdzzW4BBA4vG9eM5+KYS2KJyToFAmQ29zkACgkQ5+KYS2KJ
yTqh4hAAwBBMTmfeyYhdSTLpO2hma6GolZdUdvzOYdMhADsu
...
💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Fix logging RPC and -debugexclude with 0/none values, add test coverage, improve docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#discussion_r1164470470)
Could you combine this into one function? You have another method called `EnableOrDisableLogCategories()` in `node.cpp` which might be confusing. And unlike in `node.cpp`, I don't think the `common.cpp` method is called anywhere else besides `SetLoggingCategories()`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#discussion_r1164470470)
Could you combine this into one function? You have another method called `EnableOrDisableLogCategories()` in `node.cpp` which might be confusing. And unlike in `node.cpp`, I don't think the `common.cpp` method is called anywhere else besides `SetLoggingCategories()`
👋 mzumsande's pull request is ready for review: "p2p: Restrict self-advertisements with privacy networks to avoid fingerprinting"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27411)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27411)
💬 earuak commented on issue "BIP158: block filter encoding is inefficient in case of hash collisions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27003#issuecomment-1505742416)
The problem described in relation to the BIP158 is indeed a real problem. When two different elements map to the same hash value (hash collision), the block filter ends up containing a higher number of false positives than expected.
The most common solution for dealing with hash collisions is to use a hash function with a lower collision probability, such as SHA-256 instead of SHA-512. In addition, insertion of duplicate elements in the block filter can be avoided by adding functionality to r
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27003#issuecomment-1505742416)
The problem described in relation to the BIP158 is indeed a real problem. When two different elements map to the same hash value (hash collision), the block filter ends up containing a higher number of false positives than expected.
The most common solution for dealing with hash collisions is to use a hash function with a lower collision probability, such as SHA-256 instead of SHA-512. In addition, insertion of duplicate elements in the block filter can be avoided by adding functionality to r
...
💬 earuak commented on pull request "#24049 Issue: Update nScore datatype":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27386#issuecomment-1505745232)
948 / 5.000
Resultados de tradução
Resultado da tradução
Got it, but it's important to remember that by changing the nScore data type from int to int64_t, you may be affecting other parts of the code that depend on the nScore data type. Make sure all other nScore related variables and functions have also been updated to the correct data type.
Also, remember to verify that the required storage size for the int64_t data type is supported on all platforms and operating systems your code will
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27386#issuecomment-1505745232)
948 / 5.000
Resultados de tradução
Resultado da tradução
Got it, but it's important to remember that by changing the nScore data type from int to int64_t, you may be affecting other parts of the code that depend on the nScore data type. Make sure all other nScore related variables and functions have also been updated to the correct data type.
Also, remember to verify that the required storage size for the int64_t data type is supported on all platforms and operating systems your code will
...
💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "test: cover addrv2 anchors by adding TorV3 to CAddress in messages.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27452#discussion_r1164505857)
sure, done thanks!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27452#discussion_r1164505857)
sure, done thanks!
💬 earuak commented on pull request "contrib: add tool to convert compact-serialized UTXO set to SQLite database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27432#issuecomment-1505768561)
Based on the description of the problem and the proposed solution, I can say that adding a simple Python script to create an SQLite database for the UTXO set looks like a viable solution. Scripting appears to be an effective solution for handling the UTXO set in a format that is readable and manageable. Additionally, the included functional testing appears to be a good practice to ensure data integrity. Overall, it appears to be a reasonable solution to users' demand to get the UTXO set in an SQ
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27432#issuecomment-1505768561)
Based on the description of the problem and the proposed solution, I can say that adding a simple Python script to create an SQLite database for the UTXO set looks like a viable solution. Scripting appears to be an effective solution for handling the UTXO set in a format that is readable and manageable. Additionally, the included functional testing appears to be a good practice to ensure data integrity. Overall, it appears to be a reasonable solution to users' demand to get the UTXO set in an SQ
...
💬 benthecarman commented on pull request "Allow configuring target block time for a signet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27446#discussion_r1164527141)
added
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27446#discussion_r1164527141)
added
💬 earuak commented on pull request "doc: remove incorrect line from example":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27454#issuecomment-1505774463)
My suggestion would be to revise the example and remove the offending line to avoid confusion for users. Perhaps you could add a brief explanation about the automatic presence of entries when using **walletcreatefundedpsbt** to help clarify this for users. Something like:
"Note that when using **walletcreatefundedpsbt**, entries are automatically included in the transaction and do not need to be specified separately."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27454#issuecomment-1505774463)
My suggestion would be to revise the example and remove the offending line to avoid confusion for users. Perhaps you could add a brief explanation about the automatic presence of entries when using **walletcreatefundedpsbt** to help clarify this for users. Something like:
"Note that when using **walletcreatefundedpsbt**, entries are automatically included in the transaction and do not need to be specified separately."
💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Export a watch wallet only (with descriptors and without private keys) for an air gap setup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24829#issuecomment-1505778435)
Ok I just pulled v24.0.1 and repeated steps with CLI and GUI, same outcome -- are you still unable to do this?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24829#issuecomment-1505778435)
Ok I just pulled v24.0.1 and repeated steps with CLI and GUI, same outcome -- are you still unable to do this?
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "Fix logging RPC and -debugexclude with 0/none values, add test coverage, improve docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#discussion_r1164530898)
Good question. Both of the `EnableOrDisableLogCategories()` functions are created in this PR. They are doing pretty much the same thing, but are not trivially combinable into one function (maybe for a follow-up). If one is changed, it's likely that both should be (maybe a comment to that effect should be added to them), so I named them the same in order that searching/git grepping returns both. That, along with how extracting that function simplifies `SetLoggingCategories` to highlight that bot
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#discussion_r1164530898)
Good question. Both of the `EnableOrDisableLogCategories()` functions are created in this PR. They are doing pretty much the same thing, but are not trivially combinable into one function (maybe for a follow-up). If one is changed, it's likely that both should be (maybe a comment to that effect should be added to them), so I named them the same in order that searching/git grepping returns both. That, along with how extracting that function simplifies `SetLoggingCategories` to highlight that bot
...
💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Fix logging RPC and -debugexclude with 0/none values, add test coverage, improve docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#discussion_r1164533054)
Cool, just to be clear I meant combining this `EnableOrDisableLogCategories()` into ` SetLoggingCategories()` and then you only have one named `EnableOrDisableLogCategories()` in the code over in node.cpp
> That, along with how extracting that function simplifies SetLoggingCategories to highlight that both options are being plugged into the same code, were the motivations.
okie doke 👍
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#discussion_r1164533054)
Cool, just to be clear I meant combining this `EnableOrDisableLogCategories()` into ` SetLoggingCategories()` and then you only have one named `EnableOrDisableLogCategories()` in the code over in node.cpp
> That, along with how extracting that function simplifies SetLoggingCategories to highlight that both options are being plugged into the same code, were the motivations.
okie doke 👍
⚠️ Bandarfaqih opened an issue: "Enhancing Bitcoin Privacy Protocol Bip Proposal"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.
This BIP proposes the direct implementation of several privacy and anonymity-enhancing features in the Bitcoin protocol, including CoinJoin, zk-SNARKs, ring signatures, and stealth addresses directly into the Bitcoin protocol. These features were envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto and other contributors as essential tools for preserving user privacy on the network.
Motivation
Bitcoin's and Bitcoin current level of privacy and anonymity
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.
This BIP proposes the direct implementation of several privacy and anonymity-enhancing features in the Bitcoin protocol, including CoinJoin, zk-SNARKs, ring signatures, and stealth addresses directly into the Bitcoin protocol. These features were envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto and other contributors as essential tools for preserving user privacy on the network.
Motivation
Bitcoin's and Bitcoin current level of privacy and anonymity
...
💬 fanquake commented on issue "Enhancing Bitcoin Privacy Protocol Bip Proposal":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455#issuecomment-1505791472)
Thanks. However as I said last time you posted this. This is not the right place to post this.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455#issuecomment-1505791472)
Thanks. However as I said last time you posted this. This is not the right place to post this.
✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Enhancing Bitcoin Privacy Protocol Bip Proposal"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455)