💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#issuecomment-2303916729)
> I do agree with @Pantamis in [#24539 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#issuecomment-1320276112) that having it take 3x the space of **TxIndex** seems unfortunate, would prefer it used `CDiskTxPos` for the values. Edit: Would require disallowing pruning again.

To make the index more efficient we could replace the indexed outpoint with an 8 byte value `{block height|tx pos|output index}` and use the block height where the tx is spent instead of the full spending tx id,
...

💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#discussion_r1726455725)
done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539/commits/20b259332ff1d2e6ca6b291ffeda00b51497bbed

💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#discussion_r1726456027)
done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539/commits/20b259332ff1d2e6ca6b291ffeda00b51497bbed

💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#discussion_r1726456158)
done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539/commits/20b259332ff1d2e6ca6b291ffeda00b51497bbed

💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#discussion_r1726456332)
done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539/commits/20b259332ff1d2e6ca6b291ffeda00b51497bbed

💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#discussion_r1726456688)
done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539/commits/20b259332ff1d2e6ca6b291ffeda00b51497bbed

💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#discussion_r1726457244)
done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539/commits/20b259332ff1d2e6ca6b291ffeda00b51497bbed

💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#discussion_r1726457390)
done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539/commits/20b259332ff1d2e6ca6b291ffeda00b51497bbed

💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#discussion_r1726459734)
done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539/commits/20b259332ff1d2e6ca6b291ffeda00b51497bbed

💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#discussion_r1726460114)
done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539/commits/20b259332ff1d2e6ca6b291ffeda00b51497bbed

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1725185420)
woops, fixed now

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1724970034)
done

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1725375345)
added tests for orphans with rejected parents

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1724970656)
done

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1725358054)
It makes them potentially larger transactions?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1725187075)
> womp womp

Can you be a bit more specific :joy:

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1725359052)
done

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1725360295)
I thought they were all positive?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1725361680)
added

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1725374135)
should it? seems more complete if it handles all types, and we test them