💬 ajtowns commented on issue "Package Relay Project Tracking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27463#issuecomment-1510836263)
FWIW, I don't think "incentive compatibility" is a good description of our goal here -- I think there's three goals we want:

- for most normal use cases (including newly invented ones) just submitting your txs over p2p should work fine
- (otherwise people will tend to use centralised tx submission methods, which creates a chokepoint that will attract censorship)
- running a plain bitcoind should get you block templates within 90%-99% of optimal, depending on the resources you can alloc
...

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "mempool: disallow txns under min relay fee, even in packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#issuecomment-1510851570)
> I'm not really sure where to draw the line between useful and not useful

I think "submitpackage" would count as obviously useful if it was available on mainnet -- even without package relay, a miner could expose that via a web form to allow people to do cpfp bumps when the (miner's) mempool is full, eg.

I was viewing that RPC more as "here's a way of exposing some code we're working on so we can test it while it's in development", but if you look at it as "here's something that would be
...

💬 glozow commented on issue "Package Relay Project Tracking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27463#issuecomment-1510857791)
> I think at a high level, the "package relay" part looks like:

Yes, that is how I think of it.

> Particularly if https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933 is applied, is there any reason not to make submitpackage available on
all chains? It should behave no differently to submitting the transactions individually with a non-full mempool, no?

Somewhat. It's still a little bit weird when you submit a child-with-parents where a parent relies on the other (grep "Check that validation
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "bugfix: Properly handle "unknown" Address Type":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27473#issuecomment-1510914279)
Looks like this may have been introduced in f5649db9d5e984ba7f376ccfd5b0a627f5c42402, so not a regression in 25.x, but 24.x?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Mishandled "unknown" Address Type":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27472#issuecomment-1510918616)
I wonder if `src/test/fuzz/rpc.cpp` should be updated to include a wallet somehow to catch issues like this

💬 glozow commented on pull request "mempool: disallow txns under min relay fee, even in packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#issuecomment-1510988023)
6fb01d2...563a2ee addressed
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#discussion_r1164418072
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#discussion_r1164429604
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#discussion_r1164445008
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#discussion_r1164445361

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: fix compiling bdb with clang-16 on aarch64":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27462#issuecomment-1510990661)
I've updated the commit message and PR description with more information.

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "depends: fix compiling bdb with clang-16 on aarch64"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27462#pullrequestreview-1387633138)
ACK f8b8458276983f8fc1e2a47c4d00c1e30633067d, tested on Ubuntu Lunar (`aarch64`) with:
```
make -C depends bdb CC=clang-16 CXX=clang++-16
```
and
```
make -C depends bdb CC=clang-16 CXX="clang++-16 -stdlib=libc++"
```

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: prune Boost headers in depends":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24742#issuecomment-1511090446)
Added a commit to make this based on Boost 1.82.0.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: use LLVM/clang-16 in native_asan job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27360#issuecomment-1511093145)
Lunar should be released on the 20th, https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/lunar-lobster-release-schedule/27284, and hopefully the Gioogle Cloud images will be available shortly after that.

👍 vasild approved a pull request: "build: Fix USDT detection on FreeBSD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27458#pullrequestreview-1387810492)
ACK 468cf43ce8c38d6d92506fe22446d04e147e6786

The actual source code does not pass strings and it is better to test for whatever the source code will use. Maybe adjust the PR title/OP and the commit message.

> AFAIK no one has looked into using them on FreeBSD

I would use them, please :)

> I just saw that there's a dtrace port for FreeBSD too

DTrace has been part of the FreeBSD base system [since 2009](https://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.1R/announce/). This is why I found it strange
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "mempool: disallow txns under min relay fee, even in packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#issuecomment-1511209727)
Last push fixes + tests the case where package meets mempool min feerate, but hits maxmempool and is evicted immediately. Don't know why I hadn't been testing that already, my bad.

> I think "submitpackage" would count as obviously useful if it was available on mainnet -- even without package relay, a miner could expose that via a web form to allow people to do cpfp bumps when the (miner's) mempool is full, eg.

That makes sense to me as a useful use case, though I'm unsure if we should enc
...

💬 epompeii commented on issue "Continuous benchmark tracking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27284#issuecomment-1511266170)
If using https://codespeed.bitcoinperf.com doesn't work out, I have created a continuous benchmarking for doing exactly this, Bencher: https://github.com/bencherdev/bencher

Bencher tracks changes over time. It can easily be run in CI as a GitHub Action, and it has statistical thresholds to detect deviations.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "bugfix: rest: avoid segfault for invalid URI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27468#issuecomment-1511328493)
Updated changes:
- Fixed issue detected by @theStack on the `rest/mempool` endpoint that was also calling `GetQueryParameter()`.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: skip netgroup diversity follow-up":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27467#discussion_r1168692041)
Thanks @vasild, done.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "bugfix: Properly handle "unknown" Address Type":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27473#issuecomment-1511385387)
ACK 0d6383fda04a99726654945a737bbb1369e0e44a

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "bugfix: rest: avoid segfault for invalid URI"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27468#pullrequestreview-1388121074)
re-ACK 11422cc

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: fix bumpfee 'spend_one_input' occasional failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27471#issuecomment-1511388532)
ACK e07dd5fff9eb64d7615ab515b351e296c00b1861

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "bugfix: rest: avoid segfault for invalid URI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27468#issuecomment-1511393882)
ACK 11422cc5720c8d73a87600de8fe8abb156db80dc

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "bugfix: Properly handle "unknown" Address Type":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27473#issuecomment-1511418996)
lgtm ACK 0d6383fda04a99726654945a737bbb1369e0e44a

In a follow-up, might be good to at least add a regression test, or even extend the fuzz tests, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27472#issuecomment-1510918616