💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "signet: fixing mining for OP_TRUE challenge":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29032#discussion_r1758151930)
This comment should probably be in the "advanced usage" section at the bottom? I think the PSBT is still technically necessary there, it's just that you'd go `getblocktemplate | genpsbt | solvepsbt | submitblock` skipping the `walletprocesspsbt | jq -r .psbt` step as there's nothing to sign.

Hmm, except that doesn't actually work, since only `generate` has been updated to work with trivial challenges. I think `solvepsbt` should be also, which can be done by:

```diff
-def get_solution_from
...

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "signet: fixing mining for OP_TRUE challenge":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29032#discussion_r1758225739)
Could consider checking manual mining as well:

```python
# generate block with signet miner tool
def mine_block_manual(self, node):
assert_equal(node.getblockcount(), 1)
base_dir = self.config["environment"]["SRCDIR"]
signet_miner_path = os.path.join(base_dir, "contrib", "signet", "miner")
base_cmd = [
sys.executable,
signet_miner_path,
f'--cli={node.cli.binary} -datadir={node.cli.datadir}',

...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "streams: cache file position within AutoFile":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30884#discussion_r1758234047)
Handling i/o errors (eg partial reads/writes can be considered fatal for disk i/o) is always important, but yes even more-so now that the file pointer is cached and might get out of sync with the world.

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "Intermittent failure in tool_wallet.py in self.assert_tool_output('', '-wallet=salvage', 'salvage') : assert_equal(p.poll(), 0) ; AssertionError: not(3221226505 == 0)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30894)
https://github.com/maflcko/bitcoin-core-with-ci/actions/runs/10833872949/job/30079686125#step:12:1068


```
test 2024-09-12T23:30:54.661000Z TestFramework (INFO): Check salvage

...

node0 2024-09-12T23:30:55.537324Z [shutoff] [D:\a\bitcoin-core-with-ci\bitcoin-core-with-ci\src\wallet\bdb.cpp:608] [Flush] [walletdb] BerkeleyEnvironment::Flush: [D:\a\_temp\test_runner_₿_🏃_20240912_231657\tool_wallet_222\node0\regtest\wallets\salvage] Flush(false) database not started
node0 2024-09
...

💬 jaybny commented on issue "GUI event loop should be block free":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17145#issuecomment-2348122731)
qt has a tool that will build on android with qmake. not sure how much work
this would be, but it's doable. ffiw

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024, 4:57 AM maflcko ***@***.***> wrote:

> Ok, and Android support was blocked on cmake or qt6, or was it both?
> (Sorry for using this thread, but I couldn't find the tracking issue).
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17145#issuecomment-2346089167>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com
...

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "streams: cache file position within AutoFile":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30884#discussion_r1758262463)
Out of scope but I found while reviewing: Is there any reason why `AutoFile::ignore()` couldn't be removed and `AutoFile::seek(nSize, SEEK_CURR)` used instead?

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "fuzz: Test headers pre-sync through p2p":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30661#issuecomment-2348253473)
ACK a97f43d63a6e835bae20b0bc5d536df98f55d8a0

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Increasing self-hosted runner raw performance":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30852#issuecomment-2348255358)
The thing is that workers are "shuffled" by type, so one run may happen one one machine and another run of the same task may happen on another machine. It is of course possible to make each task its own type, but that seems a bit too much maintenance overhead when tasks are added or removed in one branch, but not all. As you mentioned earlier, it is of course also possible to set up a remote ccache. However, I think this is similarly going to be more maintenance overhead and extra moving parts,
...

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "refactor: move m_is_inbound out of CNodeState":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30233#discussion_r1758356166)
should we assert the result of this code instead of dropping it on the floor?

👍 naumenkogs approved a pull request: "refactor: move m_is_inbound out of CNodeState"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30233#pullrequestreview-2302367391)
ACK 07f4cebe5780f1039541d989e64b70eccc5b4eb5

👍 naumenkogs approved a pull request: "test: addrman: tried 3 times and never a success so `isTerrible=true`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30445#pullrequestreview-2302379127)
ACK d6fabbe2d40b53f6fa35d6b0191f3d73999d6b41

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#issuecomment-2348274066)
Re: dust UTXO creation, MARA has told me directly that they do not enforce the dust limit at all, and IIUC F2Pool does not as well. I haven't however personally tested this.

On September 13, 2024 3:08:05 AM GMT+03:00, Suhas Daftuar ***@***.***> wrote:
>@sdaftuar commented on this pull request.
>
>
>
>> @@ -934,6 +935,13 @@ bool MemPoolAccept::PreChecks(ATMPArgs& args, Workspace& ws)
> fSpendsCoinbase, nSigOpsCost, lock_points.value()));
> ws.m_vsize = ent
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Nuke format linter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30530#issuecomment-2348277045)
The next step is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30889

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1758381743)
@sdaftuar

Re: dust UTXO creation, MARA has told me directly that they do not enforce the dust limit at all, and IIUC F2Pool does not as well. I haven't however personally tested this.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "signet: fixing mining for OP_TRUE challenge":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29032#discussion_r1758386359)
Taken

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "signet: fixing mining for OP_TRUE challenge":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29032#discussion_r1758386457)
Moved the comment down and taken the suggestion.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "signet: fixing mining for OP_TRUE challenge":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29032#discussion_r1758386552)
Also taken, and added a signed example.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "signet: fixing mining for OP_TRUE challenge":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29032#issuecomment-2348304975)
Also rebased, just in case that helps with CI.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Have createNewBlock() return a BlockTemplate interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30440#issuecomment-2348323823)
Rebased for cmake (no changes).

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Drop -dbcache limit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28358#discussion_r1758414459)
I'm not sure what "available" means here? The amount of RAM used by other processes can vary wildly, especially on a desktop computer.

In any case, I prefer to leave changes to the text to a followup.