💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: update manual tor/i2p/cjdns mainnet seeds for 25.x":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488#issuecomment-1513714579)
Bringing out of draft after finishing the manual seeds updates and taking review feedback.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488#issuecomment-1513714579)
Bringing out of draft after finishing the manual seeds updates and taking review feedback.
👋 jonatack's pull request is ready for review: "p2p: update manual tor/i2p/cjdns mainnet seeds for 25.x"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488)
📝 Muhammedhamid23 opened a pull request: "2023"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27489)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27489)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...
✅ pinheadmz closed a pull request: "2023"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27489)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27489)
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: update hardcoded mainnet seeds for 25.x":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488#issuecomment-1513731469)
> cc @Emzy
Yes. We checked in earlier today. Probably late evening now, pinged him over IRC to have a look.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488#issuecomment-1513731469)
> cc @Emzy
Yes. We checked in earlier today. Probably late evening now, pinged him over IRC to have a look.
📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "2023"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27489)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27489)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->
<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...
💬 Emzy commented on pull request "p2p: update hardcoded mainnet seeds for 25.x":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488#issuecomment-1513738537)
ACK.
Verified that my nodes are added.
They are long running. And I plan to run them for the foreseeable future.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488#issuecomment-1513738537)
ACK.
Verified that my nodes are added.
They are long running. And I plan to run them for the foreseeable future.
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "RPC: Accept options as named-only parameters":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26485#issuecomment-1513771771)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26485#issuecomment-1507916357
@ajtowns I like the safety check you suggested, and agree it could catch some programming errors. But I also think what `send` and `sendall` functions are trying to do to provide compatibility is reasonable, and adding the check would limit what they are able to do.
`send` and `sendall` currently accept `conf_target`, `estimate_mode` and `fee_rate` values as positional parameters (1), or as named parameters (2), or a
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26485#issuecomment-1513771771)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26485#issuecomment-1507916357
@ajtowns I like the safety check you suggested, and agree it could catch some programming errors. But I also think what `send` and `sendall` functions are trying to do to provide compatibility is reasonable, and adding the check would limit what they are able to do.
`send` and `sendall` currently accept `conf_target`, `estimate_mode` and `fee_rate` values as positional parameters (1), or as named parameters (2), or a
...
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "p2p: update hardcoded mainnet seeds for 25.x":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488#issuecomment-1513776313)
What criteria is used to choose the manually selected nodes?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488#issuecomment-1513776313)
What criteria is used to choose the manually selected nodes?
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Extract common/args from util/system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27419#discussion_r1170558620)
> I checked it and its history again and can't think of a good reason either. Should I amend here, or go for the follow up?
Either way seems fine. Would be nice to turn these into simple includes, but I was asking mostly out of curiosity
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27419#discussion_r1170558620)
> I checked it and its history again and can't think of a good reason either. Should I amend here, or go for the follow up?
Either way seems fine. Would be nice to turn these into simple includes, but I was asking mostly out of curiosity
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: update hardcoded mainnet seeds for 25.x":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488#issuecomment-1513791528)
> What criteria is used to choose the manually selected nodes?
Reachability, uptime, returned by getnodeaddresses (!IsTerrible), and service bit 1. Some are run by colleagues or known persons in the space, in some cases since a long time.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488#issuecomment-1513791528)
> What criteria is used to choose the manually selected nodes?
Reachability, uptime, returned by getnodeaddresses (!IsTerrible), and service bit 1. Some are run by colleagues or known persons in the space, in some cases since a long time.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: update hardcoded mainnet seeds for 25.x":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488#issuecomment-1513792371)
https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder/issues/92 and https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder/pull/101 could simplify the process when done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488#issuecomment-1513792371)
https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder/issues/92 and https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder/pull/101 could simplify the process when done.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Allow configuring target block time for a signet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27446#issuecomment-1513814497)
-0
If we want to allow for more configurable signet consensus rules, then I think we need to do it in a more robust way rather than ad-hoc adding options that all users must remember to set if they want to use a particular signet. As these are consensus parameters, forgetting to set the option correctly will result in eventual consensus failure which is generally only resolved by nuking the data directory. This may garner additional and unnecessary issues being opened in this repo which we ge
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27446#issuecomment-1513814497)
-0
If we want to allow for more configurable signet consensus rules, then I think we need to do it in a more robust way rather than ad-hoc adding options that all users must remember to set if they want to use a particular signet. As these are consensus parameters, forgetting to set the option correctly will result in eventual consensus failure which is generally only resolved by nuking the data directory. This may garner additional and unnecessary issues being opened in this repo which we ge
...
💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: when a block is disconnected, update transactions that are no longer conflicted":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#discussion_r1170596878)
I have implemented this suggestion, I agree that it is much clearer now.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#discussion_r1170596878)
I have implemented this suggestion, I agree that it is much clearer now.
💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: when a block is disconnected, update transactions that are no longer conflicted":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#discussion_r1170597818)
I implemented your next suggestion about simplifying the code in the lambda, so the comments are a bit different now but I did add them back.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#discussion_r1170597818)
I implemented your next suggestion about simplifying the code in the lambda, so the comments are a bit different now but I did add them back.
💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: when a block is disconnected, update transactions that are no longer conflicted":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#discussion_r1170598598)
This is simpler and it is a small change so I've implemented it in this commit.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#discussion_r1170598598)
This is simpler and it is a small change so I've implemented it in this commit.
💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: when a block is disconnected, update transactions that are no longer conflicted":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#discussion_r1170599011)
I have added it back.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#discussion_r1170599011)
I have added it back.
💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: when a block is disconnected, update transactions that are no longer conflicted":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#discussion_r1170599147)
Done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#discussion_r1170599147)
Done
💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: when a block is disconnected, update transactions that are no longer conflicted":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#discussion_r1170599313)
Done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#discussion_r1170599313)
Done
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "Add wallet method to detect if a key is "active"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27216#discussion_r1170606402)
Interesting, though only 3 of the 8 seem to be extraneous annotations (two in `src/base58.cpp` and one in `src/node/eviction.cpp`, and the one in `src/script/descriptor.cpp` should just have `static` added).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27216#discussion_r1170606402)
Interesting, though only 3 of the 8 seem to be extraneous annotations (two in `src/base58.cpp` and one in `src/node/eviction.cpp`, and the one in `src/script/descriptor.cpp` should just have `static` added).