💬 furszy commented on pull request "bench: add support for custom data directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31000#discussion_r1788763177)
Hmm well, I'm still a bit reluctant to it. It would add `test/util/setup_common.h` dependency to the benchmark binary entry point just for a single line of code.

💬 kilianmh commented on issue "RFC: Formal description of the RPC API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29912#issuecomment-2395240266)
Thank you for your comments @hodlinator

1.

> A more automated way would be to do something like the Golang RPC doc generator in my first link above.

Indeed, autogeneration is the best way forward. I just did copy paste to showcase what can be done.

2.

> Conversely, have you noticed anything bitcoind does that goes against the OpenRPC spec?

You mentioned the main thing that i am not sure of if it is possible:

> JSON-RPC interface only uses [one main path + wallet path](https
...

💬 1440000bytes commented on issue "Listen on random port by default (not 8333)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31036#issuecomment-2395248735)
There are 7000 IPv4 and 2000 IPv6 nodes. I expect this ratio to continue for next 10 years based on this [adoption](https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption).

IPv4 nodes will not be able to benefit from non-default port support because of DNS seeds and IPv6.

💬 melvincarvalho commented on issue "[Testnet] Insufficient data or no feerate found":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31032#issuecomment-2395402903)
@azazar There are currently 3 working faucets (which imho is much better than testnet3):

https://github.com/testnet4/awesome-testnet4?tab=readme-ov-file#faucets

I know vkbit is looking into creating a faucet, and I’ve got one in progress as well. If you’re working on testnet4 projects, feel free to reach out to me directly (Nostr/Twitter), and I can share some of what I’ve got.

From what I can tell, blocks are being CPU mined roughly every 20 minutes, though timestamps are spoofed by +2
...

⚠️ fanquake opened an issue: "RPC breakage with v28.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31039)
If you're experiencing issues with Bitcoin Core 28.x, and using RPC, please report them here.

💬 sipa commented on issue "RPC breakage with v28.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31039#issuecomment-2395421935)
Known issues:
* Some software sends the JSON-RPC version as a number (`"version": 1.0`) instead of as a string (`"version": "1.0"`), which fails the sanity check introduced with JSON-RPC 2.0 compatibility (#27101).
* The `"warnings"` field returned by some RPCs (`getblockchaininfo`, `getmininginfo`, and `getnetworkinfo`) is now an array instead of a string. The old behavior can be re-enabled by running with `-deprecatedrpc=warning`.

💬 sipa commented on issue "RPC breakage with v28.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31039#issuecomment-2395422943)
LND up to 0.18.3 seems to be incompatible with Bitcoin Core 28.0 due to the `"warnings"` field change: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/9053.

💬 sipa commented on issue "RPC breakage with v28.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31039#issuecomment-2395424053)
The `bitcoin-rpc` NPM package seems to be incompatible with Bitcoin Core 28.0 due to sending an incorrect version type: https://github.com/vansergen/rpc-bitcoin/pull/65.

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "RPC breakage with v28.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31039#issuecomment-2395424261)
The value for "version" was never checked and still is not. The value for "jsonrpc" since @27101 MUST be a string. If that string is "1.0" then the old JSONRPC behavior is followed (since some old documentation incorrectly recommended this). If that string is "2.0" then the new JSONRPC behavior is followed.

Sending any other string or value type for "jsonrpc" returns a parsing error.

💬 sipa commented on issue "RPC breakage with v28.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31039#issuecomment-2395424650)
@pinheadmz Thanks, fixed.

💬 dr-orlovsky commented on issue "RPC breakage with v28.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31039#issuecomment-2395438242)
I do experience.

Basically mempool electrs v3.0.0 in combination with Bitcoin Core v28.0 kill each other once Bitcoin core stops IBS and mempool load

💬 ketominer commented on issue "RPC breakage with v28.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31039#issuecomment-2395440376)
> The `bitcoin-rpc` NPM package seems to be incompatible with Bitcoin Core 28.0 due to sending an incorrect version type: [vansergen/rpc-bitcoin#65](https://github.com/vansergen/rpc-bitcoin/pull/65).

Which FWIW in turn affects Dojo which uses this library. Dojo Coder is aware of the issue and working on changing the RPC client library or fixing rpc-bitcoin but it seems pretty much unmaintained.

💬 sipa commented on issue "RPC breakage with v28.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31039#issuecomment-2395440892)
@dr-orlovsky Does running with `-deprecatedrpc=warnings` fix your issue?

💬 epiccurious commented on issue "RPC breakage with v28.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31039#issuecomment-2395452735)
Saw someone's tweet about having to increase `rpcworkqueue`.

https://x.com/_behodler/status/1842657622018683198

📝 kevkevinpal opened a pull request: "test: Assert that when we add the max orphan amount that we cannot add anymore and that a random orphan gets dropped"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31040)
After joining the bitcoin pr review club about https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30793

I learned about [`CVE-2012-3789`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/net_processing.cpp#L4693)

So I was motivated to write a functional test that covers this part of the code,

This test should add the max number of orphans to a nodes orphanage and then attempt to add another, then asserts that the number of orphans is still at the max amount

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Remove 0.16.3 test from wallet_backwards_compatibility.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30920#issuecomment-2395476278)
I keep seeing the shutdown bug, also locally:

```
test 2024-10-03T15:31:32.242000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test that wallets created in master are too new for 0.16
test 2024-10-03T15:31:32.242000Z TestFramework.node11 (DEBUG): Stopping node
test 2024-10-03T15:31:32.340000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Unexpected exception caught during testing
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/ci_container_base/test/function
...

💬 garlonicon commented on issue "[Testnet] Insufficient data or no feerate found":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31032#issuecomment-2395484489)
> Testnet coins are nearly impossible to get without an ASIC

Meanwhile, some coins are sitting for hundreds of confirmations in addresses, spendable by anyone: https://mempool.space/testnet4/address/tb1pfees9rn5nz

Also, the whole problem is not because of ASICs, but because of CPUs. Every time, when some ASIC block is there, then the current time is put into the block, which is why after one ASIC block, you can immediately see a bunch of CPU blocks following it. So, mining on top of ASIC b
...

🤔 tdb3 reviewed a pull request: "test: Assert that when we add the max orphan amount that we cannot add anymore and that a random orphan gets dropped"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31040#pullrequestreview-2350562205)
Concept ACK
Thanks, this is useful!
I'm uncertain if this check is better suited for `p2p_orphan_handling` or `rpc_getorphantxs` (or for a `feature_orphanage` or `mempool_orphanage`). If `p2p_orphan_handling` is the preferred location, I'm happy to include your commit (preserving you as author) in #31037.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/functional/README.md#naming-guidelines

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r1789154195)
From https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#pullrequestreview-2337118352:
> > It'd be good if [49b0256](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/49b025636be266fa17cbb4cdb9d541c0e71f2ef8) explained why bumping to 12 is needed, as the Qt 6 supported platforms for Linux claims anything down to GCC 9 should be supported: https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/supported-platforms.html#linux-x11. I'm guessing this is just because we are using 12 to compile the bins, and could also be worked around.

All ne
...

💬 dr-orlovsky commented on issue "RPC breakage with v28.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31039#issuecomment-2395525458)
@sipa yes, it fixed! However this arg is undocumented. Also, I believe that without it Bitcoin Core should not crash but just disconnect the client.

Anyway, I have a solution for the urgent problem, the rest waits. Thank you!