🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "scripted-diff: Modernize nLocalServices naming"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30885)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30885)
🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "bench: add support for custom data directory"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31000#pullrequestreview-2355854106)
tACK ded1a6cc498ffde0695eb3ee6828b7c513ccc277
<details>
<summary>Tested on Ubuntu 22.04 locally and using an external USB.</summary>
```
./build/src/bench/bench_bitcoin -filter=Xor -testdatadir=/tmp/btc
Warning, results might be unstable:
* DEBUG defined
* CPU frequency scaling enabled: CPU 0 between 400.0 and 4,700.0 MHz
* CPU governor is 'powersave' but should be 'performance'
* Turbo is enabled, CPU frequency will fluctuate
Recommendations
* Make sure you compile for Release
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31000#pullrequestreview-2355854106)
tACK ded1a6cc498ffde0695eb3ee6828b7c513ccc277
<details>
<summary>Tested on Ubuntu 22.04 locally and using an external USB.</summary>
```
./build/src/bench/bench_bitcoin -filter=Xor -testdatadir=/tmp/btc
Warning, results might be unstable:
* DEBUG defined
* CPU frequency scaling enabled: CPU 0 between 400.0 and 4,700.0 MHz
* CPU governor is 'powersave' but should be 'performance'
* Turbo is enabled, CPU frequency will fluctuate
Recommendations
* Make sure you compile for Release
...
💬 VivaRado commented on issue "support BIP39 mnemonic in descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19151#issuecomment-2401402365)
Excuse the spam, but here is our implementation of bip39 with UI in JS, that we use for account access control, client and server side with checksum recalculation. https://github.com/VivaRado/BIP39UI
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19151#issuecomment-2401402365)
Excuse the spam, but here is our implementation of bip39 with UI in JS, that we use for account access control, client and server side with checksum recalculation. https://github.com/VivaRado/BIP39UI
🤔 Imebeez reviewed a pull request: "[28.x] backports and finalize"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30959#pullrequestreview-2356142508)
N-2
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30959#pullrequestreview-2356142508)
N-2
🤔 Imebeez reviewed a pull request: "[26.0] Finalize or rc4"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28959#pullrequestreview-2356143151)
N-2
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28959#pullrequestreview-2356143151)
N-2
🤔 stratospher reviewed a pull request: "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#pullrequestreview-2054783141)
ACK b588ff8. went through the noise protocol spec. also sharing a [pictorial represantion of the NX handshake](https://github.com/stratospher/blogosphere/blob/main/noise.pdf) if it's useful to other reviewers.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#pullrequestreview-2054783141)
ACK b588ff8. went through the noise protocol spec. also sharing a [pictorial represantion of the NX handshake](https://github.com/stratospher/blogosphere/blob/main/noise.pdf) if it's useful to other reviewers.
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1776344227)
b4a84ab: any reason for skipping 29?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1776344227)
b4a84ab: any reason for skipping 29?
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1791964862)
b588ff8: nit: could move the MixHash log up (after `DecryptAndHash`)and before Validate log for more clarity.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1791964862)
b588ff8: nit: could move the MixHash log up (after `DecryptAndHash`)and before Validate log for more clarity.
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1791274447)
b588ff8: shouldn't this be "Noise_NX_Secp256k1+EllSwift_ChaChaPoly_SHA256" (from spec)?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1791274447)
b588ff8: shouldn't this be "Noise_NX_Secp256k1+EllSwift_ChaChaPoly_SHA256" (from spec)?
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1792116481)
b588ff8: typo - s/ephmeral/ephemeral in a few places.
since the template provider behaves as the server and only performs the responder handshake flow, it might be useful to mention initiator handshake flow is just for tests.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1792116481)
b588ff8: typo - s/ephmeral/ephemeral in a few places.
since the template provider behaves as the server and only performs the responder handshake flow, it might be useful to mention initiator handshake flow is just for tests.
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1792055061)
b588ff8: (micro nit/feel free to ignore) could `return m_cs1.EncryptMessage` to keep it consistent with how it's done in `DecryptMessage`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1792055061)
b588ff8: (micro nit/feel free to ignore) could `return m_cs1.EncryptMessage` to keep it consistent with how it's done in `DecryptMessage`.
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1792872756)
b588ff8: `(valid_from < now) && (valid_to > now)`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1792872756)
b588ff8: `(valid_from < now) && (valid_to > now)`
💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1792239111)
d08a2ebf: sv2 is OFF when fuzzing - so we need to turn it ON here to fuzz locally. Also the sv2 fuzz tests aren't run on the CI.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1792239111)
d08a2ebf: sv2 is OFF when fuzzing - so we need to turn it ON here to fuzz locally. Also the sv2 fuzz tests aren't run on the CI.
💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "Halt processing of unrequested transactions v2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30572#issuecomment-2401651398)
> Is anyone running this currently with the code set to always enforce or just log? it would be useful to know at what rate nodes are currently seeing unsolicited.
I switched one of my monitoring nodes to run https://github.com/0xB10C/bitcoin/commit/ba39837d999407a55c3784059f7cf07bdbdfce76 to collect some data on this. Having a glance at the logs since yesterday, I've mostly seen the same few peers sending me unsolicited transactions - at a rate of a few per minute.
> I'm particularly inte
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30572#issuecomment-2401651398)
> Is anyone running this currently with the code set to always enforce or just log? it would be useful to know at what rate nodes are currently seeing unsolicited.
I switched one of my monitoring nodes to run https://github.com/0xB10C/bitcoin/commit/ba39837d999407a55c3784059f7cf07bdbdfce76 to collect some data on this. Having a glance at the logs since yesterday, I've mostly seen the same few peers sending me unsolicited transactions - at a rate of a few per minute.
> I'm particularly inte
...
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "refactor: include the proper header rather than forward-declaring RemovalReasonToString"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31058)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31058)
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "RFC: build: support for pre-compiled headers.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31053#issuecomment-2401784317)
> Combining with #30911 produces even more of a speedup (with Make, ninja is about the same).
Why are ninja builds not affected?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31053#issuecomment-2401784317)
> Combining with #30911 produces even more of a speedup (with Make, ninja is about the same).
Why are ninja builds not affected?
💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-2401821128)
`a51c2cdda5...09a7394759`: silence the bogus GCC warning about uninitialized `std::optional`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-2401821128)
`a51c2cdda5...09a7394759`: silence the bogus GCC warning about uninitialized `std::optional`
💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-2401828752)
`09a7394759...6b10008441`: rebase due to conflicts
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-2401828752)
`09a7394759...6b10008441`: rebase due to conflicts
💬 dergoegge commented on issue "Disallow building fuzz binary without `-DBUILD_FOR_FUZZING`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31057#issuecomment-2401942272)
> I build with these options to be able to be able to know if changes not related to fuzzing will break the build.
I assumed (incorrectly) that almost no one would be doing this anymore since building the fuzz binary is no longer the default behavior. What I'm proposing would require you to do a separate build with `-DBUILD_FOR_FUZZING=ON`, which is of course annoying if you just want to check that the fuzz binary compiles.
Another assumption I have (perhaps also incorrect) is that no one
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31057#issuecomment-2401942272)
> I build with these options to be able to be able to know if changes not related to fuzzing will break the build.
I assumed (incorrectly) that almost no one would be doing this anymore since building the fuzz binary is no longer the default behavior. What I'm proposing would require you to do a separate build with `-DBUILD_FOR_FUZZING=ON`, which is of course annoying if you just want to check that the fuzz binary compiles.
Another assumption I have (perhaps also incorrect) is that no one
...
💬 VivaRado commented on issue "support BIP39 mnemonic in descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19151#issuecomment-2402017418)
So we delete the comment about BIP39 UI implementation because @junderw down voted, without probably even looking at the code. @junderw your behavior is not appreciated. If you do not have something constructive to add, avoid negative displays of grandeur.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19151#issuecomment-2402017418)
So we delete the comment about BIP39 UI implementation because @junderw down voted, without probably even looking at the code. @junderw your behavior is not appreciated. If you do not have something constructive to add, avoid negative displays of grandeur.