🤔 TheCharlatan reviewed a pull request: "Safegcd-based modular inverses in MuHash3072"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21590#pullrequestreview-2369959877)
Concept ACK

💬 panicfarm commented on issue "LevelDB read failure: Corruption: block checksum mismatch":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30159#issuecomment-2414498815)
I wanted to weigh in here. Tried to sync a 27.1 node on a KVM with Ubuntu 24.04.01/xfs. During the initial sync I got mysterious crashes, apparently due to `.dat` files or LevelDB corruption. I unmounted the volume, but `xfs_repair` did not find any filesystem errors. Downgraded the node to `25.0`, segfaults still persisted. I also checked the KVM's RAM with memtest86+, no errors. In the kernel log there were some xfs warnings however.

After this, I reinstalled 24.04.01 on the same KVM with
...

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-2414516227)
Closing as this lacks conceptual support and is still obviously controversial.

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Witness scripts being abused to bypass datacarriersize limit (CVE-2023-50428)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29187)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1801611171)
Good point - I feel like we actually shouldn't be adding the `Assume(IsInvalid())` here then. We don't have the `MempoolAcceptResult` here (and we shouldn't do that imo as txdownloadman.h would have a dependency on validation.h)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1801611396)
Ooh good catch.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1801661898)
Thanks for noticing, very subtle! Added a commit to make this change explicit, though it is overwritten immediately afterwards.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1801662930)
Added a comment that this specifically refers to peers in the map.

I also added a doxygen comment to the `TxDownloadManager` definition saying that this class isn't thread-safe and needs to be externally synced.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#issuecomment-2414663136)
Resolved https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#issuecomment-2391859626 by adding this:

> don't return package if child is in rejects filter(seems most robust?)

I like this suggestion as well:

> Call TxOrphanage::EraseTx using both txid and wtxid in this case (witness-free tx can never be valid)

I've dropped the one_honest_peer fuzzer and plan to open it as a separate PR, because it's quite a large portion of the new code and imo underripe compared to the rest of the changes.
...

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "wallet: Deniability API (Unilateral Transaction Meta-Privacy)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27792#issuecomment-2414671643)
Its true there was a lack of interest to review this pull request and its not the best tool for privacy. However, a worse way to do the same thing was used in Samourai earlier and still available in Ashigaru. Ricochet fee is 0.001 BTC for the default 4 hops, with an additional fee for each extra hop beyond 4.



http://ashicodepbnpvslzsl2bz7l2pwrjvajgumgac423pp3y2deprbnzz7id.onion/Ashigaru/Ashigaru-Mob
...

⚠️ D33r-Gee opened an issue: "cpp: exposing AssumeUTXO functionality to the GUI (QML) via the Node interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31094)
### Issues, reports or feature requests related to the GUI should be opened directly on the GUI repo

- [X] I still think this issue should be opened here

### Report

To facilitate UTXO snapshot loading through the GUI, specifically for the QML implementation, we need to extend the Node interface in [src/interfaces/node.h](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/interfaces/node.h) and provide a corresponding implementation in [src/node/interfaces.cpp](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitco
...

💬 adamandrews1 commented on pull request "fees: document non-monotonic estimation edge case":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31080#discussion_r1801864730)
Nit: The lead is a bit buried here. I would plainly state "Monotonically increasing estimates are not guaranteed in certain data-sparse scenarios. In particular, (fill in the rest of your comment)"

💬 jarolrod commented on issue "cpp: exposing AssumeUTXO functionality to the GUI (QML) via the Node interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31094#issuecomment-2415197540)
I don't think this needs an issue opened up here yet, the draft implementation linked isn't ready for review.

It would be unclear who the user would be now in relation to this repo with the Qt Widgets GUI not having a design to represent AssumeUTXO states.

Issues related to the QML GUI should be contained in that [repo](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml), until it's clearly relevant here.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "rpc: add `revelant_blocks` to `scanblocks status`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30713#issuecomment-2415235999)
> Perhaps @furszy, that https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26780 on a https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23549#pullrequestreview-1105712566 of the rpc command, has an idea if it's possible (and if worth it).

Not sure if it worth it but could craft an unit test that calls to the RPC command. Subclassing and setting the block manager class so the file opening method "stops" at a certain point. It would mimic the delay.

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "fees: document non-monotonic estimation edge case":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31080#discussion_r1802066494)
Thanks, I'm happy to take this suggestion. What do you think about:

* Note: Monotonically increasing estimates are not guaranteed in certain
* data-sparse scenarios. In particular, if estimateCombinedFee returns no
* valid data (-1) for some estimates for a lower target, but does return
* valid data for a higher target, the estimate can theoretically return a
* higher value for higher targets.

💬 adamandrews1 commented on pull request "fees: document non-monotonic estimation edge case":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31080#discussion_r1802068118)
Great - LGMT

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "test: Introduce ensure_for helper"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30893#pullrequestreview-2370781495)
ACK 352b8209aa5

✅ D33r-Gee closed an issue: "cpp: exposing AssumeUTXO functionality to the GUI (QML) via the Node interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31094)

💬 D33r-Gee commented on issue "cpp: exposing AssumeUTXO functionality to the GUI (QML) via the Node interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31094#issuecomment-2415254311)
Makes sense... thanks for catching that... closing the issue