💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1811083287)
Agreed, done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1811083287)
Agreed, done.
💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1811084319)
Thanks that is much better; the only reason I had introduced `GetAggregateFeeRate()` was for access in this one place, so now that is gone.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1811084319)
Thanks that is much better; the only reason I had introduced `GetAggregateFeeRate()` was for access in this one place, so now that is gone.
💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#issuecomment-2429804570)
Thanks @glozow and @ismaelsadeeq for the review; I've incorporated some of the comments. If you have suggestions for how the logging can be improved in the package RBF case (and how the USDT tracing messages can be improved, similarly) please let me know your thoughts.
Also, I wanted to flag that the locking is a bit of a mess in this branch. Initially, I tried to add lock annotations to the `CTxMemPoolChangeSet` functions to guarantee that the mempool itself was locked whenever any of thos
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#issuecomment-2429804570)
Thanks @glozow and @ismaelsadeeq for the review; I've incorporated some of the comments. If you have suggestions for how the logging can be improved in the package RBF case (and how the USDT tracing messages can be improved, similarly) please let me know your thoughts.
Also, I wanted to flag that the locking is a bit of a mess in this branch. Initially, I tried to add lock annotations to the `CTxMemPoolChangeSet` functions to guarantee that the mempool itself was locked whenever any of thos
...
💬 laanwj commented on pull request "cleanse: switch to SecureZeroMemory for Windows cross-compile":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26950#issuecomment-2429812545)
i think the goal here was to make Windows code consistent between MSVC and mingw. MSVC is windows' official toolchain so it's leading for that. Using something else for Mingw could be considered a workaround.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26950#issuecomment-2429812545)
i think the goal here was to make Windows code consistent between MSVC and mingw. MSVC is windows' official toolchain so it's leading for that. Using something else for Mingw could be considered a workaround.
💬 jonatack commented on pull request "rpc, cli: return "verificationprogress" of 1 when up to date":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31135#discussion_r1811126433)
Note to self, using the "validated" field isn't a good check here, best to use blockheight equals headers as in getblockchaininfo.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31135#discussion_r1811126433)
Note to self, using the "validated" field isn't a good check here, best to use blockheight equals headers as in getblockchaininfo.
📝 jonatack converted_to_draft a pull request: "rpc, cli: return "verificationprogress" of 1 when up to date"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31135)
in getblockchaininfo/-getinfo and getchainstates, as requested in issues https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31127 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26433. Verification progress estimates in the debug logging remain unchanged.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31135)
in getblockchaininfo/-getinfo and getchainstates, as requested in issues https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31127 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26433. Verification progress estimates in the debug logging remain unchanged.
💬 Kasucode101 commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-2429867912)
In coding see the difference between natural coding and human coding beyond AI coding to measure code performance in Financial technology use case in pursuit of transition from bad money to good money in money market regardless of block chain/cryptocurrency or Quantum financial technology not only in creation/source of money but also in spending/allocation of money with developed/preferred/conscious plan rather than less plan with more budget leading to wasting resources even terrible ideas beyo
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-2429867912)
In coding see the difference between natural coding and human coding beyond AI coding to measure code performance in Financial technology use case in pursuit of transition from bad money to good money in money market regardless of block chain/cryptocurrency or Quantum financial technology not only in creation/source of money but also in spending/allocation of money with developed/preferred/conscious plan rather than less plan with more budget leading to wasting resources even terrible ideas beyo
...
💬 TheBlueMatt commented on issue "Mining Interface doesn't allow for Bitcoin Core to create blocks when it wants":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31109#issuecomment-2429943359)
> But aren't we holding cs_main throughout the process?
Doesn't mean we can't build a new block. There's several ways we might build a new block here - (a) we might precalculate an oversized next-next-block in advance and just walk through and quickly remove conflicts to get us mining on a non-empty template as fast as possible, (b) we might delay updating the mempool entirely waiting on new block building - if we're mining the most important thing is the new work (and relay might work withou
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31109#issuecomment-2429943359)
> But aren't we holding cs_main throughout the process?
Doesn't mean we can't build a new block. There's several ways we might build a new block here - (a) we might precalculate an oversized next-next-block in advance and just walk through and quickly remove conflicts to get us mining on a non-empty template as fast as possible, (b) we might delay updating the mempool entirely waiting on new block building - if we're mining the most important thing is the new work (and relay might work withou
...
💬 wonder75 commented on issue "LevelDB read failure: Corruption: block checksum mismatch":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30159#issuecomment-2430050545)
> I haven't seen any data corruption since Sept 12, so at this point I can't really give you any information to duplicate the problem.
>
Hallo @apulsifer,
could you please provide information on how to fix this problem when it occurs? I suffer from frequent levelDB corruptions too and found no way to fix the problem other than redoing the Initial Block Download. After that it might work for a week or a month until the next corruption. Would really like to know a way to manuly fix this issu
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30159#issuecomment-2430050545)
> I haven't seen any data corruption since Sept 12, so at this point I can't really give you any information to duplicate the problem.
>
Hallo @apulsifer,
could you please provide information on how to fix this problem when it occurs? I suffer from frequent levelDB corruptions too and found no way to fix the problem other than redoing the Initial Block Download. After that it might work for a week or a month until the next corruption. Would really like to know a way to manuly fix this issu
...
💬 apulsifer commented on issue "LevelDB read failure: Corruption: block checksum mismatch":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30159#issuecomment-2430072059)
I'm running on Amazon EC2 (Elastic Compute), and have multiple servers running bitcoind. The servers all have the bitcoin data directory stored on a dedicated EBS (Elastic Block Store) volume. If one fails, I have been snapshot'ing the volume on a working server and copying it over to the failed server. Time to repair is about 30 minutes. (Reindex also does not work for me, but I'm running pruned mode, and reindex is documented to not work in prune mode.)
The only thing I could suggest for yo
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30159#issuecomment-2430072059)
I'm running on Amazon EC2 (Elastic Compute), and have multiple servers running bitcoind. The servers all have the bitcoin data directory stored on a dedicated EBS (Elastic Block Store) volume. If one fails, I have been snapshot'ing the volume on a working server and copying it over to the failed server. Time to repair is about 30 minutes. (Reindex also does not work for me, but I'm running pruned mode, and reindex is documented to not work in prune mode.)
The only thing I could suggest for yo
...
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#discussion_r1811269497)
done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#discussion_r1811269497)
done
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#discussion_r1811270698)
hmm, it's a fair bit of code difference because we essentially need to get `BroadcastTransaction` grafted into place, then also return the proper `PackageMempoolAcceptResult` details vs the coarse details returned by it. My attempt required quite a bit of churn and additional testing required for a small feature like this, so I'm keeping as-is.
I'm also thinking now that gating the call via `package-not-child-with-unconfirmed-parents` check is the right thing to do. The further we stray from
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#discussion_r1811270698)
hmm, it's a fair bit of code difference because we essentially need to get `BroadcastTransaction` grafted into place, then also return the proper `PackageMempoolAcceptResult` details vs the coarse details returned by it. My attempt required quite a bit of churn and additional testing required for a small feature like this, so I'm keeping as-is.
I'm also thinking now that gating the call via `package-not-child-with-unconfirmed-parents` check is the right thing to do. The further we stray from
...
💬 apulsifer commented on issue "LevelDB read failure: Corruption: block checksum mismatch":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30159#issuecomment-2430081120)
Suggestion for bitcoind code maintainers-- As I've mentioned, I believe this data corruption happens but is not detected until a few days later when bitcoind attempts to read an older block (for whatever reason, idk). It would be very handy if there were some utility or bitcoind RPC command or command line option that read and checked every file on the disk, or all the files containing data from the prior X days or X blocks. That would help users ensure that they have a known good copy/backup of
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30159#issuecomment-2430081120)
Suggestion for bitcoind code maintainers-- As I've mentioned, I believe this data corruption happens but is not detected until a few days later when bitcoind attempts to read an older block (for whatever reason, idk). It would be very handy if there were some utility or bitcoind RPC command or command line option that read and checked every file on the disk, or all the files containing data from the prior X days or X blocks. That would help users ensure that they have a known good copy/backup of
...
💬 sipa commented on issue "LevelDB read failure: Corruption: block checksum mismatch":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30159#issuecomment-2430085267)
`gettxoutsetinfo` should read through all the chainstate LevelDB files.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30159#issuecomment-2430085267)
`gettxoutsetinfo` should read through all the chainstate LevelDB files.
💬 syaifulnizamiphone7 commented on pull request "RFC: build: support for pre-compiled headers.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31053#issuecomment-2430102161)
> The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
>
> ### Code Coverage
> For detailed information about the code coverage, see the [test coverage report](https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/31053).
>
> ### Reviews
> See [the guideline](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-review) for information on the review process.
>
> Type Reviewers
> Concept ACK [TheCharlatan](https://github.com/bi
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31053#issuecomment-2430102161)
> The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
>
> ### Code Coverage
> For detailed information about the code coverage, see the [test coverage report](https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/31053).
>
> ### Reviews
> See [the guideline](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-review) for information on the review process.
>
> Type Reviewers
> Concept ACK [TheCharlatan](https://github.com/bi
...
⚠️ mzumsande opened an issue: "Remove BIP94 from regtest"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31137)
[BIP94](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0094.mediawiki) which, amongst others, fixes the timewarp attack on testnet4, has been activated on regtest by #30681 (commit https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30681/commits/e85f386c4b157b7d1ac16aface9bd2c614e62b46), in order to allow having a functional test for the new testnet4 behavior.
As I argued in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30681#pullrequestreview-2275751672 I believe that regtest's main task is to test mainnet
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31137)
[BIP94](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0094.mediawiki) which, amongst others, fixes the timewarp attack on testnet4, has been activated on regtest by #30681 (commit https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30681/commits/e85f386c4b157b7d1ac16aface9bd2c614e62b46), in order to allow having a functional test for the new testnet4 behavior.
As I argued in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30681#pullrequestreview-2275751672 I believe that regtest's main task is to test mainnet
...
💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "Have miner account for timewarp mitigation, activate on regtest, lower nPowTargetTimespan to 144 and add test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30681#issuecomment-2430181845)
Forgot about this until last week - I opened issue #31137 to continue discussion.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30681#issuecomment-2430181845)
Forgot about this until last week - I opened issue #31137 to continue discussion.
👋 jonatack's pull request is ready for review: "rpc, cli: return "verificationprogress" of 1 when up to date"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31135)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31135)
👍 hodlinator approved a pull request: "fees: Remove CLIENT_VERSION serialization"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29702#pullrequestreview-2386255699)
ACK fa8bd0be8432fda3c7312050433a6deb6722a073
Have a slight preference for the commit removing CLIENT_VERSION and the commit introducing CURRENT_FEES_FILE_VERSION being one and the same in order to give a more complete picture of the change.
Used hexdump to inspect old *~/.bitcoin/regtest/fee_estimates.dat* and *~/.bitcoin/fee_estimates.dat* files, confirming that the first two little-endian integers correspond to the *minimum required version* and *CLIENT_VERSION* (version that wrote).
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29702#pullrequestreview-2386255699)
ACK fa8bd0be8432fda3c7312050433a6deb6722a073
Have a slight preference for the commit removing CLIENT_VERSION and the commit introducing CURRENT_FEES_FILE_VERSION being one and the same in order to give a more complete picture of the change.
Used hexdump to inspect old *~/.bitcoin/regtest/fee_estimates.dat* and *~/.bitcoin/fee_estimates.dat* files, confirming that the first two little-endian integers correspond to the *minimum required version* and *CLIENT_VERSION* (version that wrote).
...
💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "fees: Remove CLIENT_VERSION serialization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29702#discussion_r1811355454)
Yes, in case it somehow gets corrupted or modified by an entirely different software, that makes sense.
Appreciated if you re-touch.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29702#discussion_r1811355454)
Yes, in case it somehow gets corrupted or modified by an entirely different software, that makes sense.
Appreciated if you re-touch.