💬 glozow commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#issuecomment-2471185762)
reACK 5c2e291060c via range-diff. Nothing but a rebase and removing the conflict.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "valgrind: Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29635#issuecomment-2471199603)
I think we could move to Ocular (gives us Valgrind 3.23.0, and we remember to switch to 25 before June), Clang 18 (31273) + some suppressions. Was running some tests of #31273 + this diff:
```bash
diff --git a/ci/test/00_setup_env_native_fuzz_with_valgrind.sh b/ci/test/00_setup_env_native_fuzz_with_valgrind.sh
index d3c95af99e..f0e8e92889 100755
--- a/ci/test/00_setup_env_native_fuzz_with_valgrind.sh
+++ b/ci/test/00_setup_env_native_fuzz_with_valgrind.sh
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@

export LC_ALL
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "optimization: change XOR obfuscation key from `std::vector<std::byte>{8}` to `uint64_t`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#issuecomment-2471201204)
> Wouldn't that require a cmake generation step from binary to header which would basically produce the exact same lines as what we have now?

Yes. See `bench/data/block413567.raw` & `bench/data/block413567.raw.h`, where at build time a header file of ~`125'000` lines is produced.

> Would it help if I simply extracted it to a separate header file instead?

I don't think so. The point is more to not add 100'000s of lines of "data" to this repo, which doesn't scale across many benchmarks, c
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: enhance p2p_orphan_handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31037#issuecomment-2471202429)
nice cleanup :+1:

💬 maflcko commented on issue "valgrind: Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29635#issuecomment-2471212773)
> I think we could move to Ocular (gives us Valgrind 3.23.0

Isn't valgrind 3.22 enough, so we could just stay with the LTS Ubuntu? Also, the suppression won't work for libc++, likely. Not sure if this is worth it to support.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "valgrind: Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29635#issuecomment-2471216093)
> Also, the suppression won't work for libc++

We aren't using libc++ though?

💬 jb55 commented on issue "Fatal LevelDB error: Corruption: block checksum mismatch on Linux ext4 SATA SSDs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30692#issuecomment-2471226445)
fwiw I ran a full memtest for 4 hours and had no memory issues, so at this point I have no idea. it seems to be running stable for now.

💬 jb55 commented on issue "Fatal LevelDB error: Corruption: block checksum mismatch on Linux ext4 SATA SSDs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30692#issuecomment-2471227779)
@laanwj suggested to post the utxoset when it gets corrupted again, will do that when it does.

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "Ephemeral Dust"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#pullrequestreview-2430361343)
re-ACK 5c2e291060cca3be500f3af0f6f2d3fd2177a7c9

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838568129)
mmm, seems like a test of generateblock to me? going to leave as is

📝 instagibbs opened a pull request: "policy: ephemeral dust followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31279)
Here are the parent PR's comments that should be addressed by this PR:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239/files#r1834529646
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239/files#r1831247308
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239/files#r1832622481
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239/files#r1831195216
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1835805164
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1835805164
https://github.com/bitcoin
...

💬 ariard commented on pull request "Halt processing of unrequested transactions v2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30572#issuecomment-2471402156)
> I was seeing were mostly non-segwit transactions - not unsolicited transactions. The problematic commit seems to be https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c7bc444d02d34273a0a42806745e6a32b3146143.

@0xB10C Thanks, that’s interesting. I’ll dig into the `TxRequester`, if due to switching from iterating by status to iterate by peers, if the processing for non-segwit transactions and segwit transactions is always the same.

—————

>Between 2024-10-29T22:50:51 and 2024-10-29T23:54 the nod
...

⚠️ southunitedraza opened an issue: "https://fb.gg/play/bravoslotsgame/d/1090680746136943/"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31280)
https://fb.gg/play/bravoslotsgame/d/1090680746136943/

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "https://fb.gg/play/bravoslotsgame/d/1090680746136943/"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31280)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "https://fb.gg/play/bravoslotsgame/d/1090680746136943/"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31280)

🤔 fjahr reviewed a pull request: "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#pullrequestreview-2430637810)
Did you try to follow the approach suggested here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31088#issuecomment-2413394142? If not, can you say why it didn't work?

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#discussion_r1838736610)
Examples copy+pasted but not updated

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#discussion_r1838745844)
Why "will be deprecated"? Why not actually deprecate it?

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#discussion_r1838750890)
I don't think that's the right description

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#discussion_r1838736093)
Why 2014-2022?