💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Have createNewBlock() ensure m_tip_block is set":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31785#issuecomment-2631596373)
There were slightly more worms in this can.
Instead I've now changed `createNewBlock()` to first call `waitTipChanged()` and the latter to return null during a shutdown. This shifts some work to the RPC, but I think makes the overall behaviour easier to understand.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31785#issuecomment-2631596373)
There were slightly more worms in this can.
Instead I've now changed `createNewBlock()` to first call `waitTipChanged()` and the latter to return null during a shutdown. This shifts some work to the RPC, but I think makes the overall behaviour easier to understand.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Have createNewBlock() wait for tip, make rpc handle shutdown during long poll and wait methods":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31785#discussion_r1939755012)
The latest push has `waitTipChanged` and `createNewBlock` return null if the node shuts down, and documentation is updated to reflect that.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31785#discussion_r1939755012)
The latest push has `waitTipChanged` and `createNewBlock` return null if the node shuts down, and documentation is updated to reflect that.
✅ Sjors closed a pull request: "Pass custom DEP_OPTS and CONFIG_FLAGS to guix-build"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31763)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31763)
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add waitNext() to BlockTemplate interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31283#discussion_r1939763961)
> though I could include it here.
It turned into a bigger change than I expected, so better to keep it separate from this. I don't think it's blocking.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31283#discussion_r1939763961)
> though I could include it here.
It turned into a bigger change than I expected, so better to keep it separate from this. I don't think it's blocking.
💬 fanquake commented on issue "test: 32-bit Clang `ipc_test` failure at `-O0`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31772#issuecomment-2631693290)
cc @ryanofsky
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31772#issuecomment-2631693290)
cc @ryanofsky
📝 MonkeyKing44 opened a pull request: "Corrected typos"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31788)
### Changes
1. **File:** `/contrib/guix/INSTALL.md`
- Fixed `debbugs` to `debugs, bedbugs` (Line 761)
1. **File:** `/doc/psbt.md`
- Fixed `Asend` to `Ascend, As end` (Line 129)
1. **File:** `/doc/tracing.md`
- Fixed `stap` to `step, stop` (Line 378)
### Purpose
- EImproved the documentation's clarity and professional tone.
- Corrected small grammatical errors to enhance comprehension.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31788)
### Changes
1. **File:** `/contrib/guix/INSTALL.md`
- Fixed `debbugs` to `debugs, bedbugs` (Line 761)
1. **File:** `/doc/psbt.md`
- Fixed `Asend` to `Ascend, As end` (Line 129)
1. **File:** `/doc/tracing.md`
- Fixed `stap` to `step, stop` (Line 378)
### Purpose
- EImproved the documentation's clarity and professional tone.
- Corrected small grammatical errors to enhance comprehension.
🤔 pinheadmz reviewed a pull request: "guix: Notarize MacOS app bundle and codesign all MacOS and Windows binaries"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31407#pullrequestreview-2590596665)
I'm hitting an error with `guix-codesign`. I am just focusing on `HOSTS=arm64-apple-darwin`, guix build of: ba67aa681e9b28a9992636fec4e06b26b3c3422e
SHASUMS.part:
```
462617a5476e946e10be8624d73b531041c8abf4628a35038d65b80534de768a arm64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-ba67aa681e9b-arm64-apple-darwin-codesigning.tar.gz
2583965a7ecbcf48946bcb7676cf6b39a04cee44b34c6292d81cbb825f0d35df arm64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-ba67aa681e9b-arm64-apple-darwin-unsigned.tar.gz
96f25391136c5e3f77b6dfb4e027aa1f43ccc91ed
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31407#pullrequestreview-2590596665)
I'm hitting an error with `guix-codesign`. I am just focusing on `HOSTS=arm64-apple-darwin`, guix build of: ba67aa681e9b28a9992636fec4e06b26b3c3422e
SHASUMS.part:
```
462617a5476e946e10be8624d73b531041c8abf4628a35038d65b80534de768a arm64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-ba67aa681e9b-arm64-apple-darwin-codesigning.tar.gz
2583965a7ecbcf48946bcb7676cf6b39a04cee44b34c6292d81cbb825f0d35df arm64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-ba67aa681e9b-arm64-apple-darwin-unsigned.tar.gz
96f25391136c5e3f77b6dfb4e027aa1f43ccc91ed
...
💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "guix: Notarize MacOS app bundle and codesign all MacOS and Windows binaries":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31407#discussion_r1939779580)
output file is actually `signature-osx-executable.tar.gz`
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31407#discussion_r1939779580)
output file is actually `signature-osx-executable.tar.gz`
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939695630)
Taken, thanks @pinheadmz
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939695630)
Taken, thanks @pinheadmz
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939689525)
Done!
I updated the error message to indicate that it is policy default block max weight.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939689525)
Done!
I updated the error message to indicate that it is policy default block max weight.
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939696594)
Done!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939696594)
Done!
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939791295)
Fixed
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939791295)
Fixed
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939791635)
I've updated the release notes.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939791635)
I've updated the release notes.
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939697020)
Fixed
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939697020)
Fixed
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939791981)
Taken but slightly different
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939791981)
Taken but slightly different
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#issuecomment-2631717860)
Forced pushed to address recent comments by @fjahr @pinheadmz and @Sjors see [diff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/fd4af64d58901334d907dd0bd38efd303a21374a..e7df348288e81dae104df7f8c984cb8eca57da35)
Changes
1. Updated release notes to be more accurate
2. Introduce `DEFAULT_BLOCK_RESERVED_WEIGHT`
3. Fixed nits
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#issuecomment-2631717860)
Forced pushed to address recent comments by @fjahr @pinheadmz and @Sjors see [diff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/fd4af64d58901334d907dd0bd38efd303a21374a..e7df348288e81dae104df7f8c984cb8eca57da35)
Changes
1. Updated release notes to be more accurate
2. Introduce `DEFAULT_BLOCK_RESERVED_WEIGHT`
3. Fixed nits
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939820972)
In c961c509bc5d4a8c9e9197cad001d2b7598c8bd7 "miner: bugfix: fix duplicate weight reservation in block assembler": I'd rather keep the explanation in `types.h` since `BlockCreateOptions` is part of an external interface that should make sense without having to dig into internals.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939820972)
In c961c509bc5d4a8c9e9197cad001d2b7598c8bd7 "miner: bugfix: fix duplicate weight reservation in block assembler": I'd rather keep the explanation in `types.h` since `BlockCreateOptions` is part of an external interface that should make sense without having to dig into internals.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939827439)
In 8b8e143a8fdd9c12068c7d7f5bbe5317dd55d22a "init: fail to start when `-blockmaxweight` exceeds `DEFAULT_MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT`": I think this should only check against consensus.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939827439)
In 8b8e143a8fdd9c12068c7d7f5bbe5317dd55d22a "init: fail to start when `-blockmaxweight` exceeds `DEFAULT_MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT`": I think this should only check against consensus.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939831288)
In cd6cca1018f1c4b0c5d73991afbdb19d1b0b9682 "miner: init: add `-blockreservedweight` startup option"
Same as for the earlier commit, imo this should only check against the consensus limit.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384/commits/cd6cca1018f1c4b0c5d73991afbdb19d1b0b9682#r1938237527
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939831288)
In cd6cca1018f1c4b0c5d73991afbdb19d1b0b9682 "miner: init: add `-blockreservedweight` startup option"
Same as for the earlier commit, imo this should only check against the consensus limit.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384/commits/cd6cca1018f1c4b0c5d73991afbdb19d1b0b9682#r1938237527
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939839897)
In block assembly, we check against policy. If we were to lower the policy default, users could set a higher value than our policy limit, but the generated block would still be checked against policy, meaning their higher value would have no effect. I think we should be consistent and either check against policy everywhere or remove the policy default and check only against consensus?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1939839897)
In block assembly, we check against policy. If we were to lower the policy default, users could set a higher value than our policy limit, but the generated block would still be checked against policy, meaning their higher value would have no effect. I think we should be consistent and either check against policy everywhere or remove the policy default and check only against consensus?