💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor, kernel: Decouple ArgsManager from blockstorage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#issuecomment-1536739318)
Rebased e056d6f758382d3418682095ab02f8d487aa641f -> 3b34ac7465919b968795063995f6610a73aa2d29 ([removeBlockstorageArgs_20](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/removeBlockstorageArgs_20) -> [removeBlockstorageArgs_21](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/removeBlockstorageArgs_21), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/removeBlockstorageArgs_20..removeBlockstorageArgs_21))
* Fixed conflicts with #27570
* Added a commit to remove the params argument from the f
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#issuecomment-1536739318)
Rebased e056d6f758382d3418682095ab02f8d487aa641f -> 3b34ac7465919b968795063995f6610a73aa2d29 ([removeBlockstorageArgs_20](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/removeBlockstorageArgs_20) -> [removeBlockstorageArgs_21](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/removeBlockstorageArgs_21), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/removeBlockstorageArgs_20..removeBlockstorageArgs_21))
* Fixed conflicts with #27570
* Added a commit to remove the params argument from the f
...
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Move chain constants to the util library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#issuecomment-1536750187)
Rebased 7d361083d72a267de4af258e574219abdef0fc82 -> dd95e2a3353b5ded87d1d5408a51bf461f1f90b4 ([kernelChainType_2](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelChainType_2) -> [kernelChainType_3](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelChainType_3), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelChainType_2..kernelChainType_3))
* Fixed conflict with #27570
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#issuecomment-1536750187)
Rebased 7d361083d72a267de4af258e574219abdef0fc82 -> dd95e2a3353b5ded87d1d5408a51bf461f1f90b4 ([kernelChainType_2](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelChainType_2) -> [kernelChainType_3](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelChainType_3), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelChainType_2..kernelChainType_3))
* Fixed conflict with #27570
🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "fuzz: BIP 42, BIP 30, CVE-2018-17144"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17860#pullrequestreview-1415372134)
Tested ACK fa2d8b61f9343d350b67357a12f39b613c8ee8ad
I was also able to catch the reintroduced CVE-2018-17144 (with the previous commit fa18fe3976a0f99480ce42dc0c1df7143967bf4d, current one is still running).
I can't really see how this actually fuzzes BIP42. Wouldn't the fuzzer need to create millions of blocks to detect it, so if we'd introduce that bug, the fuzzer would never be able to find it in practice?
Finally, I also observed that the fuzzer gets slower with time and after a few
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17860#pullrequestreview-1415372134)
Tested ACK fa2d8b61f9343d350b67357a12f39b613c8ee8ad
I was also able to catch the reintroduced CVE-2018-17144 (with the previous commit fa18fe3976a0f99480ce42dc0c1df7143967bf4d, current one is still running).
I can't really see how this actually fuzzes BIP42. Wouldn't the fuzzer need to create millions of blocks to detect it, so if we'd introduce that bug, the fuzzer would never be able to find it in practice?
Finally, I also observed that the fuzzer gets slower with time and after a few
...
💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "fuzz: BIP 42, BIP 30, CVE-2018-17144":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17860#discussion_r1186451948)
why is this check inside the `was_valid` branch?
As far as I understand it, the second block with the duplicate coinbase could be valid (if the coinbase from block 1 was spent), or BIP-30 invalid (otherwise) - but this should hold regardless.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17860#discussion_r1186451948)
why is this check inside the `was_valid` branch?
As far as I understand it, the second block with the duplicate coinbase could be valid (if the coinbase from block 1 was spent), or BIP-30 invalid (otherwise) - but this should hold regardless.
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1536754509)
@udiWertheimer Assuming we could switch behavior ahead of time based on all inputs being taproot(it's a little more complicated in practice because other inputs might be ok too), I think the main drawback is optimization of the bin packing problem with larger items. Smaller items are easier to pick closer to optimally. This would fall under "keeping miners simple for decentralization" bucket instead of DoS.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1536754509)
@udiWertheimer Assuming we could switch behavior ahead of time based on all inputs being taproot(it's a little more complicated in practice because other inputs might be ok too), I think the main drawback is optimization of the bin packing problem with larger items. Smaller items are easier to pick closer to optimally. This would fall under "keeping miners simple for decentralization" bucket instead of DoS.
💬 berenddeboer commented on issue "[Linux] Add wayland support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19950#issuecomment-1536761117)
> Is it the case that our bitcion-qt release binaries don't work on Wayland at all?
All I can say that on Ubuntu 23.04 + Sway (which uses Wayland), bitcoin-qt does not work, and crashes with:
```
> bitcoin-core.qt
Warning: Ignoring XDG_SESSION_TYPE=wayland on Gnome. Use QT_QPA_PLATFORM=wayland to run on Wayland anyway.
Fontconfig warning: FcPattern object weight does not accept value [0 205)
fish: Job 1, 'bitcoin-core.qt' terminated by signal SIGSEGV (Address boundary error)
```
D
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19950#issuecomment-1536761117)
> Is it the case that our bitcion-qt release binaries don't work on Wayland at all?
All I can say that on Ubuntu 23.04 + Sway (which uses Wayland), bitcoin-qt does not work, and crashes with:
```
> bitcoin-core.qt
Warning: Ignoring XDG_SESSION_TYPE=wayland on Gnome. Use QT_QPA_PLATFORM=wayland to run on Wayland anyway.
Fontconfig warning: FcPattern object weight does not accept value [0 205)
fish: Job 1, 'bitcoin-core.qt' terminated by signal SIGSEGV (Address boundary error)
```
D
...
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: add `descriptorprocesspsbt` rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25796#discussion_r1186505286)
In 80f8bdfeb3d9301e0aec4b797689cbe569eff5a6 "test: add test for `descriptorprocesspsbt` RPC"
This sync is failing due to an earlier unconfirmed transaction not persisting after the restart. A possible fix is to generate a block before restarting ndoe 2.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25796#discussion_r1186505286)
In 80f8bdfeb3d9301e0aec4b797689cbe569eff5a6 "test: add test for `descriptorprocesspsbt` RPC"
This sync is failing due to an earlier unconfirmed transaction not persisting after the restart. A possible fix is to generate a block before restarting ndoe 2.
💬 benthecarman commented on pull request "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1536797084)
> This would fall under "keeping miners simple for decentralization" bucket instead of DoS.
You could argue the opposite is happening though, the miners that are accommodating these transactions are making a killing right now because they have exclusive access to these large transactions.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1536797084)
> This would fall under "keeping miners simple for decentralization" bucket instead of DoS.
You could argue the opposite is happening though, the miners that are accommodating these transactions are making a killing right now because they have exclusive access to these large transactions.
💬 udiWertheimer commented on pull request "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1536805620)
> > This would fall under "keeping miners simple for decentralization" bucket instead of DoS.
>
> You could argue the opposite is happening though, the miners that are accommodating these transactions are making a killing right now because they have exclusive access to these large transactions.
Yes and, referring back to @sdaftuar’s point, one reason to include a flag to disable standardness rules would be to make life easier for such mining pools. Otherwise they have to modify and rebuild
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1536805620)
> > This would fall under "keeping miners simple for decentralization" bucket instead of DoS.
>
> You could argue the opposite is happening though, the miners that are accommodating these transactions are making a killing right now because they have exclusive access to these large transactions.
Yes and, referring back to @sdaftuar’s point, one reason to include a flag to disable standardness rules would be to make life easier for such mining pools. Otherwise they have to modify and rebuild
...
💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "ci: fix asan task name":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27584#issuecomment-1536905657)
ACK
ref #27360
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27584#issuecomment-1536905657)
ACK
ref #27360
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Relay own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1186579724)
Rather than doing this, it might make more sense to have simplified relay logic be to send the messages:
* VERSION
* [after receiving VERSION] VERACK
* [after receiving VERACK] INV
* [after receiving GETDATA] TX
* PING
* [after receiving PONG] disconnect
?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1186579724)
Rather than doing this, it might make more sense to have simplified relay logic be to send the messages:
* VERSION
* [after receiving VERSION] VERACK
* [after receiving VERACK] INV
* [after receiving GETDATA] TX
* PING
* [after receiving PONG] disconnect
?
⚠️ ajtowns opened an issue: "CPU DoS on mainnet in debug mode"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27586)
I've been seeing 100% cpu usage on one of my bitcoind nodes recently, with transactions taking >60s to be accepted into the mempool. Digging into it, the problem seems to be `BOOST_MULTI_INDEX_ENABLE_SAFE_MODE` which was introduced in #24395. That results in iterator destruction taking O(n) time (in the number of other active iterators on the same multi-index) in the worst case, rather than O(1) time, due to keeping the iterators in a [singly linked list](https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_82_0/b
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27586)
I've been seeing 100% cpu usage on one of my bitcoind nodes recently, with transactions taking >60s to be accepted into the mempool. Digging into it, the problem seems to be `BOOST_MULTI_INDEX_ENABLE_SAFE_MODE` which was introduced in #24395. That results in iterator destruction taking O(n) time (in the number of other active iterators on the same multi-index) in the worst case, rather than O(1) time, due to keeping the iterators in a [singly linked list](https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_82_0/b
...
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "fuzz: BIP 30, CVE-2018-17144":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17860#issuecomment-1537075953)
> I can't really see how this actually fuzzes BIP42.
Yeah, it was mostly a joke. Now with LIMITED_WHILE this is no longer possible to fuzz at all.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17860#issuecomment-1537075953)
> I can't really see how this actually fuzzes BIP42.
Yeah, it was mostly a joke. Now with LIMITED_WHILE this is no longer possible to fuzz at all.
⚠️ TheCharlatan opened an issue: "Libbitcoinkernel Project Tracking"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27587)
#### Project Board: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/18
This is the tracking issue for the `libbitcoinkernel` project. The original tracking issue is found in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24303. This issue contains much of the content written by Carl Dong in the original issue but is more regularly updated.
The libbitcoinkernel project is a new attempt at extracting our consensus engine. The kernel part of the name highlights one of the key functional differences fr
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27587)
#### Project Board: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/18
This is the tracking issue for the `libbitcoinkernel` project. The original tracking issue is found in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24303. This issue contains much of the content written by Carl Dong in the original issue but is more regularly updated.
The libbitcoinkernel project is a new attempt at extracting our consensus engine. The kernel part of the name highlights one of the key functional differences fr
...
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: fix asan task name"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27584)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27584)
⚠️ fanquake pinned an issue: "Libbitcoinkernel Project Tracking"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27587)
#### Project Board: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/18
This is the tracking issue for the `libbitcoinkernel` project. The original tracking issue is found in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24303. This issue contains much of the content written by Carl Dong in the original issue but is more regularly updated.
The libbitcoinkernel project is a new attempt at extracting our consensus engine. The kernel part of the name highlights one of the key functional differences fr
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27587)
#### Project Board: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/18
This is the tracking issue for the `libbitcoinkernel` project. The original tracking issue is found in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24303. This issue contains much of the content written by Carl Dong in the original issue but is more regularly updated.
The libbitcoinkernel project is a new attempt at extracting our consensus engine. The kernel part of the name highlights one of the key functional differences fr
...
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1537116270)
[Background sync finshed catching up](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1536093556):
```bash
2023-05-06T06:42:11Z [msghand] UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000000104bcc48cdaaf080653751bfe4df10d2097f860abedd0 height=788463 version=0x30296000 log2_work=94.162512 tx=12944905 date='2023-05-06T06:40:07Z' progress=0.015582 cache=127.2MiB(988602txo)
2023-05-06T06:46:56Z [msghand] [background validation] UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000000454bc0c2b24c93b359d5eba2cf98d010
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1537116270)
[Background sync finshed catching up](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1536093556):
```bash
2023-05-06T06:42:11Z [msghand] UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000000104bcc48cdaaf080653751bfe4df10d2097f860abedd0 height=788463 version=0x30296000 log2_work=94.162512 tx=12944905 date='2023-05-06T06:40:07Z' progress=0.015582 cache=127.2MiB(988602txo)
2023-05-06T06:46:56Z [msghand] [background validation] UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000000454bc0c2b24c93b359d5eba2cf98d010
...
🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "util: Use steady clock instead of system clock to measure durations"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27405)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27405)
👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "msvc: Cleanup after upgrading libsecp256k1 up to 0.3.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27580#pullrequestreview-1415758516)
ACK d9b54c46ccb28af20eb03e1409d1a34dc2adccdb
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27580#pullrequestreview-1415758516)
ACK d9b54c46ccb28af20eb03e1409d1a34dc2adccdb
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "BIP324: Cipher suite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25361#issuecomment-1537118786)
Closing for now. This will be picked up again later. BIP324 review attention should be directed towards #27479 and https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1129.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25361#issuecomment-1537118786)
Closing for now. This will be picked up again later. BIP324 review attention should be directed towards #27479 and https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1129.