👍 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

💬 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.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "BIP324: Cipher suite"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25361)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "BIP324: Add encrypted p2p transport {de}serializer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23233#issuecomment-1537118838)
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.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "BIP324: Add encrypted p2p transport {de}serializer"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23233)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: BIP 30, CVE-2018-17144"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17860)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "msvc: Cleanup after upgrading libsecp256k1 up to 0.3.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27580#issuecomment-1537119113)
Note that this conflicts with #27479, however it's a single-line change, and 27479 will have to be rebased again after the secp changes are pulled into our tree, so I think we can go ahead and merge this in the interim. cc @sipa.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24545#issuecomment-1537119292)
Closing for now. This will be picked up again later. BIP324 review attention should be directed towards https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27479 and https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1129.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24545)

💬 1ma commented on pull request "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1537136352)
Let it be known for the record that those of us who've been playing with https://github.com/supertestnet/breaker-of-jpegs are very much in favor of enacting a new standardness rule, not removing them. @benthecarman knows this, and citing that project as an example denotes bad faith.

If anything node runners need more control for filtering whatever they may want, such as this new kind of transactions who are abusing the "Lady Gaga Video Attack Vector" by exploiting a particular sequence of mea
...

💬 BullishNode commented on pull request "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1537140748)
Strong NACK. Standardness rules protect the network from ddos and spam. The fact that you have to email a miner is a good thing: it's rate limiting.

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "assumeutxo: keep cache when flushing snapshot (#17487 followup)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27008#issuecomment-1537140998)
Actually this _is_ broken at the moment, since although we don't flush after snapshot load, we do flush (and not sync) in the MaybeRebalanceCaches() -> FlushStateToDisk() call right after activating the chainstate snapshot. Will close this and think about how to rework it.

✅ jamesob closed a pull request: "assumeutxo: keep cache when flushing snapshot (#17487 followup)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27008)

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1537141951)
Thanks for testing @fanquake and thanks for the torrent @Sjors. I've pushed some fixes, rebased, and CI is green.

> Runing through your steps above, everything seems to be working, except that my mempool was empty until I stopped and restarted bitcoind?

Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606/commits/7cbbf2adad5a7760d6db389790062fee959943a6 - forgot to swap the `m_mempool` references on snapshot activation. I've verified that the mempool now starts to populate during backgro
...

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1537145078)
The history of the pull request is getitng unwieldy; the 400+ comments are now creating a situation where comments (like the testing instructions) posted a few days ago are buried under a minute of clicking "load more."

I've added the testing instructions to the PR description, but should I consider opening a fresh PR? Do we have any process for dealing with this Github limitation?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1537145783)
@jamesob I would be in favour of you opening a new PR (carrying over relevant current context into the description, and pointing back to anything else relevant). I ran into the same annoyance today, when trying to leave my most recent comment. Having to expand 400+ comments check recent discussion/context, is not great.

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#discussion_r1186700559)
Done!

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "rpc: add `descriptorprocesspsbt` rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25796#discussion_r1186711555)
Thanks, I've fixed it.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1537181954)
I also ended up with an empty mempool with 2dd8ea0f2cf07486d1a44263c6976b1ecac563b9 on Ubuntu 23.04, with pruning enabled. Will try again once you believe that's fixed. When I (cleanly) shut down the node and restarted it, I noticed this log message: `[snapshot] computing UTXO stats for background chainstate to validate snapshot - this could take a few minutes`, followed by `[snapshot] snapshot beginning at 00000000000000000001f3fa1b4c03c877740778f56b0d5456b18dd88f7f695e has been fully validated
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1537182198)
It's gotten to the point where even refreshing the page doesn't always get you the latest comments. +1 for opening a new one.

Meanwhile I'll recompile and do an unpruned with assumevalid=0.