💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: add support for evaluating at given size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#discussion_r1949791787)
Honestly, I think the code I included here already is more complicated than what I think was worth writing. But it's just test code, and it's already written, and it works.

Its added value is adding confidence for anyone looking at the test who has difficulty following, the exact `arith_uint256`-based test code, or otherwise doubts its correctness. The exact precision used here won't make much difference I think - it should just be enough so someone can a single glance say "ok, if this test d
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949798690)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949798769)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799165)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799382)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799552)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799654)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799739)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799852)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799938)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949800043)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Automatically repair corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#discussion_r1949801025)
Added a constant.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Automatically repair corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#discussion_r1949801147)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Automatically repair corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#discussion_r1949801345)
Done

💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: add support for evaluating at given size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#discussion_r1949807125)
Fixed.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: add support for evaluating at given size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#issuecomment-2649120502)
@instagibbs I incorporated a variant of your commit into the existing `feefrac_mul_div` fuzz test, with the tightest bounds I could make more.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "feefrac: add support for evaluating at given size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#discussion_r1949815030)
I think there's also some value in knowing we're not diverging wildly from what already exists if we're planning on swapping functionality later. Agreed on the rest.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: add support for evaluating at given size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#discussion_r1949816655)
@instagibbs Note that this is about a separate addition I made, which compares the behaviour with a pure floating-point simulation. The comparison with `CFeeRate` is elsewhere.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "feefrac: add support for evaluating at given size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#discussion_r1949817770)
oh right, I conflated the two threads here

💬 furszy commented on issue "Prune Node Rescan Project Tracking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29183#issuecomment-2649137150)
> Since we do need to selectively re-download specific blocks, it might be prudent to have an option only re-download those specific blocks from peers only over TOR

Thats possible for sure. Could also request a few extra blocks to make the guess harder.

> Also, can the re-downloaded blocks be re-downloaded in parallel since we will know what blocks they are?

Yes. Thats how #27837 was implemented.