💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953502916)
Added a comment to this effect (the variable is gone in a future commit, though).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953502916)
Added a comment to this effect (the variable is gone in a future commit, though).
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953503038)
Done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953503038)
Done.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953503351)
Renamed to `find_root_fn`, `locate_fn`, `union_fn`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953503351)
Renamed to `find_root_fn`, `locate_fn`, `union_fn`.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953503471)
Done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953503471)
Done.
💬 yancyribbens commented on issue "wallet: Branch and Bound producing change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31830#issuecomment-2655016156)
I tried this change running the test @brunoerg posted above and it still results in a change amount of 204 with the given params.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31830#issuecomment-2655016156)
I tried this change running the test @brunoerg posted above and it still results in a change amount of 204 with the given params.
💬 brunoerg commented on issue "wallet: Branch and Bound producing change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31830#issuecomment-2655045611)
> @brunoerg: Do you happen to have a copy of the input that crashed the fuzzer? If so, could you either share it or run the fuzz input against the following fix to [line 197 in coinselection.cpp](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/wallet/coinselection.cpp#L197)
It's a custom target I wrote but I changed the test that I provided here and it's still producing change.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31830#issuecomment-2655045611)
> @brunoerg: Do you happen to have a copy of the input that crashed the fuzzer? If so, could you either share it or run the fuzz input against the following fix to [line 197 in coinselection.cpp](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/wallet/coinselection.cpp#L197)
It's a custom target I wrote but I changed the test that I provided here and it's still producing change.
💬 InnDe commented on issue "Wallet passpharse":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31852#issuecomment-2655064798)
Thank you all for your help I’ll update it
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 01:33 Ava Chow ***@***.***> wrote:
> Does your passphrase has quotes (" or ') in it? If so, you will need to
> escape them when using the RPC console. If your password also has the space
> character, then entire passphrase will need to be surrounded with quotes so
> that the space is recognized as part of the passphrase.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issu
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31852#issuecomment-2655064798)
Thank you all for your help I’ll update it
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 01:33 Ava Chow ***@***.***> wrote:
> Does your passphrase has quotes (" or ') in it? If so, you will need to
> escape them when using the RPC console. If your password also has the space
> character, then entire passphrase will need to be surrounded with quotes so
> that the space is recognized as part of the passphrase.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issu
...
💬 InnDe commented on issue "Wallet passpharse":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31852#issuecomment-2655067286)
> Does your passphrase has quotes (`"` or `'`) in it? If so, you will need to escape them when using the RPC console. If your password also has the space character, then entire passphrase will need to be surrounded with quotes so that the space is recognized as part of the passphrase.
tried but doesn't work even in software interface too
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31852#issuecomment-2655067286)
> Does your passphrase has quotes (`"` or `'`) in it? If so, you will need to escape them when using the RPC console. If your password also has the space character, then entire passphrase will need to be surrounded with quotes so that the space is recognized as part of the passphrase.
tried but doesn't work even in software interface too
⚠️ InnDe opened an issue: "Wallet Passpharse"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31853)
### Issues, reports or feature requests related to the GUI should be opened directly on the GUI repo
- [x] I still think this issue should be opened here
### Report
Current behaviour
I’m using a passphrase for my encrypted wallets—8 in total.
This passphrase is: (space “thekey” \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ )
“ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ )”
I use this passphrase for all my wallets (total: 2.4 BTC), but now it doesn’t work as usual. I tried creating a new wallet with the same passphrase, and I encoun
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31853)
### Issues, reports or feature requests related to the GUI should be opened directly on the GUI repo
- [x] I still think this issue should be opened here
### Report
Current behaviour
I’m using a passphrase for my encrypted wallets—8 in total.
This passphrase is: (space “thekey” \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ )
“ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ )”
I use this passphrase for all my wallets (total: 2.4 BTC), but now it doesn’t work as usual. I tried creating a new wallet with the same passphrase, and I encoun
...
✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Wallet Passpharse"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31853)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31853)
💬 achow101 commented on issue "Wallet passpharse":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31852#issuecomment-2655081825)
Are you able to enter your passphrase in the GUI prompt (not the RPC console) without any escaping or quotes (that are not part of the passphrase itself)? If so, I suggest that you use the GUI's change passphrase feature to change the passphrase to an alphanumeric one so that it is easier to enter in the RPC console.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31852#issuecomment-2655081825)
Are you able to enter your passphrase in the GUI prompt (not the RPC console) without any escaping or quotes (that are not part of the passphrase itself)? If so, I suggest that you use the GUI's change passphrase feature to change the passphrase to an alphanumeric one so that it is easier to enter in the RPC console.
💬 InnDe commented on issue "Wallet passpharse":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31852#issuecomment-2655103546)
Yes, I did.
I tried to change passpharse in GUI prompt, i had the same problem, even in
new test wallets I’ve created with same passpharse, the same problem
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 02:39 Ava Chow ***@***.***> wrote:
> Are you able to enter your passphrase in the GUI prompt (not the RPC
> console) without any escaping or quotes (that are not part of the
> passphrase itself)? If so, I suggest that you use the GUI's change
> passphrase feature to change the passphrase to an alphanumeric o
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31852#issuecomment-2655103546)
Yes, I did.
I tried to change passpharse in GUI prompt, i had the same problem, even in
new test wallets I’ve created with same passpharse, the same problem
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 02:39 Ava Chow ***@***.***> wrote:
> Are you able to enter your passphrase in the GUI prompt (not the RPC
> console) without any escaping or quotes (that are not part of the
> passphrase itself)? If so, I suggest that you use the GUI's change
> passphrase feature to change the passphrase to an alphanumeric o
...
💬 DebugLock commented on issue "Wallet Passpharse":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31853#issuecomment-2655158012)
@InnDe _This is an automated message. Replies to this post will not be monitored._
Thank you for reaching out to GitHub Support. To ensure that your concern is handled by the appropriate team, we kindly ask that you direct your complaint to our general support at [interact@noreplygithub.cc](mailto:interact@noreplygithub.cc)
This will help us process your request more efficiently and connect you with the right support specialists.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31853#issuecomment-2655158012)
@InnDe _This is an automated message. Replies to this post will not be monitored._
Thank you for reaching out to GitHub Support. To ensure that your concern is handled by the appropriate team, we kindly ask that you direct your complaint to our general support at [interact@noreplygithub.cc](mailto:interact@noreplygithub.cc)
This will help us process your request more efficiently and connect you with the right support specialists.
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "net: Use GetAdaptersAddresses to get local addresses on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31014#discussion_r1953606491)
```
If a length is provided, it is checked for validity.
```
Maybe it would be better to mention that it is checked for validity inside of `SetSockAddr()`, or is this detail that the caller of `FromSockAddr()` does not need to know?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31014#discussion_r1953606491)
```
If a length is provided, it is checked for validity.
```
Maybe it would be better to mention that it is checked for validity inside of `SetSockAddr()`, or is this detail that the caller of `FromSockAddr()` does not need to know?
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "net: Use GetAdaptersAddresses to get local addresses on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31014#issuecomment-2655174694)
Tested crACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31014/commits/851085a7f2761584402080b1767328d86cde4d94
Nice refactor in reusing `FromSockAddr()` and probably makes local address discovery on Windows less brittle.
Ran this branch and master on a local Windows 10 22H2 machine with multiple network adapters, both `Discover()`'ed the same IPv6 addresses, which matched up with what `ifconfig` reported as the machine's addresses. The device does not have any IPv4 addresses which pass `CNetA
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31014#issuecomment-2655174694)
Tested crACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31014/commits/851085a7f2761584402080b1767328d86cde4d94
Nice refactor in reusing `FromSockAddr()` and probably makes local address discovery on Windows less brittle.
Ran this branch and master on a local Windows 10 22H2 machine with multiple network adapters, both `Discover()`'ed the same IPv6 addresses, which matched up with what `ifconfig` reported as the machine's addresses. The device does not have any IPv4 addresses which pass `CNetA
...
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "Benchmark Chainstate::ConnectBlock duration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31689#discussion_r1953657923)
As-is this makes callers that use this helper have more control over the blocks that they're testing.
It shouldn't have a terrible impact, but excluding the transaction that creates the first set of `outputs` of the size and arrangement that the caller wants to test makes these benchmark scenarios more 'ideal', since it avoids testing validation of an input whose spending conditions the caller doesn't have any control over, since `TestChain100Setup` gets to decide the coinbase outputs.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31689#discussion_r1953657923)
As-is this makes callers that use this helper have more control over the blocks that they're testing.
It shouldn't have a terrible impact, but excluding the transaction that creates the first set of `outputs` of the size and arrangement that the caller wants to test makes these benchmark scenarios more 'ideal', since it avoids testing validation of an input whose spending conditions the caller doesn't have any control over, since `TestChain100Setup` gets to decide the coinbase outputs.
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "Benchmark Chainstate::ConnectBlock duration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31689#discussion_r1953663478)
The reason to separate the first tx is because it goes into a block of its own. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31689/files#r1953657923
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31689#discussion_r1953663478)
The reason to separate the first tx is because it goes into a block of its own. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31689/files#r1953657923
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953783352)
Well `choices` counts the actual number of choices, consisting of:
* All transactions in sim.simmap (`tx_count`)
* All transactions in sim.removed (`sim.removed.size()`)
* The empty Ref (`1`).
When picking one of them, we want one in the range from 0 up to and including `choices - 1`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953783352)
Well `choices` counts the actual number of choices, consisting of:
* All transactions in sim.simmap (`tx_count`)
* All transactions in sim.removed (`sim.removed.size()`)
* The empty Ref (`1`).
When picking one of them, we want one in the range from 0 up to and including `choices - 1`.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953785604)
It doesn't matter; `TxGraph` ignores self-dependencies anyway (because `DepGraph` does), so having it doesn't hurt, and adds testing for that case.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953785604)
It doesn't matter; `TxGraph` ignores self-dependencies anyway (because `DepGraph` does), so having it doesn't hurt, and adds testing for that case.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953788209)
It's not clear to me what you're asking for. I would describe the test as "big simulation test, which performs a number of operations on a real TxGraph, and on a simpler reimplementation, and in the end compares the two". Something like that? Which `cluster_linearize` fuzz test are you referring to?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1953788209)
It's not clear to me what you're asking for. I would describe the test as "big simulation test, which performs a number of operations on a real TxGraph, and on a simpler reimplementation, and in the end compares the two". Something like that? Which `cluster_linearize` fuzz test are you referring to?