👍 jarolrod approved a pull request: "add ryanofsky to trusted-keys"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27604#pullrequestreview-1419713726)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/59ebee3fb4181baf20fab263cf1b587ece1bd5e2
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27604#pullrequestreview-1419713726)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/59ebee3fb4181baf20fab263cf1b587ece1bd5e2
⚠️ apex-quest opened an issue: "BTC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/727)
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/727)
✅ fanquake closed an issue: "BTC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/727)
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/727)
:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "BTC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/727)
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/727)
💬 ayeowch commented on issue "CPU DoS on mainnet in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27586#issuecomment-1541373834)
> Using this command to identify those peers: `bitcoin-cli getpeerinfo | jq -r '.[] | if (.bytessent_per_msg.inv > 100000 and .bytesrecv_per_msg.inv == null) then .addr else empty end'`
Someone posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35824998 linking to a DoS script https://github.com/visualbasic6/drain/blob/c8373b55d83832f95fb0a77aca56436adeffb58d/drain-btc.py a day before this issue. It's possible someone may be using the script targeting public nodes.
Check your `bytessent_per_msg.
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27586#issuecomment-1541373834)
> Using this command to identify those peers: `bitcoin-cli getpeerinfo | jq -r '.[] | if (.bytessent_per_msg.inv > 100000 and .bytesrecv_per_msg.inv == null) then .addr else empty end'`
Someone posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35824998 linking to a DoS script https://github.com/visualbasic6/drain/blob/c8373b55d83832f95fb0a77aca56436adeffb58d/drain-btc.py a day before this issue. It's possible someone may be using the script targeting public nodes.
Check your `bytessent_per_msg.
...
💬 ArmchairCryptologist commented on issue "CPU DoS on mainnet in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27586#issuecomment-1541380556)
> It's possible someone may be using the script targeting public nodes.
FWIW, I was not seeing any ridiculous bytessent_per_msg.inv numbers on any of my nodes. In fact the highest counts on all of my public nodes is my private nodes, but not by much.
A notable change happened yesterday (May 9th) around 14:25 UTC where the CPU load on all the public nodes dropped drastically at the same time, and they all look normal at present. The high-fee BRC-20 token spam we were seeing also appear to h
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27586#issuecomment-1541380556)
> It's possible someone may be using the script targeting public nodes.
FWIW, I was not seeing any ridiculous bytessent_per_msg.inv numbers on any of my nodes. In fact the highest counts on all of my public nodes is my private nodes, but not by much.
A notable change happened yesterday (May 9th) around 14:25 UTC where the CPU load on all the public nodes dropped drastically at the same time, and they all look normal at present. The high-fee BRC-20 token spam we were seeing also appear to h
...
📝 TheCharlatan opened a pull request: "refactor(follow-up): Use ChainType enum exhaustively"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27611)
This is a follow up of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491, more concretely https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#discussion_r1188847896, for not using default cases (as per the style guide), and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#discussion_r1188852707 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#discussion_r1188851857 for avoiding dead code.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27611)
This is a follow up of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491, more concretely https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#discussion_r1188847896, for not using default cases (as per the style guide), and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#discussion_r1188852707 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#discussion_r1188851857 for avoiding dead code.
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor (tidy): Fixes after enable-debug configure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27353#issuecomment-1541422030)
Updated 3e76aff9d4709f44d6439cd0cbc2fd6c90cae6ab -> 27d182cef72e086afc4592cdfc565b3fdb52d0b4 ([clangTidyDebug_2](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/clangTidyDebug_2) -> [clangTidyDebug_3](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/clangTidyDebug_3), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/clangTidyDebug_2..clangTidyDebug_3)).
* Dropped the commit changing the CI.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27353#issuecomment-1541422030)
Updated 3e76aff9d4709f44d6439cd0cbc2fd6c90cae6ab -> 27d182cef72e086afc4592cdfc565b3fdb52d0b4 ([clangTidyDebug_2](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/clangTidyDebug_2) -> [clangTidyDebug_3](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/clangTidyDebug_3), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/clangTidyDebug_2..clangTidyDebug_3)).
* Dropped the commit changing the CI.
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor(follow-up): Use ChainType enum exhaustively":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27611#issuecomment-1541423034)
Can remove `(follow-up)` from the title. Also, the docstring of the changed methods in the header is still wrong
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27611#issuecomment-1541423034)
Can remove `(follow-up)` from the title. Also, the docstring of the changed methods in the header is still wrong
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor(follow-up): Use ChainType enum exhaustively":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27611#issuecomment-1541445444)
Re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27611#issuecomment-1541423034
> Also, the docstring of the changed methods in the header is still wrong
Do you mean these https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commit/0e7abdcb589ac2d891abce0b1cd9babbe6d0d39e ?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27611#issuecomment-1541445444)
Re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27611#issuecomment-1541423034
> Also, the docstring of the changed methods in the header is still wrong
Do you mean these https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commit/0e7abdcb589ac2d891abce0b1cd9babbe6d0d39e ?
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor, kernel: Decouple ArgsManager from blockstorage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#issuecomment-1541454221)
Updated 3b34ac7465919b968795063995f6610a73aa2d29 -> 24f1ace25081040af80ba4cf1636592266d8dbb5 ([removeBlockstorageArgs_21](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/removeBlockstorageArgs_21) -> [removeBlockstorageArgs_22](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/removeBlockstorageArgs_22), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/removeBlockstorageArgs_21..removeBlockstorageArgs_22))
* Addressed @MarcoFalke's [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#discus
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#issuecomment-1541454221)
Updated 3b34ac7465919b968795063995f6610a73aa2d29 -> 24f1ace25081040af80ba4cf1636592266d8dbb5 ([removeBlockstorageArgs_21](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/removeBlockstorageArgs_21) -> [removeBlockstorageArgs_22](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/removeBlockstorageArgs_22), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/removeBlockstorageArgs_21..removeBlockstorageArgs_22))
* Addressed @MarcoFalke's [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#discus
...
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: Use ChainType enum exhaustively":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27611#issuecomment-1541456801)
I mean the ones of the touched methods `Create*Params()`, which are documented to throw the wrong exception type. Now that you changed to `assert`, there is no exception at all.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27611#issuecomment-1541456801)
I mean the ones of the touched methods `Create*Params()`, which are documented to throw the wrong exception type. Now that you changed to `assert`, there is no exception at all.
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: Use ChainType enum exhaustively":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27611#issuecomment-1541457873)
Example:
```diff
diff --git a/src/chainparams.h b/src/chainparams.h
index 6a65f40f80..23b272cc41 100644
--- a/src/chainparams.h
+++ b/src/chainparams.h
@@ -26,7 +26,6 @@ class ArgsManager;
/**
* Creates and returns a std::unique_ptr<CChainParams> of the chosen chain.
* @returns a CChainParams* of the chosen chain.
- * @throws a std::runtime_error if the chain is not supported.
*/
std::unique_ptr<const CChainParams> CreateChainParams(const ArgsManager& args, const ChainType
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27611#issuecomment-1541457873)
Example:
```diff
diff --git a/src/chainparams.h b/src/chainparams.h
index 6a65f40f80..23b272cc41 100644
--- a/src/chainparams.h
+++ b/src/chainparams.h
@@ -26,7 +26,6 @@ class ArgsManager;
/**
* Creates and returns a std::unique_ptr<CChainParams> of the chosen chain.
* @returns a CChainParams* of the chosen chain.
- * @throws a std::runtime_error if the chain is not supported.
*/
std::unique_ptr<const CChainParams> CreateChainParams(const ArgsManager& args, const ChainType
...
⚠️ Tia939 opened an issue: "Btc mining"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27612)
- 
Enterprise-level Bitcoin and Blockchain libraries. Built for businesses, miners, wallets, and hobbyists
TECHNOLOGY GITHUB
$ bcoin-cli info
{
"version": "2.0.0-dev",
"network": "main",
"chain": {
"height": 597278,
"tip": "000000000000000000114ab8c7d77b0bce885cbecc12f95f2f1cbdfcefb86aa6",
"progress": 1
},
"indexes": {
"addr": {
"enabled": true,
"height": 597278
},
"tx": {
"enabled": true,
"height": 59727
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27612)
- 
Enterprise-level Bitcoin and Blockchain libraries. Built for businesses, miners, wallets, and hobbyists
TECHNOLOGY GITHUB
$ bcoin-cli info
{
"version": "2.0.0-dev",
"network": "main",
"chain": {
"height": 597278,
"tip": "000000000000000000114ab8c7d77b0bce885cbecc12f95f2f1cbdfcefb86aa6",
"progress": 1
},
"indexes": {
"addr": {
"enabled": true,
"height": 597278
},
"tx": {
"enabled": true,
"height": 59727
...
✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Btc mining"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27612)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27612)
:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Btc mining"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27612)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27612)
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo (2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27596#issuecomment-1541467462)
When running 8f431ad3b600a8f7e6dff83354ac3475b8936505 I noticed (and reproduced) that `-prune` is not fully honored when loading a snapshot and doing background validation. When I set `-prune=550` the blocks dir ends up somewhere between 3 and 5 GB. Judging by the blk….dat timestamps it seems that both the snapshot and background IBD hold on to more blocks than they should. Tested on Ubuntu 23.04 and with coinstats- and blockfilterindex enabled. The first time I tested I allowed the node to sync
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27596#issuecomment-1541467462)
When running 8f431ad3b600a8f7e6dff83354ac3475b8936505 I noticed (and reproduced) that `-prune` is not fully honored when loading a snapshot and doing background validation. When I set `-prune=550` the blocks dir ends up somewhere between 3 and 5 GB. Judging by the blk….dat timestamps it seems that both the snapshot and background IBD hold on to more blocks than they should. Tested on Ubuntu 23.04 and with coinstats- and blockfilterindex enabled. The first time I tested I allowed the node to sync
...
🤔 darosior reviewed a pull request: "Improve performance of p2p inv to send queues"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27610#pullrequestreview-1419935557)
utACK 5b3406094f2679dfb3763de4414257268565b943
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27610#pullrequestreview-1419935557)
utACK 5b3406094f2679dfb3763de4414257268565b943
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor, kernel: Decouple ArgsManager from blockstorage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#issuecomment-1541493057)
Nice.
re-ACK 24f1ace25081040af80ba4cf1636592266d8dbb5 🌦
<details><summary>Show signature</summary>
Signature:
```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: re-ACK 24f1ace25
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#issuecomment-1541493057)
Nice.
re-ACK 24f1ace25081040af80ba4cf1636592266d8dbb5 🌦
<details><summary>Show signature</summary>
Signature:
```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: re-ACK 24f1ace25
...
💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor, kernel: Decouple ArgsManager from blockstorage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#issuecomment-1541494448)
trivial rebase re-ACK 8f94f059b3af5ecaf175a95389ba5e73b724203b 🗝
<details><summary>Show signature</summary>
Signature:
```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: trivial reba
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#issuecomment-1541494448)
trivial rebase re-ACK 8f94f059b3af5ecaf175a95389ba5e73b724203b 🗝
<details><summary>Show signature</summary>
Signature:
```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: trivial reba
...