💬 eval-exec commented on pull request "torcontrol: Add comment explaining Proxy credential randomization for Tor privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973#discussion_r1977740942)
Thank you.

💬 eval-exec commented on pull request "torcontrol: Add comment explaining Proxy credential randomization for Tor privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973#discussion_r1977744398)
Hello, what format tool do you use to format bitcoin's source code?
I tried `clang-format -i src/torcontrol.cpp`, it format too much.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "torcontrol: Add comment explaining Proxy credential randomization for Tor privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973#discussion_r1977748174)
Yes-FWIW, the main way in which this increases privacy is that every new connection is likely to choose a different exit node, so will appear to come from a different host.

There's something to be said for adding this documentation for the Proxy constructor, but as this specific behavior is specific to Tor (and not SOCKS5 in general) i have no objection to adding it here.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "torcontrol: Add comment explaining Proxy credential randomization for Tor privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973#discussion_r1977757935)
As you only add comments, i don't think there's a reason to run the formatter.

However, there's the [clang-format-diff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/contrib/devtools#clang-format-diffpy) script that can be used to only re-format lines that have been changed, and not the whole file.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r1977762419)
Also, as discussed offline, this seems like an easy scenario to write a fuzz test for as described above ^

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "torcontrol: Add comment explaining Proxy credential randomization for Tor privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973#discussion_r1977773135)
Sorry, it's failing lint now:
```
/ci_container_base/src/torcontrol.cpp:404:39: error: argument name 'm_randomize_credentials' in comment does not match parameter name '_randomize_credentials' [bugprone-argument-comment,-warnings-as-errors]
[10:56:52.844] 404 | Proxy addrOnion = Proxy(resolved, /*m_randomize_credentials=*/ true);
[10:56:52.844] | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[10:56:52.844] | /*_ra
...

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Add mainnet assumeutxo param at height 880,000":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#issuecomment-2694876480)
Concept ACK

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "torcontrol: Add comment explaining Proxy credential randomization for Tor privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973#issuecomment-2694881965)
Concept ACK

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "seeds: update makeseeds regex and DNS fixed seeds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31960#issuecomment-2694888647)
Concept ACK

💬 eval-exec commented on pull request "torcontrol: Add comment explaining Proxy credential randomization for Tor privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973#discussion_r1977790296)
I executed
```bash
docker build -t bitcoin-linter --file "./ci/lint_imagefile" ./ && docker run --rm -v $(pwd):/bitcoin -it bitcoin-linter
```
it say:
```
Success: no issues found in 305 source files
```

🤔 1440000bytes reviewed a pull request: "rpc: add cli examples, update docs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31958#pullrequestreview-2654617253)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31958/commits/0ad066c85a46208041f816d4edba36e8712763e9

Related PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27454

📝 Sjors opened a pull request: "Drop testnet3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31974)
Testnet3 was deprecated in v28 with the introduction of testnet4. Dropping it in v30 seems reasonable. Note that v29 will be supported for a while.

There is no more `[test]` network section. The user is expected to set testnet4 explicitly, which should make future rotation of testnets easier.

If a `[test]` or `[testnet3]` section is present in `bitcoin.conf` a warning is issued:

```
Warning: .../bitcoin.conf:18 Section [test] is not recognized.
```

Starting with `-testnet3` will be
...

🤔 1440000bytes reviewed a pull request: "rpc: Allow fullrbf fee bump in (psbt)bumpfee"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31953#pullrequestreview-2654624537)
utACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31953/commits/fa16051eac9a4bc1a7e0234b65d615e655ff7cf0

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Drop testnet3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31974#issuecomment-2694932831)
I've said it elsewhere, but I think it deserves a quite long deprecation cycle, along with some data gathering.

We don't want services not upgrading for fixes because their test environment would break.

e.g., what exchanges with testnet environments have adopted testnet4 (or signet), much less would be ok with removing testnet3?

Does btcd support it? LND? Eclaire? CLN? etc.

Lots of work to be done here imo.

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#issuecomment-2694939107)
Concept ACK

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Drop testnet3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31974#issuecomment-2694940376)
Let's open a separate RFC to discuss when to drop testnet3. I can rebase this for a while if we decide v30 is too early.

⚠️ Sjors opened an issue: "RFC: when to drop testnet3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31975)
Testnet3 was deprecated in v28 with the introduction of testnet4. #31974 implements its removal.

Dropping it in v30 seems reasonable to me, but let's discuss this here as to not clutter the implementation PR.

@instagibbs wrote:

> I've said it elsewhere, but I think it deserves a quite long deprecation cycle, along with some data gathering.
>
> We don't want services not upgrading for fixes because their test environment would break.
>
> e.g., what exchanges with testnet environments have ad
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "fuzz: Extend mini_miner fuzz coverage to max block weight":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31803#discussion_r1977838755)
@marcofleon @dergoegge Do you have feedback on what your preferred approach would be here?

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#issuecomment-2694989641)
PSA: Bitcoin Core PR Review Club will cover this PR in its next meeting at 2025-03-05 at 17:00 UTC. See https://bitcoincore.reviews/31405 for notes, questions, and instructions on [how to join](https://bitcoincore.reviews/).

🤔 polespinasa reviewed a pull request: "Add mainnet assumeutxo param at height 880,000"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#pullrequestreview-2654759272)
ACK

Tested and got same values when dumping the utxo set
```
bitcoin-cli -rpcclienttimeout=0 -named dumptxoutset utxoset_880000.dat rollback=880000
{
"coins_written": 184821030,
"base_hash": "000000000000000000010b17283c3c400507969a9c2afd1dcf2082ec5cca2880",
"base_height": 880000,
"path": "/home/sliv3r/.bitcoin/utxoset_880000.dat",
"txoutset_hash": "dbd190983eaf433ef7c15f78a278ae42c00ef52e0fd2a54953782175fbadcea9",
"nchaintx": 1145604538
}
```

Also got same sha256 fo
...