π fanquake merged a pull request: "test: avoid disk space warning for non-regtest"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32057)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32057)
π¬ fanquake commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r2002163254)
The comment still doesn't really explain why. Why is this needed (now, and not with Qt 5)? Why aren't the depends outputs already suitable for static linking? Why do we need to restrict the search paths, nothing should be looking outside of depends?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r2002163254)
The comment still doesn't really explain why. Why is this needed (now, and not with Qt 5)? Why aren't the depends outputs already suitable for static linking? Why do we need to restrict the search paths, nothing should be looking outside of depends?
π fanquake merged a pull request: "test: switch wallet_crosschain.py to signet and drop testnet4"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32088)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32088)
π¬ mzumsande commented on pull request "test: Fix intermittent issue in p2p_orphan_handling.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32092#discussion_r2002175061)
it would be good to also add a comment in `disconnect_p2ps` that the wait there does not guarantee that the resources of all nodes (such as outstanding txrequests) are cleared.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32092#discussion_r2002175061)
it would be good to also add a comment in `disconnect_p2ps` that the wait there does not guarantee that the resources of all nodes (such as outstanding txrequests) are cleared.
π¬ murchandamus commented on issue "BnB untested/unused condition in UTXO exclusion optimization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32047#issuecomment-2734990522)
> The only way for the fees to be different is if the effective_value is different, however the previous condition: `utxo.GetSelectionAmount() != utxo_pool.at(utxo_pool_index - 1).GetSelectionAmount()` already compared the effective_values.
This is not accurate. You could have two UTXOs of different output types that have the same effective value but differing fees:
E.g.:
Feerate: 10 sat/vB
UTXO_1:
type: P2WPKH,
input weight: 68 vB
amount: 10,680 sats
eff_value: 10,680 - 680 = 10,000
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32047#issuecomment-2734990522)
> The only way for the fees to be different is if the effective_value is different, however the previous condition: `utxo.GetSelectionAmount() != utxo_pool.at(utxo_pool_index - 1).GetSelectionAmount()` already compared the effective_values.
This is not accurate. You could have two UTXOs of different output types that have the same effective value but differing fees:
E.g.:
Feerate: 10 sat/vB
UTXO_1:
type: P2WPKH,
input weight: 68 vB
amount: 10,680 sats
eff_value: 10,680 - 680 = 10,000
...
π darosior approved a pull request: "leveldb: pull upstream C++23 changes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31766#pullrequestreview-2696569585)
ACK c8fab356171a0e283d5716647e3243c04810ac51 -- checked it's a clean subtree pull from https://github.com/bitcoin-core/leveldb-subtree/tree/bitcoin-fork
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31766#pullrequestreview-2696569585)
ACK c8fab356171a0e283d5716647e3243c04810ac51 -- checked it's a clean subtree pull from https://github.com/bitcoin-core/leveldb-subtree/tree/bitcoin-fork
π¬ jimhashhq commented on pull request "Multiprocess bitcoin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10102#issuecomment-2735072960)
Thank you @ryanofsky, I am in favor of a multiprocess Bitcoin, I find this a well considered change. I am interested to try the updated #19461, thank you, and I do apologize for all of the questions.
From comments, it sounds like 19461 is closest, and provides the most functionality for the feature; would it make any sense to maybe change release order, putting 19461 (and a more complete #19460?) ahead of #31740 and #31741?
In general, RE `cmake` and external packages, how packages res
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10102#issuecomment-2735072960)
Thank you @ryanofsky, I am in favor of a multiprocess Bitcoin, I find this a well considered change. I am interested to try the updated #19461, thank you, and I do apologize for all of the questions.
From comments, it sounds like 19461 is closest, and provides the most functionality for the feature; would it make any sense to maybe change release order, putting 19461 (and a more complete #19460?) ahead of #31740 and #31741?
In general, RE `cmake` and external packages, how packages res
...
β οΈ hanis12345 opened an issue: "<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32094)
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->
### Code Coverage & Benchmarks
For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/31766.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
### Reviews
See [the guideline](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-review) for information on the review process.
|
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32094)
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->
### Code Coverage & Benchmarks
For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/31766.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
### Reviews
See [the guideline](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-review) for information on the review process.
|
...
β
achow101 closed an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32094)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32094)
:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32094)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32094)
π¬ Nouridin commented on issue "BnB untested/unused condition in UTXO exclusion optimization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32047#issuecomment-2735237660)
https://tenor.com/view/dirty-docks-shawty-triflin-shawty-triflin-she-gif-22455514
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32047#issuecomment-2735237660)
https://tenor.com/view/dirty-docks-shawty-triflin-shawty-triflin-she-gif-22455514
π¬ jsarenik commented on issue "Migrate from BTC/kvB to sat/vB on RPC and startup options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32093#issuecomment-2735442040)
What about making sat/vB fractional? I.e. `1.001` would make sure (by rounding up the absolute sats fee) there is at least 1 sat more compared to any other transaction paying just the minimal fee.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32093#issuecomment-2735442040)
What about making sat/vB fractional? I.e. `1.001` would make sure (by rounding up the absolute sats fee) there is at least 1 sat more compared to any other transaction paying just the minimal fee.
π¬ 0xB10C commented on pull request "test: replace assert with assert_equal and assert_greater_than":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32091#issuecomment-2735498232)
had a quick look, lgtm ACK 387385ba1edf9febdc75d39bd77b35b29714b3d0
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32091#issuecomment-2735498232)
had a quick look, lgtm ACK 387385ba1edf9febdc75d39bd77b35b29714b3d0
π¬ hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r2002562814)
> Why is this needed (now, and not with Qt 5)?
Qt 6 has a completely different build system from Qt 5.
> Why aren't the depends outputs already suitable for static linking?
Not "depends output" but rather pkg-config output.
> Why do we need to restrict the search paths, nothing should be looking outside of depends?
Because that is the goal of depends, isn't it?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r2002562814)
> Why is this needed (now, and not with Qt 5)?
Qt 6 has a completely different build system from Qt 5.
> Why aren't the depends outputs already suitable for static linking?
Not "depends output" but rather pkg-config output.
> Why do we need to restrict the search paths, nothing should be looking outside of depends?
Because that is the goal of depends, isn't it?
π¬ saikiran57 commented on pull request "wallet: removed duplicate call to GetDescriptorScriptPubKeyMan":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32023#issuecomment-2735571011)
HI @furszy can you please give some clarity on this comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32023#issuecomment-2731126667
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32023#issuecomment-2735571011)
HI @furszy can you please give some clarity on this comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32023#issuecomment-2731126667
π Sjors opened a pull request: "doc: clarify that testnet min-difficulty is not optional"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32095)
When 20 minutes have gone by on testnet3 or testnet4, the next block `MUST` have difficulty 1. I've seen people be confused about this several times now in recent months. It doesn't help that the code comment is wrong. So fixing that.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32095)
When 20 minutes have gone by on testnet3 or testnet4, the next block `MUST` have difficulty 1. I've seen people be confused about this several times now in recent months. It doesn't help that the code comment is wrong. So fixing that.
π¬ Sjors commented on pull request "doc: clarify that testnet min-difficulty is not optional":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32095#issuecomment-2735661223)
Note that there's a recent proposal to drop this rule entirely: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/688E575D-C370-4D7D-A6DB-11E0B56710B1@sprovoost.nl/T/#m08b97860799484a7f1a388892f86649065c11503
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32095#issuecomment-2735661223)
Note that there's a recent proposal to drop this rule entirely: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/688E575D-C370-4D7D-A6DB-11E0B56710B1@sprovoost.nl/T/#m08b97860799484a7f1a388892f86649065c11503
π¬ BrandonOdiwuor commented on pull request "Feature: Use different datadirs for different signets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29838#issuecomment-2735687207)
rebased and removed the leftover debug statement
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29838#issuecomment-2735687207)
rebased and removed the leftover debug statement
π¬ hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2735687589)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2542998445:
> concept ACK
>
> i've got few warnings during build:
>
> ```
> /home/pyth/cpp/bitcoin/src/qt/sendcoinsdialog.cpp: In constructor βSendCoinsDialog::SendCoinsDialog(const
> PlatformStyle*, QWidget*)β:
> /home/pyth/cpp/bitcoin/src/qt/sendcoinsdialog.cpp:91:56: warning: βvoid QCheckBox::stateChanged(int)β is d
> eprecated: Use checkStateChanged() instead [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
> 91 | connect(ui->checkB
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2735687589)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2542998445:
> concept ACK
>
> i've got few warnings during build:
>
> ```
> /home/pyth/cpp/bitcoin/src/qt/sendcoinsdialog.cpp: In constructor βSendCoinsDialog::SendCoinsDialog(const
> PlatformStyle*, QWidget*)β:
> /home/pyth/cpp/bitcoin/src/qt/sendcoinsdialog.cpp:91:56: warning: βvoid QCheckBox::stateChanged(int)β is d
> eprecated: Use checkStateChanged() instead [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
> 91 | connect(ui->checkB
...
π¬ BrandonOdiwuor commented on pull request "Feature: Use different datadirs for different signets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29838#discussion_r2002704851)
@maflcko fixed
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29838#discussion_r2002704851)
@maflcko fixed