⚠️ farrelA opened an issue: "Bitcoin Nebula, Please open a discussion."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32120)
Any Decentrilized 100% in here? Peace out guys, be healthy always, Let's fly higher 11111111111111111111111111100000000000000000000000000000000011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Critize Message for Economic Think Tank. Why SAI-15 and SLH-DSA because for Signature Checksum to become a Balance for X Validate, I'm just criticizing it, I really care, not saying SHA 256 is a nightmare, y'all don't Sentiment I won't be here long, if you care who conveys information, not cryptography and
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32120)
Any Decentrilized 100% in here? Peace out guys, be healthy always, Let's fly higher 11111111111111111111111111100000000000000000000000000000000011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Critize Message for Economic Think Tank. Why SAI-15 and SLH-DSA because for Signature Checksum to become a Balance for X Validate, I'm just criticizing it, I really care, not saying SHA 256 is a nightmare, y'all don't Sentiment I won't be here long, if you care who conveys information, not cryptography and
...
💬 farrelA commented on issue "Bitcoin Nebula, Please open a discussion.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32120#issuecomment-2745003343)
Hopefully it will be implemented not because of who I am, I don't have feelings for anyone, You're the wrong person if you keep canceling this because I care not only in terms of Technology but also the Philosophy of Accedence, Like US it is impossible to exceed the amount of Bitcoin that Satoshi Nakamoto owns because reward and resonance energy what US get so small so different than Satoshi owns and why Altcoin can't beating of Bitcoin? Because there's all create Math Mistake not the laws of na
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32120#issuecomment-2745003343)
Hopefully it will be implemented not because of who I am, I don't have feelings for anyone, You're the wrong person if you keep canceling this because I care not only in terms of Technology but also the Philosophy of Accedence, Like US it is impossible to exceed the amount of Bitcoin that Satoshi Nakamoto owns because reward and resonance energy what US get so small so different than Satoshi owns and why Altcoin can't beating of Bitcoin? Because there's all create Math Mistake not the laws of na
...
✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Bitcoin Nebula, Please open a discussion."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32120)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32120)
:lock: achow101 locked an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32120)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32120)
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r2008659388)
Ok, so it looks like we should instead apply this patch: https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/633612 ?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r2008659388)
Ok, so it looks like we should instead apply this patch: https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/633612 ?
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r2008662782)
> ... or a poor design of Qt's internal find modules.
Possibly, have we reported this (regression?) upstream? From my reading of the Qt docs, I can't seem to find `pkg-config` listed as a build-time dependency.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r2008662782)
> ... or a poor design of Qt's internal find modules.
Possibly, have we reported this (regression?) upstream? From my reading of the Qt docs, I can't seem to find `pkg-config` listed as a build-time dependency.
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "contrib: turn off compression of macOS SDK to fix determinism (across distros)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32009#issuecomment-2745031877)
I don't have an explanation for this yet, but I am able to reproduce the provided hash on systems with python versions >= 3.12.0, with various `zlib` and `zlib-ng` versions.
`pkgdiff` again reports the mismatching archives as identical. But, now that the archives are uncompressed, the binary diff output is a little more revealing, here's the start of the diff:
<details>
<summary>
`git diff <(xxd rocky9.3/Xcode-15.0-15A240d-extracted-SDK-with-libcxx-headers.tar.gz) <(xxd fedora41/Xcode-
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32009#issuecomment-2745031877)
I don't have an explanation for this yet, but I am able to reproduce the provided hash on systems with python versions >= 3.12.0, with various `zlib` and `zlib-ng` versions.
`pkgdiff` again reports the mismatching archives as identical. But, now that the archives are uncompressed, the binary diff output is a little more revealing, here's the start of the diff:
<details>
<summary>
`git diff <(xxd rocky9.3/Xcode-15.0-15A240d-extracted-SDK-with-libcxx-headers.tar.gz) <(xxd fedora41/Xcode-
...
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "fuzz: enable running fuzz test cases in Debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32113#issuecomment-2745039599)
> I don't think the current patch will work. `G_FUZZING` influences more than just the behavior of the asserts/assumes. For example:
>
> * POW checks are different
> * The task runner is different
> * The random seeding is different
Yes -- the same fuzz seed will in many cases execute different code paths for the fuzzer when compiled in Debug mode without BUILD_FOR_FUZZING set. But that's a feature not a bug -- the idea is to be able to still run the fuzz tests with a relativ
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32113#issuecomment-2745039599)
> I don't think the current patch will work. `G_FUZZING` influences more than just the behavior of the asserts/assumes. For example:
>
> * POW checks are different
> * The task runner is different
> * The random seeding is different
Yes -- the same fuzz seed will in many cases execute different code paths for the fuzzer when compiled in Debug mode without BUILD_FOR_FUZZING set. But that's a feature not a bug -- the idea is to be able to still run the fuzz tests with a relativ
...
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "contrib: turn off compression of macOS SDK to fix determinism (across distros)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32009#issuecomment-2745042271)
> I don't have an explanation for this yet, but I am able to reproduce the provided hash on systems with python versions >= 3.12.0, with various `zlib` and `zlib-ng` versions, but python < 3.12.0 I get varying hashes.
A wild guess: Could this be related to https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/95385?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32009#issuecomment-2745042271)
> I don't have an explanation for this yet, but I am able to reproduce the provided hash on systems with python versions >= 3.12.0, with various `zlib` and `zlib-ng` versions, but python < 3.12.0 I get varying hashes.
A wild guess: Could this be related to https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/95385?
📝 achow101 locked a pull request: "[28.x] 28.1 backports and final changes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31594)
Backports:
- #31502
- #31563
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31594)
Backports:
- #31502
- #31563
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: enable running fuzz test cases in Debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32113#issuecomment-2745046158)
> But that's a feature not a bug -- the idea is to be able to still run the fuzz tests with a relatively normal production-like build that doesn't completely special-case out POW checks, random seeding, etc.
My fear is that some bugs are not reproducible. (I know this is mostly theoretical, because we haven't seen such a case yet, but still it would be a bit disappointing if someone spent hours trying to reproduce a fuzz run, when it is impossible in a normal debug build)
> `inline bool Fu
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32113#issuecomment-2745046158)
> But that's a feature not a bug -- the idea is to be able to still run the fuzz tests with a relatively normal production-like build that doesn't completely special-case out POW checks, random seeding, etc.
My fear is that some bugs are not reproducible. (I know this is mostly theoretical, because we haven't seen such a case yet, but still it would be a bit disappointing if someone spent hours trying to reproduce a fuzz run, when it is impossible in a normal debug build)
> `inline bool Fu
...
⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "fuzz: package_rbf crashes after out-of-range memory read"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32121)
Diff to reproduce (turns UB into a runtime exception):
```diff
diff --git a/src/test/fuzz/rbf.cpp b/src/test/fuzz/rbf.cpp
index 3e5b361186..74099f770d 100644
--- a/src/test/fuzz/rbf.cpp
+++ b/src/test/fuzz/rbf.cpp
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ FUZZ_TARGET(package_rbf, .init = initialize_package_rbf)
}
assert(iter <= g_outpoints.size());
replacement_tx->vin.resize(1);
- replacement_tx->vin[0].prevout = g_outpoints[iter++];
+ replacement_tx->vin[0].prevout = g_outpoints.at(iter++);
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32121)
Diff to reproduce (turns UB into a runtime exception):
```diff
diff --git a/src/test/fuzz/rbf.cpp b/src/test/fuzz/rbf.cpp
index 3e5b361186..74099f770d 100644
--- a/src/test/fuzz/rbf.cpp
+++ b/src/test/fuzz/rbf.cpp
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ FUZZ_TARGET(package_rbf, .init = initialize_package_rbf)
}
assert(iter <= g_outpoints.size());
replacement_tx->vin.resize(1);
- replacement_tx->vin[0].prevout = g_outpoints[iter++];
+ replacement_tx->vin[0].prevout = g_outpoints.at(iter++);
...
📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "fuzz: Fix off-by-one in package_rbf target"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32122)
Running the while loop up to `NUM_ITERS` times may set `iter` to `g_outpoints.size()`, which will then lead to an out-of-bounds read.
There was an assert, which I guess tried to catch this, but the condition in the assert was wrong as well.
Fix all issues by replacing the broken assert with the internal and correct check inside `std::vector::at` and by limiting `iter` to `NUM_ITERS` in the while loop.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32122)
Running the while loop up to `NUM_ITERS` times may set `iter` to `g_outpoints.size()`, which will then lead to an out-of-bounds read.
There was an assert, which I guess tried to catch this, but the condition in the assert was wrong as well.
Fix all issues by replacing the broken assert with the internal and correct check inside `std::vector::at` and by limiting `iter` to `NUM_ITERS` in the while loop.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: Fix off-by-one in package_rbf target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32122#issuecomment-2745083344)
Can be tested with the input and steps from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32121
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32122#issuecomment-2745083344)
Can be tested with the input and steps from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32121
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "fuzz: enable running fuzz test cases in Debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32113#issuecomment-2745105618)
> lgtm
Okay, done. How's that look?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32113#issuecomment-2745105618)
> lgtm
Okay, done. How's that look?
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: enable running fuzz test cases in Debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32113#discussion_r2008700665)
nit: Forgot to mention this, but to me it seems simpler to have the program automatically set this. Otherwise, it is just busy work for the dev.
in `src/test/fuzz/fuzz.cpp` you can set it to true, and default it to false, no?
This is also the code prior to the changes in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31191/files
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32113#discussion_r2008700665)
nit: Forgot to mention this, but to me it seems simpler to have the program automatically set this. Otherwise, it is just busy work for the dev.
in `src/test/fuzz/fuzz.cpp` you can set it to true, and default it to false, no?
This is also the code prior to the changes in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31191/files
🤔 maflcko reviewed a pull request: "Rust tool to import bip39 mnemonic"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32115#pullrequestreview-2707937328)
> Or perhaps Rust Bitcoin could ship it as an example.
Yeah, right now it looks like this is just a few lines of docs and example code with the bulk being several imported rust-bitcoin dependencies. So I wonder what the benefits are to include it here, instead of somewhere closer where the majority of its (implicit) code sits.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32115#pullrequestreview-2707937328)
> Or perhaps Rust Bitcoin could ship it as an example.
Yeah, right now it looks like this is just a few lines of docs and example code with the bulk being several imported rust-bitcoin dependencies. So I wonder what the benefits are to include it here, instead of somewhere closer where the majority of its (implicit) code sits.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Rust tool to import bip39 mnemonic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32115#discussion_r2008706369)
This is a bit confusing. What does "back it up" mean? The wallet, the mnemonic? Also, I am not sure about the risks that users are exposed to now. I've only read the first section of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0039 and it mentions loss of funds. So I think it would be better to educate the users about how wallet incompatibilities can silently lead to loss of funds, instead of implying that a backup of the mnemonic is sufficient for recovery.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32115#discussion_r2008706369)
This is a bit confusing. What does "back it up" mean? The wallet, the mnemonic? Also, I am not sure about the risks that users are exposed to now. I've only read the first section of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0039 and it mentions loss of funds. So I think it would be better to educate the users about how wallet incompatibilities can silently lead to loss of funds, instead of implying that a backup of the mnemonic is sufficient for recovery.
🤔 maflcko reviewed a pull request: "fuzz: wallet: fix crypter target"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32118#pullrequestreview-2707939655)
Would be nice to add a short line on how to test/observe this fix
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32118#pullrequestreview-2707939655)
Would be nice to add a short line on how to test/observe this fix
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet: fix crypter target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32118#discussion_r2008708494)
Why is this needed?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32118#discussion_r2008708494)
Why is this needed?