💬 yancyribbens commented on issue "Migrate from BTC/kvB to sat/vB on RPC and startup options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32093#issuecomment-2746348315)
Also, there's a long-standing issue where rust-bitcoin is off by one when compared to core because of the difference in metrics: https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/issues/3806

💬 frankomosh commented on issue "Enable PCP by default?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31663#issuecomment-2746348967)
> And if you do enable it does the port mapping works from `bitcoind`?

unfortunately my ISP cannot allow me to change it, so I can't conclusively perform this specific test

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#discussion_r2009189848)
I tried to encapsulate it in its own class, but it's hard to give it the same performance (which is relevant in the context of huge reorgs) without making the interface rather involved (needs a "representative" type that contains a pointer to the `PartitionData` object, separate from the element data type), and even then, the union-find version in `Trim()` in 31553 would need its own separate implementation still.

Going to leave it for now, we can think about cleanups later.

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet: fix crypter target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32118#issuecomment-2746352554)
nit: the commit message is pretty sparse. Could add a "why" section to the commit.

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "b-msghand invoked oom-killer: Master (v28.99) crashing during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31561#issuecomment-2746371802)
OK well, I've been unable to reproduce using docker limited to 8g or ram with swap disabled:

```bash
$ docker run --memory="8g" --memory-swap="8g" --volume="/tmp/31561:/home/bitcoin/.bitcoin" -it bitcoin/bitcoin:master -txindex=1
```

Synced just fine to block 868650 where I shut down manually. The docker image is at commit 2db00278ea57

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "b-msghand invoked oom-killer: Master (v28.99) crashing during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31561#issuecomment-2746382688)
Ok I'll try to reproduce and if I cant ill close.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Add encodable PUSHDATA1 examples to feature_taproot":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32114#issuecomment-2746424182)
Concept ACK

Not sure about having the documentation to add new spenders mixed within this particular set of spenders. What if I want to add new spenders Maybe it would be better in a comment block at the top of the test or in the docstring of `spenders_taproot_active`?

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: add missing segwitv1 test cases to `script_standard_tests`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31340#issuecomment-2746468990)
@tdb3 @hodlinator @rkrux: Thanks for your detailed reviews, and sorry for the late reply.

> Why is this being removed/changed?
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/22ef95dbe3e467039e6cd18988e66557d94041d1/src/test/script_standard_tests.cpp#L271-L276
>
> As I understand it we were creating a taproot output (v1) using a compressed pubkey with the type-prefix prepended, meaning it was 33 bytes instead of the standard 32. Maybe you could add it back with a clearer comment?

> @hod
...

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: add missing segwitv1 test cases to `script_standard_tests`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31340#discussion_r2009258041)
Done.

💬 santochibtc commented on issue "Enable PCP by default?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31663#issuecomment-2746474104)
not working with a router Arcadyan PRV3399B-B-LT with UPnP enabled
```
2025-03-23T21:09:32Z [net] portmap: gateway [IPv4]: x.x.x.x
2025-03-23T21:09:32Z [net] pcp: Requesting port mapping for addr 0.0.0.0 port 8333 from gateway x.x.x.x
2025-03-23T21:09:32Z [net] pcp: Internal address after connect: x.x.x.x
2025-03-23T21:09:32Z [net:warning] pcp: Could not receive response: Connection refused (111)
2025-03-23T21:09:32Z [net] portmap: Could not determine IPv6 default gateway
```

⚠️ k26dr opened an issue: "Restarting Development on BIP-199"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32126)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

Hi, I'd like to restart development on BIP-199: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0199

It was previously started as [PR #7601](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7601) which was then abandoned.

Is there any interest in getting this implemented? If so, I can start a PR and begin contributing.

### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.

_No response_

### Describe the solution you'd like

_No response_

### D
...

💬 sipa commented on issue "Restarting Development on BIP-199":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32126#issuecomment-2746507262)
> I'd like to use pay-to-public key addresses to implement the feature so that the full script is on-chain.

If it's a pay-to-pubkey address, it's not an HTLC.

💬 k26dr commented on issue "Restarting Development on BIP-199":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32126#issuecomment-2746510169)
Pay-to-public key which just stick the script on-chain, no? @sipa

💬 sipa commented on issue "Restarting Development on BIP-199":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32126#issuecomment-2746510364)
Well, yes, but it would be a pay-to-pubkey script, not an HTLC script?

💬 k26dr commented on issue "Restarting Development on BIP-199":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32126#issuecomment-2746511168)
As I understand it, this is an HTLC script:

```
OP_IF
[HASHOP] <digest> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <seller pubkey hash>
OP_ELSE
<num> [TIMEOUTOP] OP_DROP OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <buyer pubkey hash>
OP_ENDIF
OP_EQUALVERIFY
OP_CHECKSIG
```

and if this was put on-chain as a pay-to-pubkey script it would still work without breaking consensus.

If this is true, I'm cool with that.

💬 k26dr commented on issue "Restarting Development on BIP-199":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32126#issuecomment-2746512093)
If P2WSH is the preferred implementation, I'm cool with that too. I'm just trying to understand why pay-to-pubkey script would be an issue.

💬 k26dr commented on issue "Restarting Development on BIP-199":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32126#issuecomment-2746513255)
The NPM implementation uses P2WSH, so I'm not unfamiliar with that methodology. I just ran into the issue that if you lose the witness script, you lose the ability to claim the HTLC.

💬 sipa commented on issue "Restarting Development on BIP-199":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32126#issuecomment-2746517066)
"Pay to pubkey" (P2PK) means a "<pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG" script, nothing else. I think what you mean is what I'd call a "bare HTLC script", i.e., putting the script you give above directly in the `scriptPubKey`?

Terminology aside, this is problematic for several reasons:
* There exist no addresses for HTLC scripts (BIP199 or otherwise), you'd need to introduce a new address format for this to work or nobody can send to it. Previous experience shows that this is a multi-year process, at least (even
...

✅ k26dr closed an issue: "Restarting Development on BIP-199"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32126)

💬 k26dr commented on issue "Restarting Development on BIP-199":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32126#issuecomment-2746518848)
Ok fair enough. If a future BIP takes care of this, I'll close the issue. Thanks for the explanation.