💬 Christewart commented on pull request "RFC: Accept non-std transactions in Testnet4 by default again":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32133#issuecomment-2762182397)
> > the question is why we are not also moving back on this setting, too, so that people can use non-std transactions on Testnet4.
>
> I don't think this is enough. There are many non-std transactions that will still be rejected, even if this is turned on. One example is #29843.
Another example is 64-byte transactions which was surprising behavior to me when working the BIP to disallow them:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/e486597f9a57903600656fb5106858941885852f/src/validation.
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32133#issuecomment-2762182397)
> > the question is why we are not also moving back on this setting, too, so that people can use non-std transactions on Testnet4.
>
> I don't think this is enough. There are many non-std transactions that will still be rejected, even if this is turned on. One example is #29843.
Another example is 64-byte transactions which was surprising behavior to me when working the BIP to disallow them:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/e486597f9a57903600656fb5106858941885852f/src/validation.
...
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019177841)
Oh, I misread this, but I'm still having trouble understanding what is intended. "Sort by feerate" ... "as these are just feerates".
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019177841)
Oh, I misread this, but I'm still having trouble understanding what is intended. "Sort by feerate" ... "as these are just feerates".
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019183993)
Maybe I'm making things more confusing by mentioning it at all?
My thinking is this: in general, to construct the full-graph chunk ordering, you *cannot* just sort by feerate, because you may sort two equal-feerate chunks within the same cluster incorrectly w.r.t. each other, breaking topology. However, here we are just construct a diagram, and don't care about what chunks they correspond to, so as far as the feerates of line segments in the diagram is concerned, we can just ignore this probl
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019183993)
Maybe I'm making things more confusing by mentioning it at all?
My thinking is this: in general, to construct the full-graph chunk ordering, you *cannot* just sort by feerate, because you may sort two equal-feerate chunks within the same cluster incorrectly w.r.t. each other, breaking topology. However, here we are just construct a diagram, and don't care about what chunks they correspond to, so as far as the feerates of line segments in the diagram is concerned, we can just ignore this probl
...
💬 olaristo109 commented on issue "wallet: migratewallet crashes "Assertion `legacy_spkm' failed"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32112#issuecomment-2762195697)
Thanks for reporting this! I've fixed the 'GetDescriptorsForLegacy' crash by adding a null check and better error logging. I'm testing now
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32112#issuecomment-2762195697)
Thanks for reporting this! I've fixed the 'GetDescriptorsForLegacy' crash by adding a null check and better error logging. I'm testing now
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019188834)
Can you elaborate, or suggest code?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019188834)
Can you elaborate, or suggest code?
🤔 l0rinc reviewed a pull request: "refactor: Enforce readability-avoid-const-params-in-decls"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31650#pullrequestreview-2725702425)
Concept ACK - this should clear up a few const usages.
After rebasing I found a few other similar ones, but not sure if they were ignored on purpose or not.
Please consider the ones that are related to this change - and just skip the ones that you've ignored on purpose.
<details>
<summary>Details</summary>
```patch
diff --git a/src/cuckoocache.h b/src/cuckoocache.h
index 8370179395..9dcceec739 100644
--- a/src/cuckoocache.h
+++ b/src/cuckoocache.h
@@ -471,7 +471,7 @@ public:
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31650#pullrequestreview-2725702425)
Concept ACK - this should clear up a few const usages.
After rebasing I found a few other similar ones, but not sure if they were ignored on purpose or not.
Please consider the ones that are related to this change - and just skip the ones that you've ignored on purpose.
<details>
<summary>Details</summary>
```patch
diff --git a/src/cuckoocache.h b/src/cuckoocache.h
index 8370179395..9dcceec739 100644
--- a/src/cuckoocache.h
+++ b/src/cuckoocache.h
@@ -471,7 +471,7 @@ public:
...
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: Enforce readability-avoid-const-params-in-decls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31650#discussion_r2019210398)
argsman_tests.cpp
```C++
void ReadConfigString(const std::string& str_config)
void SetNetworkOnlyArg(const std::string& arg)
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31650#discussion_r2019210398)
argsman_tests.cpp
```C++
void ReadConfigString(const std::string& str_config)
void SetNetworkOnlyArg(const std::string& arg)
```
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: Enforce readability-avoid-const-params-in-decls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31650#discussion_r2018767338)
Was the `const std::string_view` kept in the `.cpp` file on purpose?
I've noticed we usually avoid consting a view...
I see we even have `const std::string_view&` - would it make sense to unify those usages here as well?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31650#discussion_r2018767338)
Was the `const std::string_view` kept in the `.cpp` file on purpose?
I've noticed we usually avoid consting a view...
I see we even have `const std::string_view&` - would it make sense to unify those usages here as well?
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: Enforce readability-avoid-const-params-in-decls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31650#discussion_r2019211614)
A similar one may be
```patch
diff --git a/src/netbase.h b/src/netbase.h
--- a/src/netbase.h (revision 29a5a50583920e839fc3020c08f28b2f12a64d74)
+++ b/src/netbase.h (date 1743172625447)
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
public:
Proxy() : m_is_unix_socket(false), m_randomize_credentials(false) {}
explicit Proxy(const CService& _proxy, bool _randomize_credentials = false) : proxy(_proxy), m_is_unix_socket(false), m_randomize_credentials(_randomize_credentials) {}
- explicit Proxy(const std:
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31650#discussion_r2019211614)
A similar one may be
```patch
diff --git a/src/netbase.h b/src/netbase.h
--- a/src/netbase.h (revision 29a5a50583920e839fc3020c08f28b2f12a64d74)
+++ b/src/netbase.h (date 1743172625447)
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
public:
Proxy() : m_is_unix_socket(false), m_randomize_credentials(false) {}
explicit Proxy(const CService& _proxy, bool _randomize_credentials = false) : proxy(_proxy), m_is_unix_socket(false), m_randomize_credentials(_randomize_credentials) {}
- explicit Proxy(const std:
...
📝 olaristo109 opened a pull request: "Fix legacy migration bug"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32161)
Fix: Prevent crash on null legacy_spkm in GetDescriptorsForLegacy
This pull request resolves a critical issue that caused Bitcoin Core to crash during legacy wallet migration. The 'GetDescriptorsForLegacy' function was not properly handling cases where 'legacy_spkm' was a null pointer, leading to a dereference error.
This PR implements the following changes:
* Adds an explicit null pointer check for 'legacy_spkm'.
* Adds detailed error logging, including the key associated with the nul
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32161)
Fix: Prevent crash on null legacy_spkm in GetDescriptorsForLegacy
This pull request resolves a critical issue that caused Bitcoin Core to crash during legacy wallet migration. The 'GetDescriptorsForLegacy' function was not properly handling cases where 'legacy_spkm' was a null pointer, leading to a dereference error.
This PR implements the following changes:
* Adds an explicit null pointer check for 'legacy_spkm'.
* Adds detailed error logging, including the key associated with the nul
...
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "Fix legacy migration bug":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32161#discussion_r2019321308)
Why?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32161#discussion_r2019321308)
Why?
💬 glozow commented on issue "RPC: `getblockstats` might not return the *effective* percentile fee rate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31140#issuecomment-2762446017)
I hope this doesn't sound too dismissive, but who uses this and what are they using it for? Can we delete these fields or the whole RPC? To visualize stats, I think using `getblock` to obtain the fees and sizes for each transaction is much more flexible and appropriate (though tbf I don't think this was the case when #10757 was originally opened).
Separately, linearizing and chunking transactions (whether it's a block or something else) is pretty complicated and perhaps worth exposing it or off
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31140#issuecomment-2762446017)
I hope this doesn't sound too dismissive, but who uses this and what are they using it for? Can we delete these fields or the whole RPC? To visualize stats, I think using `getblock` to obtain the fees and sizes for each transaction is much more flexible and appropriate (though tbf I don't think this was the case when #10757 was originally opened).
Separately, linearizing and chunking transactions (whether it's a block or something else) is pretty complicated and perhaps worth exposing it or off
...
🤔 TheCharlatan reviewed a pull request: "build: Switch to Qt 6"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#pullrequestreview-2726753659)
Guix builds:
```
aarch64
6ea4a76be3383337e57d6a12450bd589776ebb3fd0d9161347766ef845241e13 guix-build-c4861570e468/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
3eb7656483dfe47fa6b7cf40bceb3decda73474c813edb224d42840adb8b49d6 guix-build-c4861570e468/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-c4861570e468-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
0aa522010efd138d78eeac0a8ea15df469298c50afaa2451dece78c564546cac guix-build-c4861570e468/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-c4861570e468-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
5e1e833519
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#pullrequestreview-2726753659)
Guix builds:
```
aarch64
6ea4a76be3383337e57d6a12450bd589776ebb3fd0d9161347766ef845241e13 guix-build-c4861570e468/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
3eb7656483dfe47fa6b7cf40bceb3decda73474c813edb224d42840adb8b49d6 guix-build-c4861570e468/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-c4861570e468-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
0aa522010efd138d78eeac0a8ea15df469298c50afaa2451dece78c564546cac guix-build-c4861570e468/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-c4861570e468-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
5e1e833519
...
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019375703)
Done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019375703)
Done.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019376118)
Done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019376118)
Done.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019371904)
Added a comment.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019371904)
Added a comment.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019372075)
Done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019372075)
Done.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019372720)
No, it's being assigned to below.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019372720)
No, it's being assigned to below.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019374546)
I've changed the code so that `Include()` and `Skip()` are no-ops once the end is reached.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019374546)
I've changed the code so that `Include()` and `Skip()` are no-ops once the end is reached.
💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019375780)
Done.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019375780)
Done.