💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Critical Discrepancy: Bitcoin Core Node Sees UTXO via scantxoutset, BUT listunspent & Sparrow Wallet Fail; Address Undrivable from LND Key?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32311#issuecomment-2817048564)
Hi.

General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on the [Libera Chat](https://libera.chat/) network.

That said, it seems like this question should not even be posted there, and would be better posted in an LND help forum, as the fundamental problem (restoring and LND-derived key) is unrelated to Bitcoin Core?

> Why would listunspent (even with the correct wallet specified) a
...

📝 EniRox001 opened a pull request: "test: Fix feature_pruning test after nTime typo fix"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32312)
The test_pruneheight_undo_presence test was failing after fixing a typo
in the mine_large_blocks.nTime variable (previously incorrectly written
as nTimes). The typo fix exposed an underlying issue where node 2, which
is involved in reorg testing, was being used for the undo presence test.

The problem occurred because node 2, being part of reorg testing, could
be on a different chain than other nodes. This caused failures when
attempting to fetch blocks from other nodes that didn't recogn
...

🤔 theStack reviewed a pull request: "psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#pullrequestreview-2780244157)
Concept ACK

💬 theStack commented on pull request "psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#discussion_r2051723308)
nit: `CheckSignatureEncoding` already checks for empty sig, so the first check isn't needed
```suggestion
if (!CheckSignatureEncoding(sig, SCRIPT_VERIFY_DERSIG | SCRIPT_VERIFY_STRICTENC, nullptr)) {
```
any reason why the verification flags don't also include `SCRIPT_VERIFY_LOW_S`?

💬 furszy commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#issuecomment-2817260424)
> On Windows, benchmark runs sporadically hung because the descriptor wallet and its companion watch-only wallet were never unloaded, remaining registered in the global WalletContext. This prevented the test harness from cleaning up its temporary directory.

Hmm, haven't dug deeper but this does not seem to be accurate. The `WalletContext` is not global. It is created at the beginning of the benchmark, just after creating the test context (which is the one that calls to the `fs::removal_all` t
...

📝 l0rinc opened a pull request: "RFC: Fix `cachedCoinsUsage` usages in `CCoinsViewCache`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32313)
Split out of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32296#issuecomment-2813590511 since this needed more complicated production code changes.

The changes ensure `cachedCoinsUsage` remains balanced throughout all coin operations and that the sanitizers will catch future violations.

The change was tested with the related fuzz test, and asserted before/after each `cachedCoinsUsage` change (in production code and fuzz) that the calculations are still correct by recalculating it from scratch:
...

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "RFC: Fix `cachedCoinsUsage` usages in `CCoinsViewCache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32313#discussion_r2051775463)
I think this would be simpler if we kept the original behavior of moving the `coin` here as well, and then only increment the `cachedCoinsUsage` if the coin is inserted.

In practice it's not possible to get `!inserted` unless the assume utxo payload was generated incorrectly.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "RFC: Fix `cachedCoinsUsage` usages in `CCoinsViewCache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32313#discussion_r2051774641)
Would it be simpler to just move this `if` block below the `if` block that throws, instead of pulling the throw out?

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "RFC: Fix `cachedCoinsUsage` usages in `CCoinsViewCache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32313#discussion_r2051775760)
The entry has an empty coin here, it was just created. So this is just subtracting zero.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Fix feature_pruning test after nTime typo fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32312#issuecomment-2817298481)
Code change looks good to me. The commit message doesn't seem to say anything about the typo fix though. It should be mentioned there and that the rest of the change is fixing a secondary issue caused by this. You could also split this in two separate commits.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "RFC: Fix `cachedCoinsUsage` usages in `CCoinsViewCache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32313#discussion_r2051806640)
If you think that's better, I don't mind - done

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "RFC: Fix `cachedCoinsUsage` usages in `CCoinsViewCache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32313#discussion_r2051806668)
> In practice it's not possible to get !inserted unless the assume utxo payload was generated incorrectly.

As far as I can see that's not a guarantee, but I've also noted it in the commit message that currently this is the case.

> kept the original behavior of moving the coin here as well

Sure, if you think that's better - changed!

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "RFC: Fix `cachedCoinsUsage` usages in `CCoinsViewCache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32313#discussion_r2051806682)
Thanks, I'll add an assert in that case to explain why this branch wasn't symmetric with the other one.

👋 l0rinc's pull request is ready for review: "coins: Fix `cachedCoinsUsage` usages in `CCoinsViewCache`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32313)

⚠️ Dustin4444 opened an issue: "new"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32314)
### Issues, reports or feature requests related to the GUI should be opened directly on the GUI repo

- [x] I still think this issue should be opened here

### Report

> [!IMPORTANT]
>

✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "new"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32314)

💬 romanz commented on pull request "Replace libevent with our own HTTP and socket-handling implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32061#discussion_r2051989121)
nit: `weekday` and `month` can be a `string_view`.

💬 romanz commented on pull request "Replace libevent with our own HTTP and socket-handling implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32061#discussion_r2051985554)
nit: this comment seems to be incorrect, since `TCP_NODELAY` is only set once by `SockMan`.

💬 romanz commented on pull request "Replace libevent with our own HTTP and socket-handling implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32061#discussion_r2052027205)
Can we return a `string_view` to the internal buffer?
(preventing allocation & copy)

💬 romanz commented on pull request "Replace libevent with our own HTTP and socket-handling implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32061#discussion_r2052025637)
Can we return a `string_view` to the internal buffer?
(preventing allocation & copy)