👍 vasild approved a pull request: "p2p: Advance pindexLastCommonBlock early after connecting blocks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#pullrequestreview-2793701909)
ACK c69ee2d5b93296d3008d6978182b2bc29bbeb457
The code changes look reasonable. I tested that `p2p_ibd_stalling.py` fails without commit 1d8504c5e6 `p2p: During block download, adjust pindexLastCommonBlock right away`. It failed 7 times and passed 1 time. Is it expected to pass sometimes?
I also checked that the code inside the modified `if`s is executed during `p2p_ibd_stalling.py`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#pullrequestreview-2793701909)
ACK c69ee2d5b93296d3008d6978182b2bc29bbeb457
The code changes look reasonable. I tested that `p2p_ibd_stalling.py` fails without commit 1d8504c5e6 `p2p: During block download, adjust pindexLastCommonBlock right away`. It failed 7 times and passed 1 time. Is it expected to pass sometimes?
I also checked that the code inside the modified `if`s is executed during `p2p_ibd_stalling.py`.
💬 vasild commented on pull request "p2p: Advance pindexLastCommonBlock early after connecting blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#discussion_r2060110804)
nit: could use a variable `second_stall_block_index = 500` or something like that to avoid repeating the number `500`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#discussion_r2060110804)
nit: could use a variable `second_stall_block_index = 500` or something like that to avoid repeating the number `500`.
⚠️ Pimpim11 opened an issue: "Double Poisson Sum: Enhancing Energy Distribution in Bitcoin Proof of Work with Main Formula γ^(i/R) + ∑(S[0:i]·τ·φ^j)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348)
Title: Double Poisson Sum: Enhancing Energy Distribution in Bitcoin Proof of Work with Main Formula γ^(i/R) + ∑(S[0:i]·τ·φ^j)
Author: Farrel Al Feshal
Created: April 25, 2025
Abstract
Introduces a novel mathematical framework, Double Poisson Sum, as a potential enhancement to Bitcoin’s Proof of Work (PoW) consensus mechanism. The proposed main formula, γ^(i/R) + ∑(S[0:i]·τ·φ^j), aims to achieve a more equitable distribution of computational energy across the network while providing robust crypt
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348)
Title: Double Poisson Sum: Enhancing Energy Distribution in Bitcoin Proof of Work with Main Formula γ^(i/R) + ∑(S[0:i]·τ·φ^j)
Author: Farrel Al Feshal
Created: April 25, 2025
Abstract
Introduces a novel mathematical framework, Double Poisson Sum, as a potential enhancement to Bitcoin’s Proof of Work (PoW) consensus mechanism. The proposed main formula, γ^(i/R) + ∑(S[0:i]·τ·φ^j), aims to achieve a more equitable distribution of computational energy across the network while providing robust crypt
...
✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Double Poisson Sum: Enhancing Energy Distribution in Bitcoin Proof of Work with Main Formula γ^(i/R) + ∑(S[0:i]·τ·φ^j)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348)
💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Double Poisson Sum: Enhancing Energy Distribution in Bitcoin Proof of Work with Main Formula γ^(i/R) + ∑(S[0:i]·τ·φ^j)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348#issuecomment-2830289998)
For proposed protocol changes you can post to the [bitcoindev mailing list](https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev) or the [Delving Bitcoin](https://delvingbitcoin.org/) Discorse forum. However as this appears to be largely about "Syamailcoin" I am not sure it's particularly appropriate for there either.
For general bitcoin discussion you can try [bitcointalk](https://bitcointalk.org) or [https://reddit.com/r/bitcoin](reddit.com/r/bitcoin).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348#issuecomment-2830289998)
For proposed protocol changes you can post to the [bitcoindev mailing list](https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev) or the [Delving Bitcoin](https://delvingbitcoin.org/) Discorse forum. However as this appears to be largely about "Syamailcoin" I am not sure it's particularly appropriate for there either.
For general bitcoin discussion you can try [bitcointalk](https://bitcointalk.org) or [https://reddit.com/r/bitcoin](reddit.com/r/bitcoin).
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "doc: warn that CheckBlock() underestimates sigops":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31624#discussion_r2060159606)
As explained in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2830264751 this is fine. `TestBlockValidity` also calls the more thorough method.
I don't know why this check is here, perhaps just a way to quickly reject a block with lots of sigops?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31624#discussion_r2060159606)
As explained in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2830264751 this is fine. `TestBlockValidity` also calls the more thorough method.
I don't know why this check is here, perhaps just a way to quickly reject a block with lots of sigops?
📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "test: Increase stack size for "Debug" builds with MSVC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349)
This PR accommodates the deep recursion in the `FindChallenges()` function used in `test/miniscript_tests.cpp`.
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32341#issuecomment-2829441596.
CI log: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/actions/runs/14664806617/job/41156972137
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349)
This PR accommodates the deep recursion in the `FindChallenges()` function used in `test/miniscript_tests.cpp`.
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32341#issuecomment-2829441596.
CI log: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/actions/runs/14664806617/job/41156972137
💬 hebasto commented on issue "ctest -C Debug fails on vs2022 (miniscript_tests (SEGFAULT))":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32341#issuecomment-2830328335)
> Thx. Though, now it says:
>
> ```
> The following tests FAILED:
> 60 - miniscript_tests (SEGFAULT)
> Errors while running CTest
> ```
>
> * I guess this is not really a segfault/bug in the code, but rather a stack overflow, due to the debug config eating more memory?
Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32341#issuecomment-2830328335)
> Thx. Though, now it says:
>
> ```
> The following tests FAILED:
> 60 - miniscript_tests (SEGFAULT)
> Errors while running CTest
> ```
>
> * I guess this is not really a segfault/bug in the code, but rather a stack overflow, due to the debug config eating more memory?
Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#issuecomment-2830337961)
Looks like `is_bdb_compiled` & `skip_if_no_bdb` should have been dropped.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#issuecomment-2830337961)
Looks like `is_bdb_compiled` & `skip_if_no_bdb` should have been dropped.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Add checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2830342567)
I've implemented a typo check in DrahtBot and there are more, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2697111800
Also, the CI is failing.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2830342567)
I've implemented a typo check in DrahtBot and there are more, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2697111800
Also, the CI is failing.
💬 Pimpim11 commented on issue "Double Poisson Sum: Enhancing Energy Distribution in Bitcoin Proof of Work with Main Formula γ^(i/R) + ∑(S[0:i]·τ·φ^j)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348#issuecomment-2830347260)
@willcl-ark Thanks a lot, I did Muscle Memory in Math in 2016 for Syamailcoin, and I never know if it is not possible to market under 21 Million, CoinMarketCap say I must have Big Community to Enter the Crypto Market, in September 2024 I managed to run consensus but because I didn't think about the community from the beginning, i reset all and on 13 April 2025 i did the last revision in the whitepaper.
Maybe I'm a little tired, not a day goes by without thinking about this and whether the laws
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348#issuecomment-2830347260)
@willcl-ark Thanks a lot, I did Muscle Memory in Math in 2016 for Syamailcoin, and I never know if it is not possible to market under 21 Million, CoinMarketCap say I must have Big Community to Enter the Crypto Market, in September 2024 I managed to run consensus but because I didn't think about the community from the beginning, i reset all and on 13 April 2025 i did the last revision in the whitepaper.
Maybe I'm a little tired, not a day goes by without thinking about this and whether the laws
...
💬 Pimpim11 commented on issue "Double Poisson Sum: Enhancing Energy Distribution in Bitcoin Proof of Work with Main Formula γ^(i/R) + ∑(S[0:i]·τ·φ^j)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348#issuecomment-2830349113)
@willcl-ark
I am Farrel Al Feshal who is currently active as a Cryptographer, and I want to realize this Syamailcoin, a Layer-1 that I know has never existed in our country, despite the trust because of artistic tokens and exchange tokens not being obstacles for me. This is not just referential reading, but I did Muscle Memory in Math in 2016 where I felt Mathematics is not just numbers but I can travel within Mathematics itself.
In short, I have successfully launched it but according to CMC,
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348#issuecomment-2830349113)
@willcl-ark
I am Farrel Al Feshal who is currently active as a Cryptographer, and I want to realize this Syamailcoin, a Layer-1 that I know has never existed in our country, despite the trust because of artistic tokens and exchange tokens not being obstacles for me. This is not just referential reading, but I did Muscle Memory in Math in 2016 where I felt Mathematics is not just numbers but I can travel within Mathematics itself.
In short, I have successfully launched it but according to CMC,
...
:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Double Poisson Sum: Enhancing Energy Distribution in Bitcoin Proof of Work with Main Formula γ^(i/R) + ∑(S[0:i]·τ·φ^j)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348)
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: Increase stack size for "Debug" builds with MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#discussion_r2060189048)
Where does this reserve value come from?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#discussion_r2060189048)
Where does this reserve value come from?
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#discussion_r2060197072)
the test doesn't look wallet related, so can probably remove this (albeit harmless)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#discussion_r2060197072)
the test doesn't look wallet related, so can probably remove this (albeit harmless)
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Increase stack size for "Debug" builds with MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#issuecomment-2830372296)
I'm not against increasing the Windows stack depth, but the underlying problem may be that we're ignoring warnings such as `misc-no-recursion`, even when the fix is quite simple.
`FindChallenges` looks like a depth-first search, which should be straightforward to rewrite as a simple iterative function:
```diff
diff --git a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp b/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
index f253562a2f..14ac44e2c6 100644
--- a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/miniscript_tests.c
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#issuecomment-2830372296)
I'm not against increasing the Windows stack depth, but the underlying problem may be that we're ignoring warnings such as `misc-no-recursion`, even when the fix is quite simple.
`FindChallenges` looks like a depth-first search, which should be straightforward to rewrite as a simple iterative function:
```diff
diff --git a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp b/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
index f253562a2f..14ac44e2c6 100644
--- a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/miniscript_tests.c
...
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "test: Increase stack size for "Debug" builds with MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#discussion_r2060209140)
Determined empirically—this value was found to be sufficient during testing.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#discussion_r2060209140)
Determined empirically—this value was found to be sufficient during testing.
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "test: Increase stack size for "Debug" builds with MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#issuecomment-2830396855)
> I'm not against increasing the Windows stack depth, but the underlying problem may be that we're ignoring warnings such as `misc-no-recursion`, even when the fix is quite simple.
>
> `FindChallenges` looks like a simple depth-first search, which should be straightforward to rewrite as an iterative walk:
>
> ```diff
> diff --git a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp b/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
> index f253562a2f..14ac44e2c6 100644
> --- a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
> +++ b/src/test/m
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#issuecomment-2830396855)
> I'm not against increasing the Windows stack depth, but the underlying problem may be that we're ignoring warnings such as `misc-no-recursion`, even when the fix is quite simple.
>
> `FindChallenges` looks like a simple depth-first search, which should be straightforward to rewrite as an iterative walk:
>
> ```diff
> diff --git a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp b/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
> index f253562a2f..14ac44e2c6 100644
> --- a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
> +++ b/src/test/m
...
💬 darosior commented on pull request "test: Increase stack size for "Debug" builds with MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#issuecomment-2830408233)
That sounds sensible, can you open a PR with this patch and tag me?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#issuecomment-2830408233)
That sounds sensible, can you open a PR with this patch and tag me?
💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: remove unnecessary check from AlreadyConnectedToAddress()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32338#issuecomment-2830421188)
`0eac006a00...f1b142856a`: address suggestions - add fuzz test and an unit test.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32338#issuecomment-2830421188)
`0eac006a00...f1b142856a`: address suggestions - add fuzz test and an unit test.