š¬ portlandhodl commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2836184112)
> @portlandhodl
>
> > No restrictions on burn amount.
>
> IIRC that's just a `sendrawtransaction`/`submitpackage` argument, not a relay concern
This is absolutely correct per Solver + IsStandard(), thanks will edit post.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/3a29ba33dca6b9d53377d2e6a9f28453bb14ee6c/src/script/solver.cpp#L185C39-L185C72
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2836184112)
> @portlandhodl
>
> > No restrictions on burn amount.
>
> IIRC that's just a `sendrawtransaction`/`submitpackage` argument, not a relay concern
This is absolutely correct per Solver + IsStandard(), thanks will edit post.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/3a29ba33dca6b9d53377d2e6a9f28453bb14ee6c/src/script/solver.cpp#L185C39-L185C72
š¤ furszy reviewed a pull request: "test: Test that migration automatically repairs corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#pullrequestreview-2800454889)
utACK c7e2b9e2644442b147880becb8a659f3d00092d9
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#pullrequestreview-2800454889)
utACK c7e2b9e2644442b147880becb8a659f3d00092d9
š¬ achow101 commented on pull request "test: Force named args for RPCOverloadWrapper optional args":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32360#issuecomment-2836278910)
ACK fa48be3ba443d2436f754265b86331f84b866130
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32360#issuecomment-2836278910)
ACK fa48be3ba443d2436f754265b86331f84b866130
š¬ achow101 commented on pull request "test: Slim down previous releases bdb check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32350#issuecomment-2836295677)
ACK fa58f40b898ba6c57655bf38a241fb10107d4a3a
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32350#issuecomment-2836295677)
ACK fa58f40b898ba6c57655bf38a241fb10107d4a3a
š achow101 merged a pull request: "test: Force named args for RPCOverloadWrapper optional args"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32360)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32360)
š¬ murchandamus commented on pull request "test: Test that migration automatically repairs corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#issuecomment-2836339006)
re-ACK c7e2b9e2644442b147880becb8a659f3d00092d9 via range-diff:
git range-diff b8cefeb221490868d62b7a0695f8b5ea392d3654..bfcf5c5ab1fdba46d492aa0872c3d5f9a4a87633 80e6ad9e3023a57a4ef19b7d0edf9ac5be71a584..c7e2b9e2644442b147880becb8a659f3d00092d9
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#issuecomment-2836339006)
re-ACK c7e2b9e2644442b147880becb8a659f3d00092d9 via range-diff:
git range-diff b8cefeb221490868d62b7a0695f8b5ea392d3654..bfcf5c5ab1fdba46d492aa0872c3d5f9a4a87633 80e6ad9e3023a57a4ef19b7d0edf9ac5be71a584..c7e2b9e2644442b147880becb8a659f3d00092d9
š¬ danielabrozzoni commented on pull request "validation: log which peer sent us a header":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27826#issuecomment-2836362238)
tACK abe43dfadd6325f80975a76aea57a549c3162191
The changes look good to me, although I'm not too familiar with the validation code. I checked (by reading the code, didn't test) that the logs are missing only when receiving a BLOCK message and in some RPC paths, as explained in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27826/files#r1348974233
I sketched this diagram to better understand the code and thought Iād share it here in case it helps someone else too :)
tACK abe43dfadd6325f80975a76aea57a549c3162191
The changes look good to me, although I'm not too familiar with the validation code. I checked (by reading the code, didn't test) that the logs are missing only when receiving a BLOCK message and in some RPC paths, as explained in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27826/files#r1348974233
I sketched this diagram to better understand the code and thought Iād share it here in case it helps someone else too :)
![photo_2025-04-28_21-49-02](ht
...
š achow101 merged a pull request: "test: Slim down previous releases bdb check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32350)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32350)
š¬ mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: Advance pindexLastCommonBlock early after connecting blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#issuecomment-2836382102)
[c69ee2d](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c69ee2d5b93296d3008d6978182b2bc29bbeb457) to [b7ff6a6](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b7ff6a611a220e9380f6cd6428f1d3483c8d566f): addressed feedback
> Is it expected to pass sometimes?
It wasn't - but I have tracked this down now. It's a bit involved, I hope the following explanation makes sense:
The initial situation is that there are 2 remaining connected peers, the node has just synced blocks up to height 500, but pindex
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#issuecomment-2836382102)
[c69ee2d](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c69ee2d5b93296d3008d6978182b2bc29bbeb457) to [b7ff6a6](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b7ff6a611a220e9380f6cd6428f1d3483c8d566f): addressed feedback
> Is it expected to pass sometimes?
It wasn't - but I have tracked this down now. It's a bit involved, I hope the following explanation makes sense:
The initial situation is that there are 2 remaining connected peers, the node has just synced blocks up to height 500, but pindex
...
š¬ mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: Advance pindexLastCommonBlock early after connecting blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#discussion_r2064454694)
done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#discussion_r2064454694)
done
š¬ mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: Advance pindexLastCommonBlock early after connecting blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#discussion_r2064455709)
changed to use one var for each index, plus one array.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#discussion_r2064455709)
changed to use one var for each index, plus one array.
š¬ mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: Advance pindexLastCommonBlock early after connecting blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#discussion_r2064457862)
I'd say probably not becasue, `pindexLastCommonBlock` isn't really used for anything but assigning blocks during IBD.
If we will never need any blocks from this peer (until it sends us more headers, but then `pindexLastCommonBlock` will get updated. I'll also ignore weird `invalidateblock` scenarios here), I don't see what benefits updating would have.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#discussion_r2064457862)
I'd say probably not becasue, `pindexLastCommonBlock` isn't really used for anything but assigning blocks during IBD.
If we will never need any blocks from this peer (until it sends us more headers, but then `pindexLastCommonBlock` will get updated. I'll also ignore weird `invalidateblock` scenarios here), I don't see what benefits updating would have.
š¬ davidgumberg commented on pull request "wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#issuecomment-2836389658)
> Backwards compatibility is needed for wallet.dat
Bitcoin Core will still be able to migrate wallets that are in the legacy format to the new format. See the `migratewallet` rpc command: https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/29.0.0/rpc/wallet/migratewallet/ and the legacy wallet deprecation tracking issue (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20160) for more context.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#issuecomment-2836389658)
> Backwards compatibility is needed for wallet.dat
Bitcoin Core will still be able to migrate wallets that are in the legacy format to the new format. See the `migratewallet` rpc command: https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/29.0.0/rpc/wallet/migratewallet/ and the legacy wallet deprecation tracking issue (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20160) for more context.
š¬ achow101 commented on pull request "Remove the legacy wallet and BDB dependency":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28710#discussion_r2064466039)
Probably, but I'm going to leave that for a followup, this diff is large enough already.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28710#discussion_r2064466039)
Probably, but I'm going to leave that for a followup, this diff is large enough already.
š¬ achow101 commented on pull request "Remove the legacy wallet and BDB dependency":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28710#discussion_r2064475635)
Descriptor wallets can't use non-HD keys in the "keypool", so it doesn't make sense to keep this for such wallets.
All migrated wallets get new descriptors anyways for new addresses. The keypool is entirely dumped.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28710#discussion_r2064475635)
Descriptor wallets can't use non-HD keys in the "keypool", so it doesn't make sense to keep this for such wallets.
All migrated wallets get new descriptors anyways for new addresses. The keypool is entirely dumped.
š¬ petertodd commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#discussion_r2064478495)
Added comment.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#discussion_r2064478495)
Added comment.
š¬ achow101 commented on pull request "Remove the legacy wallet and BDB dependency":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28710#discussion_r2064483504)
`flush()` is inherited from `ChainClient`, which defines it as pure virtual, so it needs to have an implementation here even if it does nothing.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28710#discussion_r2064483504)
`flush()` is inherited from `ChainClient`, which defines it as pure virtual, so it needs to have an implementation here even if it does nothing.
š¬ petertodd commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#discussion_r2064485063)
I've applied that patch as-is.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#discussion_r2064485063)
I've applied that patch as-is.
š Retropex opened a pull request: "Catch nocive arbitrary data. (missing code for #32359)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32368)
Some people in the discussion of the PR #32359 are suggesting that `OP_RETURN` should be used instead of `OP_IF`, `OP_FALSE` data injections.
IMO, PR #32359 should never be merged, as it would encourage the storage of arbitrary data on Bitcoin. But if the PR is still merged, then this code should be added, because [large data insertions have no incentive](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/122322) to move to `OP_RETURN`.
Some people in the discussion of the PR #32359 are suggesting that `OP_RETURN` should be used instead of `OP_IF`, `OP_FALSE` data injections.
IMO, PR #32359 should never be merged, as it would encourage the storage of arbitrary data on Bitcoin. But if the PR is still merged, then this code should be added, because [large data insertions have no incentive](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/122322) to move to `OP_RETURN`.
![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/32005c35-9c38-42
...
š¬ petertodd commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#discussion_r2064490005)
So we actually test the OP_RETURN followed by non-push in `src/test/transaction_tests.cpp`. But it wouldn't hurt to test it separately in terms of mempool-acceptance.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#discussion_r2064490005)
So we actually test the OP_RETURN followed by non-push in `src/test/transaction_tests.cpp`. But it wouldn't hurt to test it separately in terms of mempool-acceptance.