✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Wallet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32649)

💬 Crypt-iQ commented on issue "compact block fingerprinting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28272#issuecomment-2922992916)
> This was only half my point - my larger point was that we can't really fix this issue because if you're the fastest peer once you're gonna be the fastest peer again. I'm not sure it's worth trying to fix it broadly given the impact it might have (even if small) and the fact that it isn't really a great fix.

Hmm, I agree with this. I guess the solution is a better protocol to avoid fingerprinting? Adding more complexity here sounds a bit scary.

I looked at the WIP fibre patchset here: https:/
...

💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "p2p: Drop unsolicited CMPCTBLOCK from non-HB peer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32606#issuecomment-2923023983)
> I.e. be the first to supply the latest valid block at the tip and you'll be selected as high bandwidth (we process unsolicited block messages, so this should be trivial).

Yup I think this means the defense is ineffective.

> Even if you're low-bandwidth can't you just send a headers announcement immediately followed by the compact block? As long as your headers message is the first announcement of the block, the compact block will be requested and since these messages are processed sequen
...

💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "p2p: Add mutation check inside compact block's FillBlock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32646#issuecomment-2923073843)
Concept ACK

🤔 1440000bytes reviewed a pull request: "policy: uncap datacarrier by default"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#pullrequestreview-2882335536)
re-ACK a189d636184b1c28fa4a325b56c1fab8f44527b1

<details>
<summary>Signature</summary>

<pre>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

re-ACK a189d636184b1c28fa4a325b56c1fab8f44527b1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYKAB0WIQSSUwYqT5LWNFkIXKYtIwUgISpZAQUCaDoHIwAKCRAtIwUgISpZ
AXfEAQCLt/Tzit+ZxCmsP0BkCi4zG+4OyFHcvzytQ6SJFQuUjwD/TsjUydeA06Ft
RcJvG/+brpVM8NV3Ga/trp74dg67NQE=
=xtxJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
</pre>


</details>

Previous review: https://github.com/b
...

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: Add mutation check inside compact block's FillBlock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32646#discussion_r2116539524)
Could this be an opportunity to resolve the TODO comment above after `check_block` by not calling this function anymore? If I understand the comment correctly it only calls `CheckBlock()` to allow the caching of the check result and avoid repeated Merkle checks, which `IsBlockMutated()` also would do today?

💬 theuni commented on pull request "thread-safety: fix annotations with REVERSE_LOCK":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32465#issuecomment-2923398293)
> I think those arguments are pretty compelling, and think maybe the ideal thing would be to close this PR (to avoid confusing different approaches) and open a new PR dropping `REVERSE_LOCK` entirely and replacing with it lock/unlock calls, or perhaps with a `WITH_UNLOCK()` macro that runs a fragment of code with `unlock()` before and `lock()` after, and does not relock when an exception is thrown, and does not make an unsafe `lock()` call inside a destructor.

Hmm.

For context, my primary
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Replace cluster linearization algorithm with SFL":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32545#issuecomment-2923413036)
> I'm interested in seeing benchmarks of this on various systems

<details>
<summary>Macbook Pro M4</summary>

$ build/bin/bench_bitcoin --filter="Linearize.*Example.*" -min-time=10000

| ns/cost | cost/s | err% | total | benchmark
|--------------------:|--------------------:|--------:|----------:|:----------
| 1.12 | 893,382,447.85 | 0.5% | 11.06 | `LinearizeBoundedExample0`
| 1.34 | 743,601,759.92 | 0.7
...

🤔 hodlinator reviewed a pull request: "headerssync: Keep tests ahead of increasing params"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#pullrequestreview-2881152192)
Thanks for your feedback so far @l0rinc! Took most of your suggestions (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#pullrequestreview-2857912770).

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Keep tests ahead of increasing params":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2115848183)
I like the idea of including the generation date, and was including changes to the Python generator file in an unpublished version of this PR, but decided to keep that separate. Added to that separate WIP branch.

The magic numbers are not updated manually, they are included in the calculated output:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/11a2d3a63e90cdc1920ede3c67d52a9c72860e6b/contrib/devtools/headerssync-params.py#L347-L348

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Keep tests ahead of increasing params":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2115856000)
If we didn't succeed, then `request_more` shouldn't matter, but agree it's best to have it be false (just like `pow_validated_headers` should be empty). It would be better if `ProcessNextHeaders` returned something like `std::optional<ProcessingResult>` instead of having a `bool` field to indicate success, but this PR already feels large enough.

"foiled" means the attack attempt was detected and therefore failed. Elaborated the comment a bit in next push.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Keep tests ahead of increasing params":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2115831187)
One could argue at least the `uint64_t`-taking ctor here and in `arith_uint256` should be explicit, but I'd rather not have to change src/pow.cpp in this PR.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Keep tests ahead of increasing params":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2116586810)
Took the scoping idea, still not sure about the structured bindings.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Keep tests ahead of increasing params":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2115807522)
What's the point of making a constructor that takes no arguments `explicit`?

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Keep tests ahead of increasing params":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2115857753)
Agree on the split but what would be the point of changing the type?

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Keep tests ahead of increasing params":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2115879398)
The new comment is replacing the first (mention of python file) and last comments here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/11a2d3a63e90cdc1920ede3c67d52a9c72860e6b/src/headerssync.cpp#L12-L25

Your comment would probably be enough but I'd rather keep some more context.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Keep tests ahead of increasing params":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2115884389)
Thanks, missed that!

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Keep tests ahead of increasing params":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2116580384)
Started renaming but then realized that we already have *headerssync-params.py*. It's not obvious to me that underscores would be more correct for C++ files. We do have other C++ files with hyphens.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "headerssync: Keep tests ahead of increasing params":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2116614226)
Hm.. my `std::optional<ProcessingResult>` suggestion would not work here:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a7b9cc4a0af0dbe4031ec5848d403f61dc9c3356/src/test/headers_sync_chainwork_tests.cpp#L127-L136

Success seems to mean that PRESYNC- and REDOWNLOAD-headers matched, even if the chain is too short.

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "deps: Bump lief to 0.16.6"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#pullrequestreview-2882489162)
`ninja` is already [listed](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4b1d48a6866b24f0ed027334c6de642fc848d083/contrib/guix/manifest.scm#L15) as a dependency in `manifest.scm`, so patching it out doesn't seem necessary:
```diff
--- a/contrib/guix/manifest.scm
+++ b/contrib/guix/manifest.scm
@@ -167,21 +167,13 @@ chain for " target " development."))
(url "https://github.com/lief-project/LIEF")
(commit version)))
(file-name (git-file-na
...