🤔 fjahr reviewed a pull request: "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#pullrequestreview-3076976529)
Concept ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#pullrequestreview-3076976529)
Concept ACK
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#discussion_r2246439610)
This was reduced by a factor 100 and not by a factor 10 like all the other tests here. Probably a typo?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#discussion_r2246439610)
This was reduced by a factor 100 and not by a factor 10 like all the other tests here. Probably a typo?
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "validation: detect witness stripping early on":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33105#issuecomment-3141419839)
ACK 0e22a1401c7edee8946f404dd0deb59a94231340
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33105#issuecomment-3141419839)
ACK 0e22a1401c7edee8946f404dd0deb59a94231340
💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "log: rate limiting followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33011#discussion_r2246449498)
Oh, I did not know functional tests were hitting the limit. I will add an option to disable the rate limiting.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33011#discussion_r2246449498)
Oh, I did not know functional tests were hitting the limit. I will add an option to disable the rate limiting.
⚠️ vishalnimavat2004 opened an issue: "Bitcoin and Quantum Computing: A Path to Post-Quantum Security"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33107)
Bitcoin and Quantum Computing: A Path to Post-Quantum Security
Abstract
This whitepaper explores the looming threat of quantum computing to Bitcoin's current cryptographic structure. It outlines how Bitcoin's existing security (based on ECDSA) is vulnerable to quantum attacks, explains how post-quantum cryptography (PQC) provides a viable defense, and proposes a technically feasible path forward using NIST-approved quantum-safe algorithms like SPHINCS+ and Dilithium.
---
Table of Contents
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33107)
Bitcoin and Quantum Computing: A Path to Post-Quantum Security
Abstract
This whitepaper explores the looming threat of quantum computing to Bitcoin's current cryptographic structure. It outlines how Bitcoin's existing security (based on ECDSA) is vulnerable to quantum attacks, explains how post-quantum cryptography (PQC) provides a viable defense, and proposes a technically feasible path forward using NIST-approved quantum-safe algorithms like SPHINCS+ and Dilithium.
---
Table of Contents
...
💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "Musig2 tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32724#issuecomment-3141547340)
Rebased and fixed `musig.mutant.2.cpp`.
It is impossible to reach the condition in `musig.mutant.5.cpp` with valid public keys. The condition detected by mutant 2 prevents sending invalid public keys to `secp256k1_musig_pubkey_agg`.
Even if I try to send P and -P, the MuSig2 protocol prevents key cancellation attacks.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32724#issuecomment-3141547340)
Rebased and fixed `musig.mutant.2.cpp`.
It is impossible to reach the condition in `musig.mutant.5.cpp` with valid public keys. The condition detected by mutant 2 prevents sending invalid public keys to `secp256k1_musig_pubkey_agg`.
Even if I try to send P and -P, the MuSig2 protocol prevents key cancellation attacks.
✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Bitcoin and Quantum Computing: A Path to Post-Quantum Security"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33107)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33107)
💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "Musig2 tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32724#issuecomment-3141549392)
The CI error is related to the wallet migration test.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33096
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32724#issuecomment-3141549392)
The CI error is related to the wallet migration test.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33096
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "validation: periodically flush dbcache during reindex-chainstate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32414#issuecomment-3141578226)
ACK 0431a690c3a498a1e728c9df34a132ac16177a04
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32414#issuecomment-3141578226)
ACK 0431a690c3a498a1e728c9df34a132ac16177a04
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "refactor: remove unused `ser_writedata16be` and `ser_readdata16be`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33093#issuecomment-3141583139)
ACK 0431a690c3a498a1e728c9df34a132ac16177a04
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33093#issuecomment-3141583139)
ACK 0431a690c3a498a1e728c9df34a132ac16177a04
🤔 murchandamus reviewed a pull request: "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#pullrequestreview-3077093617)
Concept ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#pullrequestreview-3077093617)
Concept ACK
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#discussion_r2246522617)
I was wondering why you decided to change the `DEFAULT_BLOCK_MIN_TX_FEE` to 1 s/kvB instead of 100 s/kvB and I couldn’t find a motivation in this commit or the main comment.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#discussion_r2246522617)
I was wondering why you decided to change the `DEFAULT_BLOCK_MIN_TX_FEE` to 1 s/kvB instead of 100 s/kvB and I couldn’t find a motivation in this commit or the main comment.
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#discussion_r2246528817)
What sort of rounding problem were you seeing here? I thought that Fee Frac would essentially get rid of rounding issues.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#discussion_r2246528817)
What sort of rounding problem were you seeing here? I thought that Fee Frac would essentially get rid of rounding issues.
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#discussion_r2246536279)
At what precision does the minimum mempool feerate change? Could it be problematic if the mempool overflowed with transactions below 1 s/vB?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#discussion_r2246536279)
At what precision does the minimum mempool feerate change? Could it be problematic if the mempool overflowed with transactions below 1 s/vB?
🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "refactor: remove unused `ser_writedata16be` and `ser_readdata16be`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33093)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33093)
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Add `exportwatchonlywallet` RPC to export a watchonly version of a wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32489#discussion_r2246561816)
Done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32489#discussion_r2246561816)
Done
💬 rot13maxi commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141712721)
> > Contrast this with the dust feerate, which defines a value as "too small" based on Bitcoin's protocol constraints on transaction volume (e.g. spend script size vs block space). The conversion rate is thus irrelevant or, at the very least, applies very differently in that context.
>
> No, dust is defined as too small to be worth spending, which is a factor of fee rate to spend it. If the fee rate is 10x lower, the dust limit is logically 10x lower as well.
Dropping the dust threshold
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141712721)
> > Contrast this with the dust feerate, which defines a value as "too small" based on Bitcoin's protocol constraints on transaction volume (e.g. spend script size vs block space). The conversion rate is thus irrelevant or, at the very least, applies very differently in that context.
>
> No, dust is defined as too small to be worth spending, which is a factor of fee rate to spend it. If the fee rate is 10x lower, the dust limit is logically 10x lower as well.
Dropping the dust threshold
...
⚠️ Mstone87 opened an issue: "Mike stone"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33108)
### Motivation
Sugabitcoin
### Possible solution
_No response_
### Useful Skills
* Compiling Bitcoin Core from source
* Running the C++ unit tests and the Python functional tests
* ...
### Guidance for new contributors
Want to work on this issue?
For guidance on contributing, please read [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) before opening your pull request.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33108)
### Motivation
Sugabitcoin
### Possible solution
_No response_
### Useful Skills
* Compiling Bitcoin Core from source
* Running the C++ unit tests and the Python functional tests
* ...
### Guidance for new contributors
Want to work on this issue?
For guidance on contributing, please read [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) before opening your pull request.
✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Mike stone"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33108)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33108)
💬 Zeegaths commented on pull request "wallet: Track no-longer-spendable TXOs separately":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27865#issuecomment-3141776644)
## Performance Testing Results
Tested this PR against master using regtest with high-activity wallets.
### Test Setup:
- Ubuntu 22.04, CMake build
- Fresh regtest environment for both branches
- 1,110 transactions (200 initial coinbase + 500 small sends + 100 coinbase + 300 large sends + 10 final coinbase)
- Identical test patterns on both branches
### Results:
| Operation | Master | PR Branch | Performance Change |
|-----------|--------|-----------|-------------------|
| `ge
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27865#issuecomment-3141776644)
## Performance Testing Results
Tested this PR against master using regtest with high-activity wallets.
### Test Setup:
- Ubuntu 22.04, CMake build
- Fresh regtest environment for both branches
- 1,110 transactions (200 initial coinbase + 500 small sends + 100 coinbase + 300 large sends + 10 final coinbase)
- Identical test patterns on both branches
### Results:
| Operation | Master | PR Branch | Performance Change |
|-----------|--------|-----------|-------------------|
| `ge
...