:lock: hebasto locked an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27167)

💬 theStack commented on pull request "fix: contrib: allow multi-sig binary verification":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23020#discussion_r1118115828)
```suggestion
signature check or the hash check doesn't pass. An exit code of >=2 indicates an error.
```
non-blocking nit: could list all the individual return code's meaning here, or at least mention something like "(see the `ReturnCode` class for individual error reasons)".

💬 theStack commented on pull request "fix: contrib: allow multi-sig binary verification":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23020#discussion_r1118120078)
Looks like this is currently dead code, as the condition for `if` 3 lines above wouldn't be true if the retval is 2 (`gpg_allowed_codes` is set to contains 0 and 2 on line 469).

💬 theStack commented on pull request "fix: contrib: allow multi-sig binary verification":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23020#discussion_r1118122339)
If we decide to drop it, the `--require-all-hosts` option should probably also be reconsidered. Not saying that it should also be dropped (we could and probably _should_ have more than one host in the future), but at least the help text has to be adapted, which currently explicitly mentions both bitcoin.org and bitcoincore.org.

💬 Ayms commented on issue "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043#issuecomment-1445421258)
You can invent whatever non standard solution you like as long as the tx is valid and then work with miners, but that's not the easy/standard way to go

What other standard alternatives to OP_RETURN uses Opentimestamps? As far as I know we have only two for now as standard: taproot IF but 2tx, taproot annex 1tx (not available right now), that's the other mechanisms you are refering to?

Opentimestamps looks to be working the very same way for some parts than what I am proposing for NFTs, but
...

⚠️ joyqvq opened an issue: "Error opening bitcoin core app: Error: Prune mode is incompatible with -txindex."
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/715)
I downloaded bitcoin core had synced my node last week. I quit the bitcoin core and reopens, the app shows this error:

```Error: Prune mode is incompatible with -txindex.```

<img width="488" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/108701016/221428605-611c9a8d-63e8-45f6-9661-c72b6eb72cba.png">

When I click OK, the app quits. I am using:

Chip: Apple M1 Max
macOS: 13.1 (22C65)

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Error opening bitcoin core app: Error: Prune mode is incompatible with -txindex.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/715#issuecomment-1445425832)
Did you change any settings or write a bitcoin.conf at any point ?

💬 joyqvq commented on issue "Error opening bitcoin core app: Error: Prune mode is incompatible with -txindex.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/715#issuecomment-1445427145)
yes you are right! i changed it to `txindex=1`... removing it works. thanks for the help!

✅ joyqvq closed an issue: "Error opening bitcoin core app: Error: Prune mode is incompatible with -txindex."
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/715)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Error opening bitcoin core app: Error: Prune mode is incompatible with -txindex.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/715#issuecomment-1445427787)
Note that the latest available version of Bitcoin Core is 24.0.1 (you are running 22.0.0). You can download the latest version from bitcoincore.org.

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: skip R-value signature grinding for external signers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26032#discussion_r988179783)
nit: this comment can be updates
```suggestion
// Use max sig if watch only inputs were used, if this particular input is an external input,
// or if this wallet uses an external signer, to ensure a sufficient fee is attained for the requested feerate.
```

💬 petertodd commented on issue "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043#issuecomment-1445447272)


On February 26, 2023 7:01:05 PM GMT+01:00, Aymeric Vitte ***@***.***> wrote:
>You can invent whatever non standard solution you like as long as the tx is valid and then work with miners, but that's not the easy/standard way to go
>
>What other standard alternatives to OP_RETURN uses Opentimestamps? As far as I know we have only two for now as standard: taproot IF but 2tx, taproot annex 1tx (not available right now), that's the other mechanisms you are refering to?

You've misunderstood my comm
...

💬 Ayms commented on issue "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043#issuecomment-1445451256)
Rephrasing then since you misunderstood my comment also, the question was in fact: what are the (standard) "multiple different ways of putting data in Bitcoin transactions" for opentimestamps ?

💬 1440000bytes commented on issue "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043#issuecomment-1445500484)
> Rephrasing then since you misunderstood my comment also, the question was in fact: what are the (standard) "multiple different ways of putting data in Bitcoin transactions" for opentimestamps ?

Sorry but your thing won't work.

Bitcoin core has 4 maintainers now and most of them belong to brink who are not impressed their code

Maybe change maintainers or share things honestly

💬 1440000bytes commented on issue "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043#issuecomment-1445509179)
@Ayms I am sorry this issue was closed. It happens and we have experienced it in past.

FYI: there are 4 bitcoin-core maintainers (3 brink + 1 blockstream)

I have lots any hope to do things however this is how things work.

⚠️ Tharsanan1 opened an issue: "Bitcoin core full node with S3 bucket"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27168)
**Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.**
I am trying to run a bitcoin full node on a aws ec2 instance. The problem is when allocating ssd, the cost is too much. The cost for S3 storage is really low. Since bitcoin total block chain size is increasing every day it is better if we can use these kind of services. As I understand frequency for a full node to get the old data is relatively low.

**Describe the solution you'd like**
I suggest, we should be able to config
...

💬 glozow commented on issue "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043#issuecomment-1445861789)
Apologies for the mistaken close and thank you for the [ping](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043#issuecomment-1445336629) to reopen.

💬 glozow commented on issue "Bitcoin core full node with S3 bucket":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27168#issuecomment-1445884569)
Alternatively, could you try running with `-prune` to reduce the amount of disk space needed for block storage?

💬 S3RK commented on pull request "wallet: skip R-value signature grinding for external signers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26032#issuecomment-1445885603)
ACK 807de2cebdad960c2b52185528ca8960ec694f49

Thanks your patience and addressing the feedback.

💬 ponury1990 commented on issue "Bitcoin core full node with S3 bucket":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27168#issuecomment-1445904156)
Ja to bym chciał w końcu poczuć ze mam coś a nie tylko się patrzyć nie da sie chociaż 1 BTC na portfel przelać trzeba się prosić o swoje szczęscie ?