💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Coin Controll for Unconfirmed Outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27190#issuecomment-1452194482)
I think the question is about untrusted inputs, not unconfirmed change

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Coin Controll for Unconfirmed Outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27190#issuecomment-1452198267)
> I think the question is about untrusted inputs, not unconfirmed change

Aha, yes I see those inputs are not listed in the GUI, I can look in to adding this as a feature

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Use move semantics instead of custom swap functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749#discussion_r1123429117)
In commit "refactor: Use move semantics in `CCheckQueue::Add`" (bee19efe7d8f1d6c6e2be0eefa9745de2d42066d)

Previous code seems to be trying to boost performance by reusing the vector. Why is it changed here to not reuse the vector? Change seems orthogonal to the rest of the PR

💬 1440000bytes commented on issue "Coin Controll for Unconfirmed Outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27190#issuecomment-1452222743)
> > I think the question is about untrusted inputs, not unconfirmed change
>
> Aha, yes I see those inputs are not listed in the GUI, I can look in to adding this as a feature

Its not considered safe and I doubt reviewers would ACK it

📝 mzumsande opened a pull request: "blockstorage: add an assert to avoid running oom with `-fastprune`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27191)
The debug-only `-fastprune` option used in several tests is not always safe to use:
If a `-fastprune` node receives a block larger than the maximum blockfile size of `64kb` bad things happen: The while loop in `BlockManager::FindBlockPos` never terminates, and the node runs oom because memory for `m_blockfile_info` is allocated in each iteration of the loop.
The same would happen if a naive user used `-fastprune` on anything other than regtest (so this can be tested by syncing on signet for ex
...

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "net, refactor: net_processing, add `ProcessCompactBlockTxns`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26969#discussion_r1123507577)
why?

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "net, refactor: net_processing, add `ProcessCompactBlockTxns`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26969#discussion_r1123508210)
Done, thanks!

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "net, refactor: net_processing, add `ProcessCompactBlockTxns`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26969#issuecomment-1452277461)
Force-pushed addressing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26969#discussion_r1121638358 (@dergoegge)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "doc: Fixup remove 'omitted...' doc for rpc getrawtransaction when verbose is 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26968#issuecomment-1452284884)
up for grabs?

💬 dougEfresh commented on pull request "doc: Fixup remove 'omitted...' doc for rpc getrawtransaction when verbose is 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26968#issuecomment-1452308111)
>

> up for grabs?

@MarcoFalke on it. Just been super busy last few weeks.

👍 vincenzopalazzo approved a pull request: "guix: pass `--enable-initfini-array` to release GCC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27153)
utACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27153/commits/127c637cf0a80e0ea68a7c5aaa088e5ccc9d3d13

💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "util: improve FindByte() performance":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19690#issuecomment-1452330358)
@john-moffett - Good idea to bring back the earlier commit (the condition branch instruction theory makes sense); I just restored (force-pushed) it as you suggested. On my x86 (ns/op, lower is better):

master: 307
previous version of this PR (08cf6a9ed812c122e9d47cccee09e03d8139764c): 135
current version (using std::find): 34

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Coin Controll for Unconfirmed Outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27190#issuecomment-1452344162)
@da2ce7 I recommend you follow https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/242 or add your feedback to that issue

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Coin Controll for Unconfirmed Outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27190#issuecomment-1452351159)
Yeah, I think this issue can be closed as duplicate of the one in the gui repo

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "blockstorage: add an assert to avoid running oom with `-fastprune`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27191#discussion_r1123567195)
This cleanup is already addressed in #27039 ;-)

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "refactor: RPC: pass named argument value as string_view"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26612)
Code review ACK 545ff924ab6303ffabd91fdfc4f0a4962daf133c

I think the followup ideas in the PR description sound very good too

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p, rpc: Manual block-relay-only connections with addnode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24170#discussion_r1123587538)
I prefer not having `=manual`, it would add more stuff to the code and I believe it might complicate for the user, it's the default behavior, not sure why someone would want to specify it.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p, rpc: Manual block-relay-only connections with addnode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24170#discussion_r1123591071)
What would be the difference between `resolvedAddress` and `m_node_address`?

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p, rpc: Manual block-relay-only connections with addnode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24170#discussion_r1123596809)
nit: you could create `manual_name` and `manual_block_relay_name` after checking the connection type with "remove":
```diff
diff --git a/src/rpc/net.cpp b/src/rpc/net.cpp
index 6155af323..9d87d89e3 100644
--- a/src/rpc/net.cpp
+++ b/src/rpc/net.cpp
@@ -304,11 +304,14 @@ static RPCHelpMan addnode()
throw std::runtime_error(
self.ToString());
}
- const std::string manual_name{ConnectionTypeAsString(ConnectionType::MANUAL)};
- const std::string manual_blo
...

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "assumeutxo: background validation completion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25740#issuecomment-1452426488)
> In the pull description, could drop or update "Since it's dependent on the commits in #25667, I'm opening this as a draft."

Done, thanks.