💬 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
(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
...
(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?
(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!
(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)
(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?
(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.
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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 ;-)
(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
(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.
(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`?
(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
...
(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.
(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.
💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: ensure the wallet is unlocked when needed for rescanning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26347#discussion_r1123601921)
> Maybe the timeout can be increased to 999999?
Yes, the timeout before `sethdseed` can be increased to 999999, followed by running `walletlock`. I can open a follow-up PR for this.
> Also I wonder why you picked a timeout of 3 below, or why walletpassphrase needs to be called at all twice in a row?
3 was used because it needed to be a number that was large enough so that the scan would begin, but small enough so that the timeout would occur while the rescan is in progress. However, this
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26347#discussion_r1123601921)
> Maybe the timeout can be increased to 999999?
Yes, the timeout before `sethdseed` can be increased to 999999, followed by running `walletlock`. I can open a follow-up PR for this.
> Also I wonder why you picked a timeout of 3 below, or why walletpassphrase needs to be called at all twice in a row?
3 was used because it needed to be a number that was large enough so that the scan would begin, but small enough so that the timeout would occur while the rescan is in progress. However, this
...
✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Coin Controll for Unconfirmed Outputs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27190)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27190)
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p, rpc: Manual block-relay-only connections with addnode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24170#discussion_r1123652674)
perhaps there is a way to simplify it:
```diff
diff --git a/src/rpc/net.cpp b/src/rpc/net.cpp
index 6155af323..b9e082a63 100644
--- a/src/rpc/net.cpp
+++ b/src/rpc/net.cpp
@@ -304,22 +304,19 @@ static RPCHelpMan addnode()
throw std::runtime_error(
self.ToString());
}
- const std::string manual_name{ConnectionTypeAsString(ConnectionType::MANUAL)};
- const std::string manual_block_relay_name{ConnectionTypeAsString(ConnectionType::MANUAL_BLOCK_RELAY)};
+
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24170#discussion_r1123652674)
perhaps there is a way to simplify it:
```diff
diff --git a/src/rpc/net.cpp b/src/rpc/net.cpp
index 6155af323..b9e082a63 100644
--- a/src/rpc/net.cpp
+++ b/src/rpc/net.cpp
@@ -304,22 +304,19 @@ static RPCHelpMan addnode()
throw std::runtime_error(
self.ToString());
}
- const std::string manual_name{ConnectionTypeAsString(ConnectionType::MANUAL)};
- const std::string manual_block_relay_name{ConnectionTypeAsString(ConnectionType::MANUAL_BLOCK_RELAY)};
+
...