💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Use hardened runtime on macOS release builds.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29127#issuecomment-1869813403)
>The release maintainer, or any authorized Apple Developer, will need to run xcrun notarytool to prevent gatekeeper warnings on macOS.
Isn't that just to fully close #15774? In other words, this PR seems like a strict step forward even if we don't go the rest of the way?
> Using xcrun staple to generate a binary that doesn't call home on first launch would be bonus, but at least this would massively improve the user experience.
I was under the impression that *not* doing the notary thin
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29127#issuecomment-1869813403)
>The release maintainer, or any authorized Apple Developer, will need to run xcrun notarytool to prevent gatekeeper warnings on macOS.
Isn't that just to fully close #15774? In other words, this PR seems like a strict step forward even if we don't go the rest of the way?
> Using xcrun staple to generate a binary that doesn't call home on first launch would be bonus, but at least this would massively improve the user experience.
I was under the impression that *not* doing the notary thin
...
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add BIP44 `account` in `createwallet`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29129#issuecomment-1869813973)
Feels like this could be confused with real/beancounter accounts like we used to support years ago. Maybe `hd_account` or something?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29129#issuecomment-1869813973)
Feels like this could be confused with real/beancounter accounts like we used to support years ago. Maybe `hd_account` or something?
💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: add meaningful error message and fix test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29143#issuecomment-1869817009)
> > How is this possible if `RemoveWallet()` locks the context wallets' mutex, checks if the wallet is there (failing if not) and then removes it.
>
> From my understanding, the statements
>
> ```c++
> auto it = g_unloading_wallet_set.insert(name);
> assert(it.second);
> ```
>
> assume that the wallet will always be correctly inserted into `g_unloading_wallet_set` where `g_unloading_wallet_set.insert(name)` returns a pair (`it.second` is 1 if the wallet is successfully inserted into
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29143#issuecomment-1869817009)
> > How is this possible if `RemoveWallet()` locks the context wallets' mutex, checks if the wallet is there (failing if not) and then removes it.
>
> From my understanding, the statements
>
> ```c++
> auto it = g_unloading_wallet_set.insert(name);
> assert(it.second);
> ```
>
> assume that the wallet will always be correctly inserted into `g_unloading_wallet_set` where `g_unloading_wallet_set.insert(name)` returns a pair (`it.second` is 1 if the wallet is successfully inserted into
...
💬 dimitaracev commented on pull request "wallet: add meaningful error message and fix test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29143#issuecomment-1869823524)
@furszy Oh I see, will continue to look into this further. Thanks.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29143#issuecomment-1869823524)
@furszy Oh I see, will continue to look into this further. Thanks.
💬 ybaidiuk commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1869829376)
> Величезна кількість спаму, спричиненого написами в блокчейні біткойн, насправді викликає тривогу, його слід вирішувати комплексно та таким чином, щоб не завдати шкоди ринку BRC-20 або засобам існування людей.
>
> Деякі особи не враховують природу вразливості, вона не має нічого спільного з позбавленням від написів. Це пов’язано з перевантаженістю мережі, спричиненою такими типами транзакцій. Справа не лише у вищі комісії чи повільніший час обробки; ця ситуація створює серйозний ризик для ці
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1869829376)
> Величезна кількість спаму, спричиненого написами в блокчейні біткойн, насправді викликає тривогу, його слід вирішувати комплексно та таким чином, щоб не завдати шкоди ринку BRC-20 або засобам існування людей.
>
> Деякі особи не враховують природу вразливості, вона не має нічого спільного з позбавленням від написів. Це пов’язано з перевантаженістю мережі, спричиненою такими типами транзакцій. Справа не лише у вищі комісії чи повільніший час обробки; ця ситуація створює серйозний ризик для ці
...
📝 luke-jr opened a pull request: "Change Luke Dashjr seed to dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes-maybe-malware.us"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29145)
To avoid issues with DNS blacklisting, I've setup a separate domain for my DNS seed.
Like #28936
I've chosen a domain name that is explicitly verbose about its purpose and the possibility of malware on resolved IPs, to go an extra mile in helping avoid any attempts to abuse it.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29145)
To avoid issues with DNS blacklisting, I've setup a separate domain for my DNS seed.
Like #28936
I've chosen a domain name that is explicitly verbose about its purpose and the possibility of malware on resolved IPs, to go an extra mile in helping avoid any attempts to abuse it.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Change Luke Dashjr seed to dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes-maybe-malware.us":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29145#issuecomment-1869837128)
Note that the current domain name continues to resolve for now; I'm just preemptively doing this in case it becomes a bigger issue in the future.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29145#issuecomment-1869837128)
Note that the current domain name continues to resolve for now; I'm just preemptively doing this in case it becomes a bigger issue in the future.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Compressed Bitcoin Transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29134#issuecomment-1869858505)
Is this intended to be used for storage, p2p relay, or something else? If for our storage, I would be interested in seeing benchmarks as this would have an effect on how quickly things can be pulled from disk to be relayed. If for relay, then I think there should first be a BIP that describes the protocol for using compression and how that is negotiated. And if neither of those, then I don't think it's within the scope of Bitcoin Core. It seems to be a pretty significant maintenance burden for s
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29134#issuecomment-1869858505)
Is this intended to be used for storage, p2p relay, or something else? If for our storage, I would be interested in seeing benchmarks as this would have an effect on how quickly things can be pulled from disk to be relayed. If for relay, then I think there should first be a BIP that describes the protocol for using compression and how that is negotiated. And if neither of those, then I don't think it's within the scope of Bitcoin Core. It seems to be a pretty significant maintenance burden for s
...
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add BIP44 `account` in `createwallet`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29129#issuecomment-1869859432)
I think this might be a better candidate for a `createwalletdescriptor` (#29130) equivalent for external signers rather than continuing to jam more arguments into `createwallet`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29129#issuecomment-1869859432)
I think this might be a better candidate for a `createwalletdescriptor` (#29130) equivalent for external signers rather than continuing to jam more arguments into `createwallet`.
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add BIP44 `account` in `createwallet`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29129#issuecomment-1869859555)
> Feels like this could be confused with real/beancounter accounts like we used to support years ago. Maybe hd_account or something?
I agree, had same thought. Just changed in latest push.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29129#issuecomment-1869859555)
> Feels like this could be confused with real/beancounter accounts like we used to support years ago. Maybe hd_account or something?
I agree, had same thought. Just changed in latest push.
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add BIP44 `account` in `createwallet`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29129#issuecomment-1869860600)
> I think this might be a better candidate for a createwalletdescriptor (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29130) equivalent for external signers rather than continuing to jam more arguments into createwallet.
You mean have a specific RPC for external signers or extending `createwalletdescriptor`?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29129#issuecomment-1869860600)
> I think this might be a better candidate for a createwalletdescriptor (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29130) equivalent for external signers rather than continuing to jam more arguments into createwallet.
You mean have a specific RPC for external signers or extending `createwalletdescriptor`?
🤔 ryanofsky reviewed a pull request: "doc: Add multiprocess design doc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28978#pullrequestreview-1796742782)
Updated c80bd16c826d564086006cff67b7b9ade9b9f38c -> 91dc48c14825a9075a57c1eefda202b83b6346ba ([`pr/ipcdoc.10`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/ipcdoc.10) -> [`pr/ipcdoc.11`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/ipcdoc.11), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/ipcdoc.10..pr/ipcdoc.11)) fixing table tag and reference heading.
I think this PR gets another ACK it could be merged to add the new documentation, and improvements could be implemented in
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28978#pullrequestreview-1796742782)
Updated c80bd16c826d564086006cff67b7b9ade9b9f38c -> 91dc48c14825a9075a57c1eefda202b83b6346ba ([`pr/ipcdoc.10`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/ipcdoc.10) -> [`pr/ipcdoc.11`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/ipcdoc.11), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/ipcdoc.10..pr/ipcdoc.11)) fixing table tag and reference heading.
I think this PR gets another ACK it could be merged to add the new documentation, and improvements could be implemented in
...
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "doc: Add multiprocess design doc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28978#discussion_r1436732897)
> I think you meant to close/end the table here. Otherwise this looks a bit weird rendered on GitHub.
Good catch should be fixed now
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28978#discussion_r1436732897)
> I think you meant to close/end the table here. Otherwise this looks a bit weird rendered on GitHub.
Good catch should be fixed now
💬 maaku commented on pull request "Use hardened runtime on macOS release builds.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29127#issuecomment-1869955897)
There is literally no way for macOS to tell the difference between a signed-but-not-notarized app, and a signed-and-notorized-but-not-stapled app. They are bit-for-bit identical. The way macOS tells if it is notarized, if the notarization is not stapled, is that it phones home and asks.
Apparently @jonasschnelli ran some experiment in which he used Wireshark to test under what circumstances the gatekeeper phones home. However his description of the experiment he ran was on his own website, an
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29127#issuecomment-1869955897)
There is literally no way for macOS to tell the difference between a signed-but-not-notarized app, and a signed-and-notorized-but-not-stapled app. They are bit-for-bit identical. The way macOS tells if it is notarized, if the notarization is not stapled, is that it phones home and asks.
Apparently @jonasschnelli ran some experiment in which he used Wireshark to test under what circumstances the gatekeeper phones home. However his description of the experiment he ran was on his own website, an
...
👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "doc: Add multiprocess design doc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28978#pullrequestreview-1796867156)
ACK 91dc48c14825a9075a57c1eefda202b83b6346ba
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28978#pullrequestreview-1796867156)
ACK 91dc48c14825a9075a57c1eefda202b83b6346ba
💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Change Luke Dashjr seed to dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes-maybe-malware.us":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29145#discussion_r1436839388)
I am not sure why you got a domain with 'malware' in its name from namecheap for using as DNS seed in bitcoin core.
Related question (although out of scope for this PR): If there are so many issues with DNS seeds, why not disable `dnsseed` and `fixedseeds`? Instead 9 developers running DNS seeds can provide a node address which can be used for `seednode` to get node addresses using GETADDR. Or make bootstrapping work like tor nodes for all nodes.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29145#discussion_r1436839388)
I am not sure why you got a domain with 'malware' in its name from namecheap for using as DNS seed in bitcoin core.
Related question (although out of scope for this PR): If there are so many issues with DNS seeds, why not disable `dnsseed` and `fixedseeds`? Instead 9 developers running DNS seeds can provide a node address which can be used for `seednode` to get node addresses using GETADDR. Or make bootstrapping work like tor nodes for all nodes.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "rpc: add path to gethdkey":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22341#issuecomment-1870069651)
@ryanofsky building on #29130 introduces a new argument to specify which master key you intend to use.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22341#issuecomment-1870069651)
@ryanofsky building on #29130 introduces a new argument to specify which master key you intend to use.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "refactor: share and use `GenerateRandomKey` helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28455#issuecomment-1870078430)
re-ACK fa1d49542e4b69a5d8b1177ffe4207f051a468bb
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28455#issuecomment-1870078430)
re-ACK fa1d49542e4b69a5d8b1177ffe4207f051a468bb
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "wallet: add meaningful error message and fix test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29143#issuecomment-1870086126)
Do you have steps to reproduce the test failure (usually a race can be reproduced by adding a sleep in the right place in the C++ code)?
Also, an assertion crash fix, is not a "test" fix. I presume this can happen in production, no?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29143#issuecomment-1870086126)
Do you have steps to reproduce the test failure (usually a race can be reproduced by adding a sleep in the right place in the C++ code)?
Also, an assertion crash fix, is not a "test" fix. I presume this can happen in production, no?
💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "init: handle empty settings file gracefully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#issuecomment-1870230561)
see previous discussion in #23096
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#issuecomment-1870230561)
see previous discussion in #23096