💬 kristapsk commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#issuecomment-1872640782)
> I'm not sure there's a reason to ever set +w either... maybe it should just be -rpccookieaccess user/group/all or something
Agree, makes sense. Giving read access to other users is the only use case of this functionality I know of.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#issuecomment-1872640782)
> I'm not sure there's a reason to ever set +w either... maybe it should just be -rpccookieaccess user/group/all or something
Agree, makes sense. Giving read access to other users is the only use case of this functionality I know of.
💬 DoctorBuzz1 commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1872925369)
> Filtering by non-mining nodes is irrelevant to whether mining nodes (miners) sell their block space to those who want to buy their block space. Miners are conducting business, they have direct skin in the game, and mining is designed as a hyper competitive business.
>
> Miners have no obligation to care what some uneconomic non-mining nodes signal about whether they subjectively don't value certain data. That's because bitcoin is neutral, and other people do subjectively value the block spac
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1872925369)
> Filtering by non-mining nodes is irrelevant to whether mining nodes (miners) sell their block space to those who want to buy their block space. Miners are conducting business, they have direct skin in the game, and mining is designed as a hyper competitive business.
>
> Miners have no obligation to care what some uneconomic non-mining nodes signal about whether they subjectively don't value certain data. That's because bitcoin is neutral, and other people do subjectively value the block spac
...
💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: move lock at the top of ReleaseWallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29155#discussion_r1438882572)
> The removal of this is only so that we return an appropriate message if it ever comes to this instead of crashing the node. I can change it back if it matters. Not sure if it makes sense this to lead to a node crash to be honest.
The current structure of the code disallows it from happening; prior to every `UnloadWallet()` call, we call `RemoveWallet()`. Which ensures that we never crash at this point (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29143#issuecomment-1869817009).
So, if it crashe
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29155#discussion_r1438882572)
> The removal of this is only so that we return an appropriate message if it ever comes to this instead of crashing the node. I can change it back if it matters. Not sure if it makes sense this to lead to a node crash to be honest.
The current structure of the code disallows it from happening; prior to every `UnloadWallet()` call, we call `RemoveWallet()`. Which ensures that we never crash at this point (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29143#issuecomment-1869817009).
So, if it crashe
...
💬 darosior commented on pull request "miniscript: make operator""_mst consteval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28657#issuecomment-1872959722)
CI is failing with
```
/usr/bin/ld: /usr/bin/ld: DWARF error: invalid or unhandled FORM value: 0x23
libbitcoin_common.a(libbitcoin_common_a-descriptor.o): in function `(anonymous namespace)::ParseScript(unsigned int&, Span<char const>&, (anonymous namespace)::ParseScriptContext, FlatSigningProvider&, std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >&)':
descriptor.cpp:(.text+0x390f): undefined reference to `miniscript::operator"" _mst(char const*, unsigned int)'
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28657#issuecomment-1872959722)
CI is failing with
```
/usr/bin/ld: /usr/bin/ld: DWARF error: invalid or unhandled FORM value: 0x23
libbitcoin_common.a(libbitcoin_common_a-descriptor.o): in function `(anonymous namespace)::ParseScript(unsigned int&, Span<char const>&, (anonymous namespace)::ParseScriptContext, FlatSigningProvider&, std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >&)':
descriptor.cpp:(.text+0x390f): undefined reference to `miniscript::operator"" _mst(char const*, unsigned int)'
...
💬 darosior commented on pull request "fuzz: rule-out too deep derivation paths in descriptor parsing targets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28832#issuecomment-1872960181)
> Another (related) one?
>
> [clusterfuzz-testcase-miniscript_string-6556534783737856.bin.not.txt](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/files/13472836/clusterfuzz-testcase-miniscript_string-6556534783737856.bin.not.txt)
>
> 
> Another (related) one?
>
> [clusterfuzz-testcase-miniscript_string-6556534783737856.bin.not.txt](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/files/13472836/clusterfuzz-testcase-miniscript_string-6556534783737856.bin.not.txt)
>
> ![Screenshot from 2023-11-27 11-14-38](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/6399679/285821448-eba95f4c-52fa-494c-9c92-96fdd42de46a.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJnaXRodWIuY29tIiwiYXVkIjoicmF3LmdpdGh1YnVzZXJjb250ZW50LmNvbSIsImtleSI6Imt
...
💬 darosior commented on pull request "fuzz: rule-out too deep derivation paths in descriptor parsing targets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28832#issuecomment-1872973353)
> Could you add the exception for the scriptpubkeyman harness as well?
Done by moving the introduced `HasDeepDerivPath` into `src/test/fuzz/util/descriptor.h` and also calling it in `scriptpubkeyman` target's `CreateWalletDescriptor` right before parsing the mocked descriptor string.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28832#issuecomment-1872973353)
> Could you add the exception for the scriptpubkeyman harness as well?
Done by moving the introduced `HasDeepDerivPath` into `src/test/fuzz/util/descriptor.h` and also calling it in `scriptpubkeyman` target's `CreateWalletDescriptor` right before parsing the mocked descriptor string.
💬 darosior commented on issue "fuzz: Fix timeouts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28812#issuecomment-1872973620)
> Another one: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=64593 cc @brunoerg
I think i've fixed it in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28832#issuecomment-1872973353. Can you share the repro from oss-fuzz here so i can confirm it?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28812#issuecomment-1872973620)
> Another one: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=64593 cc @brunoerg
I think i've fixed it in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28832#issuecomment-1872973353. Can you share the repro from oss-fuzz here so i can confirm it?
💬 darosior commented on pull request "fuzz: a target for the block index database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28209#issuecomment-1872976767)
Added a `MakeNoLogFileContext` at init to avoid the ever-increasing memory usage due to log messages.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28209#issuecomment-1872976767)
Added a `MakeNoLogFileContext` at init to avoid the ever-increasing memory usage due to log messages.
💬 darosior commented on pull request "fuzz: a new target for the coins database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28216#issuecomment-1872991949)
While rebasing this i found another crash in the `coins_view` target. Catching the exception on `AddCoin()` and continuing will cause `cachedCoinsUsage` to underflow:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4b1196a9855dcd188a24f393aa2fa21e2d61f061/src/test/fuzz/coins_view.cpp#L67-L75
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4b1196a9855dcd188a24f393aa2fa21e2d61f061/src/coins.cpp#L76-L100
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28216#issuecomment-1872991949)
While rebasing this i found another crash in the `coins_view` target. Catching the exception on `AddCoin()` and continuing will cause `cachedCoinsUsage` to underflow:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4b1196a9855dcd188a24f393aa2fa21e2d61f061/src/test/fuzz/coins_view.cpp#L67-L75
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4b1196a9855dcd188a24f393aa2fa21e2d61f061/src/coins.cpp#L76-L100
💬 DoctorBuzz1 commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873026315)
One more thing about the BRC-20 style crap.... isn't this something appropriate for isDust()??
I'm sure I don't have these variables correct (and I still think in cents, so bear with me), but using the example above....
If a (Tx == $0.23) && (TxFee ==$6.45)... then couldn't something like this be fairly usable??
If (Tx < 3TxFee) {
isDust = True};
Or some other ratio that makes sense like "If (Tx < 2TxFee)"?? I'm personally not going to send a $10 Tx for a $5 fee, honestly, b
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873026315)
One more thing about the BRC-20 style crap.... isn't this something appropriate for isDust()??
I'm sure I don't have these variables correct (and I still think in cents, so bear with me), but using the example above....
If a (Tx == $0.23) && (TxFee ==$6.45)... then couldn't something like this be fairly usable??
If (Tx < 3TxFee) {
isDust = True};
Or some other ratio that makes sense like "If (Tx < 2TxFee)"?? I'm personally not going to send a $10 Tx for a $5 fee, honestly, b
...
💬 BitcoinMechanic commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873178352)
> > Filtering is a very useful step. It is irrelevant to continually bring up the point that miners can still include this stuff in blocks.
>
> Filtering by non-mining nodes is irrelevant to whether mining nodes (miners) sell their block space to those who want to buy their block space. Miners are conducting business, they have direct skin in the game, and mining is designed as a hyper competitive business.
>
> Simultaneously, it is harmful to bitcoin for many non-mining nodes to do this,
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873178352)
> > Filtering is a very useful step. It is irrelevant to continually bring up the point that miners can still include this stuff in blocks.
>
> Filtering by non-mining nodes is irrelevant to whether mining nodes (miners) sell their block space to those who want to buy their block space. Miners are conducting business, they have direct skin in the game, and mining is designed as a hyper competitive business.
>
> Simultaneously, it is harmful to bitcoin for many non-mining nodes to do this,
...
🤔 TheCharlatan reviewed a pull request: "build: Bump guix time-machine to unlock riscv64 metal"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29078#pullrequestreview-1799791543)
Post-merge ACK, reproduced @fanquake's hashes and ran into the same macOS build issue.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29078#pullrequestreview-1799791543)
Post-merge ACK, reproduced @fanquake's hashes and ran into the same macOS build issue.
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "miniscript: make operator""_mst consteval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28657#issuecomment-1873329569)
Concept ACK.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28657#issuecomment-1873329569)
Concept ACK.
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873377545)
> > > Until now there has been no signalling of this and no good option beyond solo mining. Ocean pool (disclaimer: my employer) provides this option but has not been around for even a month and it already enjoys 0.1% of the hashrate.
>
> >
>
> > What is not mentioned is the 0.1% is based on Ocean's investors' temporary subsidies:
>
> >
>
> > * 0% fee on revenue (for first 2 months, so 1 month left?)
>
> >
>
> > * bonus payout for first 8 blocks of work (about 5 blocks of work l
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873377545)
> > > Until now there has been no signalling of this and no good option beyond solo mining. Ocean pool (disclaimer: my employer) provides this option but has not been around for even a month and it already enjoys 0.1% of the hashrate.
>
> >
>
> > What is not mentioned is the 0.1% is based on Ocean's investors' temporary subsidies:
>
> >
>
> > * 0% fee on revenue (for first 2 months, so 1 month left?)
>
> >
>
> > * bonus payout for first 8 blocks of work (about 5 blocks of work l
...
⚠️ hebasto opened an issue: "`./configure` fails for clang-14 on Ubuntu 23.10"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29161)
```
$ clang-14 -v
Ubuntu clang version 14.0.6
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /usr/bin
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/13
Selected GCC installation: /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/13
Candidate multilib: .;@m64
Selected multilib: .;@m64
```
```
$ ./configure CC=clang-14 CXX=clang++-14
...
checking whether std::atomic can be used without link library... no
checking whether std::atomic needs -latomic... no
co
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29161)
```
$ clang-14 -v
Ubuntu clang version 14.0.6
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /usr/bin
Found candidate GCC installation: /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/13
Selected GCC installation: /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/13
Candidate multilib: .;@m64
Selected multilib: .;@m64
```
```
$ ./configure CC=clang-14 CXX=clang++-14
...
checking whether std::atomic can be used without link library... no
checking whether std::atomic needs -latomic... no
co
...
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "miniscript: make operator""_mst consteval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28657#issuecomment-1873407693)
Could the CI issues be due to Clang [partially](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/20) supporting `consteval` before clang-17?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28657#issuecomment-1873407693)
Could the CI issues be due to Clang [partially](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/20) supporting `consteval` before clang-17?
💬 BitcoinMechanic commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873420568)
>Ocean pool subsidizes hashrate (to incentivize it to join Ocean), at the expense of Ocean's investors
This is completely false. Zero miners have received any income that didn't come directly from blocks found which were made up 100% of transactions available to any miner. Nothing out of band has happened in any capacity. You simply do not understand how PPLNS or PPLNS reminiscent systems work and are arguing from a position of inexperience.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873420568)
>Ocean pool subsidizes hashrate (to incentivize it to join Ocean), at the expense of Ocean's investors
This is completely false. Zero miners have received any income that didn't come directly from blocks found which were made up 100% of transactions available to any miner. Nothing out of band has happened in any capacity. You simply do not understand how PPLNS or PPLNS reminiscent systems work and are arguing from a position of inexperience.
💬 pox commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873422305)
Peter Todd [wrote in length](https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-transactions-review) about this proposal. It would be helpful if his points could be addressed (not necessarily in this github issue of course). Specifically his point about the effect on mining centralization ought to be addressed IMHO.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1873422305)
Peter Todd [wrote in length](https://petertodd.org/2023/v3-transactions-review) about this proposal. It would be helpful if his points could be addressed (not necessarily in this github issue of course). Specifically his point about the effect on mining centralization ought to be addressed IMHO.
💬 pox commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1873423380)
ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1873423380)
ACK
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873436982)
> >Ocean pool subsidizes hashrate (to incentivize it to join Ocean), at the expense of Ocean's investors
>
>
>
> This is completely false. Zero miners have received any income that didn't come directly from blocks found which were made up 100% of transactions available to any miner. Nothing out of band has happened in any capacity. You simply do not understand how PPLNS or PPLNS reminiscent systems work and are arguing from a position of inexperience.
Are you denying that Ocean temporarily h
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1873436982)
> >Ocean pool subsidizes hashrate (to incentivize it to join Ocean), at the expense of Ocean's investors
>
>
>
> This is completely false. Zero miners have received any income that didn't come directly from blocks found which were made up 100% of transactions available to any miner. Nothing out of band has happened in any capacity. You simply do not understand how PPLNS or PPLNS reminiscent systems work and are arguing from a position of inexperience.
Are you denying that Ocean temporarily h
...