📝 brunoerg opened a pull request: "fuzz: set `nMaxOutboundLimit` in connman target"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29172)
Setting `nMaxOutboundLimit` (`-maxuploadtarget`) will make fuzz to reach more coverage in connman target. This value is used in `GetMaxOutboundTimeLeftInCycle`, `OutboundTargetReached` and `GetOutboundTargetBytesLeft`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29172)
Setting `nMaxOutboundLimit` (`-maxuploadtarget`) will make fuzz to reach more coverage in connman target. This value is used in `GetMaxOutboundTimeLeftInCycle`, `OutboundTargetReached` and `GetOutboundTargetBytesLeft`.
💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: attempt to fill full outbound connection slots with peers that support tx relay":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28538#discussion_r1440903038)
Hmm, I think the main reason was to avoid interaction with the existing extra-full-outbound eviction.
Which raises the question whether there should be any interaction?
Should nodes that are protected from that (either because `m_protect` is true or because they are the only ones for their network) also be made exempt from this new disconnection due to not supporting tx relay?
I'm not really sure about that: It would be unfortunate if the non-tx-relaying outbound peer would be the only one wi
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28538#discussion_r1440903038)
Hmm, I think the main reason was to avoid interaction with the existing extra-full-outbound eviction.
Which raises the question whether there should be any interaction?
Should nodes that are protected from that (either because `m_protect` is true or because they are the only ones for their network) also be made exempt from this new disconnection due to not supporting tx relay?
I'm not really sure about that: It would be unfortunate if the non-tx-relaying outbound peer would be the only one wi
...
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: set `nMaxOutboundLimit` in connman target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29172#issuecomment-1875944651)
CI failure is unrelated to this PR.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29172#issuecomment-1875944651)
CI failure is unrelated to this PR.
👍 real-or-random approved a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree for 0.4.1 release"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29169#pullrequestreview-1803091821)
utACK c13a17c6996442f04635bdf70ee8f06bf6854ff6 I haven't checked that the subtree is correct but no objections to update to this commit
> However, the PR title and description are a bit misleading as they mention "0.4.1 release", which implies (at least for me) syncing to the `v0.4.1` tag.
True, this updates to the merge commit of the "cleanup" PR after the release. But yeah, it really doesn't matter in the end, and I think there's no need to invalidate the ACKs here.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29169#pullrequestreview-1803091821)
utACK c13a17c6996442f04635bdf70ee8f06bf6854ff6 I haven't checked that the subtree is correct but no objections to update to this commit
> However, the PR title and description are a bit misleading as they mention "0.4.1 release", which implies (at least for me) syncing to the `v0.4.1` tag.
True, this updates to the merge commit of the "cleanup" PR after the release. But yeah, it really doesn't matter in the end, and I think there's no need to invalidate the ACKs here.
💬 07510480632 commented on issue "[Feature] Allow gettxout to return information for spent outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9641#issuecomment-1876001023)
M
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9641#issuecomment-1876001023)
M
💬 07510480632 commented on issue "[Feature] Allow gettxout to return information for spent outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9641#issuecomment-1876001121)
+ std::atomic<int> par_sum{0};
+ for (int i = 0; i < num_tasks; i++) {
+ threadPool.Submit([&par_sum,i]() {
+ par_sum += i;
});
}
+ int sync_sum{0};
+ for (int i = 0; i < num_tasks; i++) {
+ sync_sum += i;
+ }
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9641#issuecomment-1876001121)
+ std::atomic<int> par_sum{0};
+ for (int i = 0; i < num_tasks; i++) {
+ threadPool.Submit([&par_sum,i]() {
+ par_sum += i;
});
}
+ int sync_sum{0};
+ for (int i = 0; i < num_tasks; i++) {
+ sync_sum += i;
+ }
💬 07510480632 commented on issue "[Feature] Allow gettxout to return information for spent outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9641#issuecomment-1876001414)
heloelo289@gmail.com
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9641#issuecomment-1876001414)
heloelo289@gmail.com
💬 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-1876019669)
The DNS seeds resolve to IPs of random peers. It's entirely possible (and apparently reality) that some of those host malware. Putting `maybe-malware` in the name cautions users who might put the domain in a browser, that whatever loads could be malicious.
It seems like a low-cost improvement to avoid abuse IMO, but if there's a hard objection to it, I can come up with another domain for it.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29145#issuecomment-1876019669)
The DNS seeds resolve to IPs of random peers. It's entirely possible (and apparently reality) that some of those host malware. Putting `maybe-malware` in the name cautions users who might put the domain in a browser, that whatever loads could be malicious.
It seems like a low-cost improvement to avoid abuse IMO, but if there's a hard objection to it, I can come up with another domain for it.
💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "PoC: fuzz chainstate and block managers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29158#discussion_r1441013417)
https://joshua.hu/fuzzing-with-memfd-createfd-fmemopen-syscall-function
The author of this post found that a ram disk is slower🚀
I/O syscalls are avoided with fmempopen and everything simply happens in userland.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29158#discussion_r1441013417)
https://joshua.hu/fuzzing-with-memfd-createfd-fmemopen-syscall-function
The author of this post found that a ram disk is slower🚀
I/O syscalls are avoided with fmempopen and everything simply happens in userland.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Update libsecp256k1 subtree for 0.4.1 release":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29169#issuecomment-1876071373)
It makes a minor difference of reporting the correct version number. I agree with @hebasto on using the tag, but also agree with @fanquake on not having a policy that we must use tags.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29169#issuecomment-1876071373)
It makes a minor difference of reporting the correct version number. I agree with @hebasto on using the tag, but also agree with @fanquake on not having a policy that we must use tags.
💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: document and update `sendall` behavior around unconfirmed inputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28979#issuecomment-1876074359)
I don’t know why it could be failing here, it doesn’t seem to make sense that it would. Could you try to rebase?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28979#issuecomment-1876074359)
I don’t know why it could be failing here, it doesn’t seem to make sense that it would. Could you try to rebase?
💬 wizkid057 commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1876205236)
Interesting standard. I don't see anyone else disclosing their employer, investors, etc when replying here... and there are _definitely_ people commenting here who have clear conflicts of interest (mostly against this PR). So, I'm going to reject the entire premise of a suggestion that OCEAN associated people alone be required to disclose that. Perhaps if I see some more broad application of such a thing, I'd reconsider, but otherwise it's a pointless and ridiculous ask.
That said, I figure
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1876205236)
Interesting standard. I don't see anyone else disclosing their employer, investors, etc when replying here... and there are _definitely_ people commenting here who have clear conflicts of interest (mostly against this PR). So, I'm going to reject the entire premise of a suggestion that OCEAN associated people alone be required to disclose that. Perhaps if I see some more broad application of such a thing, I'd reconsider, but otherwise it's a pointless and ridiculous ask.
That said, I figure
...
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1876219233)
> That said, I figured my own affiliation was beyond obvious having been in the Bitcoin space for well over a decade, having previously run the Eligius pool with Luke, etc.
Not all of us, like myself, are so familiar with the mining ecosystem, so I had no idea who you were until I realized it for myself coincidentally.
> Interesting standard. I don't see anyone else disclosing their employer, investors, etc when replying here... Perhaps if I see some more broad application of such a thing, I'd
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1876219233)
> That said, I figured my own affiliation was beyond obvious having been in the Bitcoin space for well over a decade, having previously run the Eligius pool with Luke, etc.
Not all of us, like myself, are so familiar with the mining ecosystem, so I had no idea who you were until I realized it for myself coincidentally.
> Interesting standard. I don't see anyone else disclosing their employer, investors, etc when replying here... Perhaps if I see some more broad application of such a thing, I'd
...
💬 dzyphr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1876220282)
Concept ACK
The current state of the datacarriersize exploit allows users of non-Bitcoin-related protocols to piggyback off of the good will of full node runners. Regular users pay for every single vByte and unrelated protocol users do not. This occurs while the unrelated protocol spams the UTXO set, creating an non-scalable setting for anyone looking to run infrastructure. Being as that a dense full node graph is vital to the success of Bitcoin as a network, it would be detrimental to continue
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1876220282)
Concept ACK
The current state of the datacarriersize exploit allows users of non-Bitcoin-related protocols to piggyback off of the good will of full node runners. Regular users pay for every single vByte and unrelated protocol users do not. This occurs while the unrelated protocol spams the UTXO set, creating an non-scalable setting for anyone looking to run infrastructure. Being as that a dense full node graph is vital to the success of Bitcoin as a network, it would be detrimental to continue
...
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1876316575)
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 02:42:45AM -0800, Gloria Zhao wrote:
> > This kind of thinking is precisely the problem: you've listed a bunch of potential problems, without any discussion of how actual protocols are impacted by those problems.
>
> Peter, please read the [RBF improvements mailing list thread](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019817.html) to get up to date on users' problems with RBF.
>
> Yes, v3 makes no sense if you think RBF is perfect today. I ag
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1876316575)
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 02:42:45AM -0800, Gloria Zhao wrote:
> > This kind of thinking is precisely the problem: you've listed a bunch of potential problems, without any discussion of how actual protocols are impacted by those problems.
>
> Peter, please read the [RBF improvements mailing list thread](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019817.html) to get up to date on users' problems with RBF.
>
> Yes, v3 makes no sense if you think RBF is perfect today. I ag
...
💬 petertodd commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1876380772)
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 02:10:22AM -0800, Bastien Teinturier wrote:
> Thanks for your answers @petertodd.
>
> I think we may be talking a bit past each other in some of those comments, because most of this is too vague and ignores important low-level details.
> I'll try to highlight the most important high-level points below.
>
> > So if Alice wants to broadcast a commitment transaction, her version of the fee variants all take the funds for the fees from her balance, and Bob has given Alice a
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1876380772)
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 02:10:22AM -0800, Bastien Teinturier wrote:
> Thanks for your answers @petertodd.
>
> I think we may be talking a bit past each other in some of those comments, because most of this is too vague and ignores important low-level details.
> I'll try to highlight the most important high-level points below.
>
> > So if Alice wants to broadcast a commitment transaction, her version of the fee variants all take the funds for the fees from her balance, and Bob has given Alice a
...
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: document and update `sendall` behavior around unconfirmed inputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28979#discussion_r1441426330)
I presume `self.def_wallet` is not equal to `self.wallet`, so a mempool sync is missing here, to allow for the transaction to "propagate" through the full validation interface queue.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28979#discussion_r1441426330)
I presume `self.def_wallet` is not equal to `self.wallet`, so a mempool sync is missing here, to allow for the transaction to "propagate" through the full validation interface queue.
🤔 stratospher reviewed a pull request: "net, cli: use v2transport for manual/addrfetch connections, add to -netinfo"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29058#pullrequestreview-1803647850)
tested ACK fb5bfed. addrfetch + manual connections aren't frequent and it would be useful to have this for transition to v2 one day.
used `-connect`, `-addnode`, `-seednode` and observed reconnections happening if other peer was v1 and no reconnection if other peer was v2. an interesting behaviour which i realised made sense was to keep retrying with v2 when latency issue failures happen on tor.
```
2024-01-04T06:14:58Z [net:debug] trying v2 connection "xyz" lastseen=0.0hrs
2024-01-04
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29058#pullrequestreview-1803647850)
tested ACK fb5bfed. addrfetch + manual connections aren't frequent and it would be useful to have this for transition to v2 one day.
used `-connect`, `-addnode`, `-seednode` and observed reconnections happening if other peer was v1 and no reconnection if other peer was v2. an interesting behaviour which i realised made sense was to keep retrying with v2 when latency issue failures happen on tor.
```
2024-01-04T06:14:58Z [net:debug] trying v2 connection "xyz" lastseen=0.0hrs
2024-01-04
...
📝 Retropex opened a pull request: "doc: revert clarify -datacarriersize"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29173)
The latest update of the help text of `-datacarriersize` is incorrect.
The purpose of this standardization rule is not to target only the data contained in the raw scriptPubKey, but all forms of arbitrary data.
It is incorrect to change the description of this option if an attempt to update it was made without being merged.
Context:
The [first inscription](https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000029730547464f056f8b6e2e0a02eaf69c24389983a04f5) appeared December 14, 2022 at the h
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29173)
The latest update of the help text of `-datacarriersize` is incorrect.
The purpose of this standardization rule is not to target only the data contained in the raw scriptPubKey, but all forms of arbitrary data.
It is incorrect to change the description of this option if an attempt to update it was made without being merged.
Context:
The [first inscription](https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000029730547464f056f8b6e2e0a02eaf69c24389983a04f5) appeared December 14, 2022 at the h
...
💬 ChrisMartl commented on pull request "doc: revert clarify -datacarriersize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29173#issuecomment-1876707992)
ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29173#issuecomment-1876707992)
ACK