💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "p2p: Don't process mutated blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29412#discussion_r1499130527)
Split the refactoring into a separate commit.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "p2p: Don't process mutated blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29412#discussion_r1499130753)
Done

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665#discussion_r1499213263)
Nice, the compile-time check can be tested with:
```diff
diff --git a/src/test/result_tests.cpp b/src/test/result_tests.cpp
index 261e1f0b9b..053b45fceb 100644
--- a/src/test/result_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/result_tests.cpp
@@ -28,0 +29,10 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(result_tests)
+enum class DummyError {
+ FAILURE_1,
+ FAILURE_2,
+ FAILURE_3,
+};
+
+util::Result<void, DummyError> VoidDummyError() {
+ return util::Error{Untranslated("void fail.")};
+}
+
@@ -203,0 +214,3
...

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665#pullrequestreview-1895838904)
Re-ACK cdf7bb17563b92e48b0576a0975c168619c5aa34

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Double -dbache maximum to 32GB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28358#issuecomment-1959446160)
I was still waiting for someone to suggest a new value. But it seems fine to bump to 64 GB in order to support `verifychain 4 0`, so added that.

@maflcko do you prefer to drop the limit? We should not quietly change a user setting, so imo an invalid value should explicitly fail, rather than silently fail.

> Also, CI still fails

Indeed. I copied the `is_64bits = sys.maxsize > 2**32` check from `netutil.py`, but it seems the check doesn't actually work. So there might be a bug in `netutil
...

📝 Sjors converted_to_draft a pull request: "Double -dbache maximum to 32GB"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28358)
Due to recent UTXO set growth, the current maximum value for `-dbcache` of 16GB is just months away from being insufficient.

This PR increases the maximum to 32GB. It also adds a warning that it's up to users to check that they have enough RAM.

Finally, we make startup abort if the value provided is too high, rather than quietly rounding it down. This doubling seems like a safe time to do that, so that users who picked a reasonable, but too previously high, round number like 20,000 won't e
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Double -dbache maximum to 64GB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28358#issuecomment-1959462383)
i686 is 32 bit and python on that CI machine is compiled to 64 bit

💬 gdiscord commented on issue "Guix build script incorrectly reporting there is no Mac SDK":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29449#issuecomment-1959473980)
Been trying to work out where this error is coming from. Openssl is supposed to have been completely removed, right?

Pointers on how to resolve will be appreciated.

checking whether the linker accepts -Wl,--exclude-libs,ALL... yes
checking for openssl/crypto.h... no
configure: error: libcrypto headers missing

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "[fuzz] Avoid partial negative result"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29462#pullrequestreview-1895898566)
crACK 9dae3b970a7a82e8d9f3f755048d427da78c49da

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "net: call `Select` with reachable networks in `ThreadOpenConnections`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29436#discussion_r1499270150)
Leftover from previous changes, thanks, I'll remove it.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Guix build script incorrectly reporting there is no Mac SDK":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29449#issuecomment-1959495509)
> Openssl is supposed to have been completely removed

It has been completely removed. For many years. What source code are you building?

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: check_mempool_result negative feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29459#issuecomment-1959498789)
nice, utACK bf264e05981e3809715f34f548138d53991db6f2

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "[fuzz] Avoid partial negative result":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29462#issuecomment-1959506846)
ACK 9dae3b970a7a82e8d9f3f755048d427da78c49da

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "net: call `Select` with reachable networks in `ThreadOpenConnections`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29436#discussion_r1499286213)
Yes, sure! I'll address it.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "[fuzz] Avoid partial negative result"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29462)

⚠️ achow101 opened an issue: "Voting on Priority Projects for 28.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29465)
Please leave your votes for project priorities for the next ~6 months (until the 28.0 feature freeze).

Project priorities are those which the frequent contributors to this project have voted on to have more focused review on until the next feature freeze (or until they are completed). They will become permanent topics in our weekly IRC meetings so that we can get updates on the progress of each project and determine the next step to move them forward.

Voting will close at the start of the
...

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Gathering Priorities of 28.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29439)

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "net: attempts to connect to all resolved addresses when connecting to a node":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28834#issuecomment-1959512593)
Addressesed suggestions by @naumenkogs

💬 gdiscord commented on issue "Guix build script incorrectly reporting there is no Mac SDK":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29449#issuecomment-1959519391)
Building main branch.

Perhaps I've introduced a code during my experiments that have triggered it. Have now gone through configure.ac as well as src/Makefile.am, and I don't see any reference to either openssl or libcrypto.

But interestingly openssl appears in contrib/guix/manifest.com, and there is also a patch under contrib/guix/patches that seems to suggest a manual control of openssl integration through an environment variable.

This is the note within the content of the patch:

+p
...

💬 fjahr commented on issue "Voting on Priority Projects for 28.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29465#issuecomment-1959520489)
Cluster mempool, Silent payments, Default ASMap