✅ maflcko closed an issue: "Bitcoin puzzles in lower ranges (starting with 66 as of now) can't be cashed out because of bots and RBF"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29793)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Bitcoin puzzles in lower ranges (starting with 66 as of now) can't be cashed out because of bots and RBF":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29793#issuecomment-2033843601)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base.

General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or one of the Bitcoin subreddits, or any other place that you feel is well suited.

Network-wide consensus and/or P2P changes first need to be discussed with the greater community, for example https://groups.google.c
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "depens: bdb build fails on Intel macOS 13.6.6 ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29792#issuecomment-2033873359)
Can you build other packages with patches applied?

💬 0xB10C commented on issue "Bitcoin puzzles in lower ranges (starting with 66 as of now) can't be cashed out because of bots and RBF":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29793#issuecomment-2033917369)
> Which puzzles? And what does this have to do with Bitcoin Core?

Probably these [low entropy private key "puzzels"](https://privatekeys.pw/puzzles/bitcoin-puzzle-tx).

> Can anything be done about it? The immediate solution that comes to mind is that RBF should be allowed only with the same wallet destination.

This is unrelated to the Bitcoin Core software. Even if Bitcoin Core would limit RBF to transactions paying to the same address, there is no guarantee that other miners and users
...

💬 0xB10C commented on issue "v27.0 Testing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29697#issuecomment-2033920555)
fwiw: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29785

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2033923383)
> If someone implements this, it may also be good to move the runner to a GHA 22.04 VM, to lift the requirements from the self-hosted runners. (But I won't be working on this myself either)

Obviously this would expose the CI to GH changing the kernel below the CI without notice, e.g. https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/commit/05bfab69aef3622f77f754cfb01220108a109c91 . So it may or may not be more or less fragile.

I agree that the CI task is fragile, because it assumes an exact kernel
...

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "[25.x] Finalize 25.2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29794#pullrequestreview-1976030701)
utACK e95c484f7de7fe30d5a2e87c0e7e2a5faf9c1a5f

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: Update the developer mailing list address."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29782)

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "Tons of Socks5() connect to x.x.x.x:8333 failed: connection refused-messages when i use TOR - why?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29759#issuecomment-2033951677)
For me, the Tor daemon also behaves inconsistently (Ubuntu).
If I attempt to make a connection to one and the same non-reachable node (with `addnode` and onetry), I sometimes get a `IntrRecvError::Timeout` (which is not logged unconditionally), and sometimes get an error (`Socks5() connect to x.x.x.x:8333 failed: general failure`). I haven't been able to detect a pattern which of the two happens when, it looks random to me.
From reading the [code](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/3b12fc
...

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#pullrequestreview-1976038089)
ACK 4bf7e1a005853cb57ae3a051bcdfc5c149b1f1db

didn't run fuzz tests

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#discussion_r1549280078)
```suggestion
// The total fee & size of the new diagram minus replaced fee & size should be the total fee & size of the old
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#discussion_r1549281309)
```suggestion
* The sum of the FeeFracs in either of the chunks' data sets cannot overflow (sum fees < 2^63,
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#discussion_r1549266433)
might want to make it clearer if this is descriptive or prescriptive

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Print tsan errors to stderr":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29740#issuecomment-2033984929)
Pulled this into 27.x in #29780.

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2033993210)
> > I'm missing context for this change. Why no PR description and no commit message body?
>
> I put it in the second comment. Edited and moved to the description.

Ok, I did a bit more digging: I was missing the context that https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29765 upgraded the CI images to a newer Ubuntu version and that the `Cirrus CI / ASan + LSan + UBSan + integer, no depends, USDT` job [is now failing](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29786/checks?check_run_id=23346486009)
...

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: Run framework unit tests in parallel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29771#issuecomment-2033997944)
> > is the desire here to have the unit tests run by default when running individual tests
>
> No
>
> > (and also by default when running all tests)?
>
> Yes
>
> They are just another test now, so they don't need special treatment via `--skipunit`. Conversely, they don't need to be run more often than other tests.
>
> > The user can specify --failfast to end testing early if any test fails (unit tests are no exception)
>
> Yes, that seems good enough.
>

Ah, thank you for clarifying.
@mzu
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2034000240)
> Is it an option to drop the USDT tests from the `Cirrus CI / ASan + LSan + UBSan + integer, no depends, USDT` job and move them to a GH actions 23.04 VM if "lifting the requirements from the self-hosted runners" is the general direction we want to go? (probably makes sense to merge this sooner than later before adding a GH actions VM job to have CI green again?).

I'll look into it.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "rpc: Optimize serialization disk space of dumptxoutset - Reloaded":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29612#issuecomment-2034005144)
> utxo set snapshots are useful for more than just snapshot loading.

Do you know of any examples of the utxo dumps already being used for something else?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2034006509)
> Ok, I did a bit more digging: I was missing the context that #29765 upgraded the CI images to a newer Ubuntu version and that the `Cirrus CI / ASan + LSan + UBSan + integer, no depends, USDT` job [is now failing](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29786/checks?check_run_id=23346486009).

29765 didn't do the switch, it was done in fa83b65ef8934b44fbac02da8dbc27fc0bc230e6 last year.



> Is it an option to drop the USDT tests from the `Cirrus CI / ASan + LSan + UBSan + integer, no dep
...

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2034008362)
> GH actions 23.04 VM

GitHub currently only supports: `ubuntu-latest` (22.04), `ubuntu-22.04`, and `ubuntu-20.04`

https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-github-hosted-runners/about-github-hosted-runners/about-github-hosted-runners#standard-github-hosted-runners-for-public-repositories