💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553914777)
added

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553914701)
done, yay for 20

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553965998)
Wait oof, we don't require the orphanage child to be provided by the same peer who sent the low-feerate tx. I think this would mean you can get other people disconnected by sending a bogus child of the package they're sending.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553914428)
Ok hm. I've simplified the wording a bit. Maybe that helps?

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "test: Fix debug recommendation in argsman_tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29805#pullrequestreview-1983669418)
ACK 561a650e0f669159699224ddd4eb5b1c91cf9ac3

> I didn't investigate further but I suspect that these tests were moved between files.

Yea, looks like that happened in #26489.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: chacha20: always use our fallback timingsafe_bcmp rather than libc's":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29815#issuecomment-2040212245)
utACK 2d1819455cb4c516f6cdf81c11e869a23dee3e6b

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Fix debug recommendation in argsman_tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29805)

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553982455)
think you forgot to push?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553982697)
we should have tests(in master?) for this I hope.

something below minfee is rejected, block comes in, node should respond to an INV for the same thing again

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "crypto: chacha20: always use our fallback timingsafe_bcmp rather than libc's":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29815#issuecomment-2040235236)
Concept ACK

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#issuecomment-2040240531)
> Are you still working on this?

Thanks, rebased

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553992489)
looks like peer id needs to be used again: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1542964936

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553996459)
> think you forgot to push?

Github published everything instead of adding my comment to the group -_- yes, pushing in a second.

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "net_processing: make any misbehavior trigger immediate discouragement"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29575#pullrequestreview-1983711854)
Code Review ACK e7ccaa01e4e0ef502d5727367baa54bcdcf1fb83

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1554000244)
> we should have tests(in master?) for this I hope.

apparently not?

💬 theuni commented on pull request "depends: add new LLVM debug macro":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29781#issuecomment-2040260622)
Trying to make sense of all of this, I found [this RFC](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-hardening-in-libc/73925) helpful:

> - LLVM 18: first release that supports hardening modes and ways to enable them as described in the RFC.
> - The safe mode (available since the LLVM 15 release) is still supported; the release notes will mention that projects using the safe mode have to transition to use the hardened mode or the debug-lite mode instead (debug-lite is the rough equivalent of the old sa
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1554004259)
Hm no, I think we should return pairs of tx and the `fromPeer`, and just attribute the error to the right peer. If we restrict it to same sender, then we can also block packages by sending the children fast and refusing to send the parent.

⚠️ achow101 opened an issue: "`WalletCreate{Encrypted/Plain}` benchmark crash on Windows"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29816)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

After modifying the guix build script for 27.0rc1 to produce the benchmark binary, when `bench_bitcoin` is run on Windows, it crashes on the `WalletCreateEncrypted` and `WalletCreatePlain` benchmarks with

```
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::filesystem::__cxx11::filesystem_error'
what(): filesystem error: cannot remove all: Broken pipe [C:\Users\ava\AppData\Loca
...

💬 theuni commented on pull request "depends: add new LLVM debug macro":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29781#issuecomment-2040274229)
Oh, heh, I missed that @maflcko had already linked that. See also [here for an RFC about the deprecation](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-removing-the-legacy-debug-mode-from-libc/71026).

I think I'm inclined to agree that it's not worth supporting the old mode. It seems it's old and janky and deprecated for good reason.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: add new LLVM debug macro":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29781#issuecomment-2040280405)
Dropped the older define.