🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "p2p: detect addnode cjdns peers in GetAddedNodeInfo()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30085#pullrequestreview-2056511498)
utACK d0b047494c28381942c09d0cca45baa323bfcffc

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "[27.x] Backports and probably finalize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30092#issuecomment-2111186256)
Propose https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30085 if merged in time.

💬 naiyoma commented on pull request "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#issuecomment-2111204089)
> Thanks for adding these tests, concept ACK.
>
> Seems like this is in progress because there is test failure and a debugger is added. Added few suggestions for now, will review again when the tests pass.

Thanks for the review! The initial tests passed successfully. But I pushed an update that implements the suggested alternative approach from this [discussion](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1568092353)

Unfortunately, the tests are currently failing with this
...

💬 naiyoma commented on pull request "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1600721946)
The idea here was to create a separate path for testing whitelisted users and a different path for testing users with no whitelist. The issue is that once a user is whitelisted, clearing the bitcoin.conf and writing new permissions still shows the user as whitelisted. I've provided a detailed explanation [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1589320996).

💬 naiyoma commented on pull request "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1600728213)
Not sure if I should do this in this PR, since the main scope of this one is to cover the whitelistdefault test case.

💬 naiyoma commented on pull request "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1600735279)
Ive provided an explanation of why this is happening [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1589320996)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "refactor: Simply include CTxMemPool::Options in CTxMemPool directly rather than duplicating definition":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29086#issuecomment-2111326109)
ACK cc67d33fdac45357b593b1faff3d1735e5fe91ba

⚠️ SleepTheGod opened an issue: "Unexpected Termination of WebSocket Connection after Valid Subscription Request on ws.blockchain.info"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30103)
Summary:
A WebSocket client encounters an abrupt termination after successfully connecting to the WebSocket service at ws.blockchain.info and sending a valid subscription request for transaction updates related to a specific Bitcoin address.

Environment:
WebSocket Client: Custom Python script using websocket-client library.
Server: ws.blockchain.info
Date/Time of Occurrence: May 14, 2024, 23:06:34 GMT
Python Version: 3.x
Operating System: Not specified, but applicable to all.
Steps to
...

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Unexpected Termination of WebSocket Connection after Valid Subscription Request on ws.blockchain.info"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30103)

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Unexpected Termination of WebSocket Connection after Valid Subscription Request on ws.blockchain.info":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30103#issuecomment-2111329558)
Issues with blockchain.info should be reported to them. They are not affiliated with this project in any way.

⚠️ SleepTheGod opened an issue: "Websocket Exploit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30104)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

python exploit.py
--- request header ---
GET /inv HTTP/1.1
Upgrade: websocket
Host: ws.blockchain.info
Origin: https://ws.blockchain.info
Sec-WebSocket-Key: ZIHq/jbH7u0qeSHAFRSWFQ==
Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13
Connection: Upgrade


-----------------------
--- response header ---
HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 23:06:34 GMT
Connection: upgrade
Sec-Webs
...

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Websocket Exploit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30104)

:lock: achow101 locked an issue: "Websocket Exploit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30104)

:lock: achow101 locked an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30103)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "refactor: Simply include CTxMemPool::Options in CTxMemPool directly rather than duplicating definition"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29086)

📝 kevkevinpal opened a pull request: "test: Added test to ensure log and failure happen when work is less than active chainstate"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30105)
This adds coverage to the `ActivateSnapshot` function asserting that when we try to use a snapshot with too little work done on it, using `loadtxoutset`. That this log and rpc error are thrown

log
`[snapshot] activation failed - work does not exceed active chainstate`
rpc error
`Unable to load UTXO snapshot`

Adds coverage to this code https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L5567

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "contrib: use ENV flags in get_arch"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30074)

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "build: LLD based macOS toolchain"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21778)

📝 kevkevinpal opened a pull request: "lint: fixed typo in test_runner causing linter warning"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30106)
introduced in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/357ad110548d726021547d85b5b2bfcf3191d7e3

This typo is causing an error in the linter, fixing this should remove this warning

```
test/functional/test_runner.py:651: insuffient ==> insufficient
^ Warning: codespell identified likely spelling errors. Any false positives? Add them to the list of ignored words in test/lint/spelling.ignore-words.txt
```

[link to cirrus ci warning](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5926490804584448?logs=lint
...

👍 tdb3 approved a pull request: "refactor: simplify `FormatSubVersion` using strprintf/Join"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30098#pullrequestreview-2056708441)
ACK for 12d82817bf32396b58c8c65645012def606680b6.

Thank you. Making code more concise and readable is much appreciated.
Built and ran unit tests (including `util_tests/test_FormatSubVersion`) and functionals. All passed.

A one/same-line `if` aligns with the coding style (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/developer-notes.md#coding-style-c).

> If an if only has a single-statement then-clause, it can appear on the same line as the if, without braces.