💬 fjahr commented on pull request "doc, chainparams: 29775 release notes and follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30604#discussion_r1711395593)
> And see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30614, but that should probably be its own followup.

Agree, it seems that we currently have the safer option given we don't really know what other mining software is doing (at least that's my feeling). If we do still get consensus on tightening the limit we can do that in another follow-up in the next two weeks but it shouldn't hold up this PR here.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1711401797)
> btw, is it expected that modifying `TryAppendLinkerFlag.cmake` (e.g. the `try_append_linker_flag("-Wl,-fatal_warnings" VAR working_linker_werror_flag)` line) and rerunning `cmake -B build_fuzz` ignores the update? Shouldn't it detect that this file was changed? I need to `rm -rfd build_fuzz && cmake -B build_fuzz` for it to be picked up.

Yes, that is because the result is cached.

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1711403435)
Of course, but shouldn't this change invalidate the cache?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1711409392)
Apparently, not every change invalidates the cache. Mind reporting to https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/-/issues?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#issuecomment-2277886777)
I think we can improve the output when `-DWITH_CCACHE=OFF` is used. Depending on the system, that output might be:
```bash
cmake -B build -DWITH_CCACHE=OFF
< snip >
Use ccache for compiling .............. ccache masquerades as the compiler
```
We should probably at least indicate that the option was respected by the build-system.

🤔 theStack reviewed a pull request: "depends: Make default `host` and `build` comparable"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30584#pullrequestreview-2230130108)
@hebasto: Ok, I can confirm that with OpenBSD 7.5 on master, the host/build values differ:

```
$ gmake print-host
host=amd64-unknown-openbsd7.5
$ gmake print-build
build=x86_64-unknown-openbsd7.5
```

while on the PR branch they are equal :heavy_check_mark:
```
$ gmake print-host
host=x86_64-unknown-openbsd7.5
$ gmake print-build
build=x86_64-unknown-openbsd7.5
```

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Drop block height from metadata":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30598#issuecomment-2277895352)
New torrent (untested and seeding might take a while to kick in): `magnet:?xt=urn:btih:596c26cc709e213fdfec997183ff67067241440c&dn=utxo-840000.dat&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.bitcoin.sprovoost.nl%3A6969`

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "validation: do not wipe utxo cache for stats/scans/snapshots":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30610#issuecomment-2277900785)
I understand this is still WIP, but checked quickly how much the current impl would speed up the IBD (first 500k between https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/27a770b34b8f1dbb84760f442edb3e23a0c2420b and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/2a9c93871cea8c3b1d927a2559ef69ea76c9faf9), got the following:
```bash
hyperfine \
--runs 3 \
--parameter-list COMMIT 27a770,2a9c93 \
--prepare 'git checkout {COMMIT} && git clean -fxd && git reset --hard && ./autogen.sh && ./configure && make -j
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2277905851)
I partially wiped guix on my (AMD) Ubuntu 24.04 system (`sudo rm -rf /root/.cache/guix /var/guix /gnu/store`).

```sh
$ which guix
/usr/local/bin/guix
$ guix --version
guix (GNU Guix) 1.4.0
$ sudo --login guix pull --commit=efc26826400762207cde9f23802cfe75a737963c
```

This fails at `/gnu/store/bfirgq65ndhf63nn4q6vlkbha9zd931q-openssl-1.1.1l.drv`.

After the #30609 bump to `--commit=7bf1d7aeaffba15c4f680f93ae88fbef25427252` it still tries to build this OpenSSL version.

So even tho
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1711452798)
Addressed in https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/316.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1711453187)
Addressed in https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/316.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2277931416)
> So even though Bitcoin Core doesn't need it anymore, Guix itself still does

Would be nice to report this upstream, so that openssl-1.1.1l can be removed, but I guess the removal may not be trivial

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1711453782)
> As an alternative workaround, I'd suggest to use an extra configuration option `-DAPPEND_LDFLAGS="-Wl,-no_warn_duplicate_libraries"`.

Addressed in https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/316.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1711453934)
Addressed in https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/316.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2277938747)
This has been open for a few years, but no recent activity: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/56137

💬 sipa commented on pull request "validation: do not wipe utxo cache for stats/scans/snapshots":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30610#issuecomment-2277939198)
@paplorinc Huh, this PR shouldn't affect IBD speed at all.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: remove `ExtractDestination` false assertion for `ANCHOR` script":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30616#issuecomment-2277962247)
(Could wait a day before merging this, to check if OSS-Fuzz also found it, because it should and so far has not)

📝 paplorinc opened a pull request: "test: TrySanitizeHexNumber fizz and unit testing coverage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30618)
WIP: depends on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30569#discussion_r1706637780

Split out the test related recommendations from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30569

--------

* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30569#discussion_r1706637780

Use BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL for std::optional, arith_uint256, uint256, uint160

Example error before:
> unknown location:0: fatal error: in "validation_chainstatemanager_tests/chainstatemanager_args": std::bad_optional_access: bad_o
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2277974891)
Once openssl-1 stuff is gone, we can drop the GnuTLS workaround instructions along with it.

It had a similar problem in 3.6.12, but has been updated to 3.7.2. That was included in the [Guix 1.4.0 release](https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2022/gnu-guix-1.4.0-released) in late 2022.

(or I could reword the GnuTLS workaround text to refer to openssl 1)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2277975393)
I presume this will be fixed in guix 1.5, but someone claimed if it isn't already fixed, then it is a bug, see https://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/2023-09/msg00112.html