💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: optimize migration process, batch db transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28574#discussion_r1744714899)
pushed.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28574#discussion_r1744714899)
pushed.
💬 ariard commented on pull request "Halt processing of unrequested transactions v2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30572#issuecomment-2330483767)
Updated at [23551ef] with the `NODE_TXRELAY_V2` approach.
Submitted a BIP [draft](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30572/commits/23551efc912f912c2ccedde9b6518854dad7aac9) in that sense, in the lack for now of a better approach for now on how to implement reject of unrequested transactions in a minimally-disruptive fashion for the bitcoin peer-to-peer network. I think I should open a distinct PR for the service signaling support itself.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30572#issuecomment-2330483767)
Updated at [23551ef] with the `NODE_TXRELAY_V2` approach.
Submitted a BIP [draft](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30572/commits/23551efc912f912c2ccedde9b6518854dad7aac9) in that sense, in the lack for now of a better approach for now on how to implement reject of unrequested transactions in a minimally-disruptive fashion for the bitcoin peer-to-peer network. I think I should open a distinct PR for the service signaling support itself.
💬 garlonicon commented on issue "Testnet4 consensus failure due to timewarp related "softfork"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2330506782)
> unsure how to get to the main chain
You are on the main chain. But the deep reorg didn't kick in yet, so if you use for example mempool.space to see, if you are on the main chain or not, then that page is still showing the old chain. I guess it can take a few days to get there, but we are getting closer and closer, to trigger that reorg.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2330506782)
> unsure how to get to the main chain
You are on the main chain. But the deep reorg didn't kick in yet, so if you use for example mempool.space to see, if you are on the main chain or not, then that page is still showing the old chain. I guess it can take a few days to get there, but we are getting closer and closer, to trigger that reorg.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add coverage for dumptxoutset failure robustness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30817#discussion_r1744793926)
style nit: Pathlib should have the corresponding call as a member method. Using that would avoid the `os` import.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30817#discussion_r1744793926)
style nit: Pathlib should have the corresponding call as a member method. Using that would avoid the `os` import.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Reintroduce external signer support for Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868#discussion_r1744801683)
Please don't re-introduce https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30608
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868#discussion_r1744801683)
Please don't re-introduce https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30608
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Use std::span and std::string_view for raw data":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30796#discussion_r1744806538)
> What does the `detail_` prefix mean?
It is just the lazy version of `namespace detail`, see https://duckduckgo.com/?q=namespace+detail or `git grep "namespace detail"` to denote internal details that should not be considered exposed.
Happy to wrap the symbol into a `namespace detail` properly.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30796#discussion_r1744806538)
> What does the `detail_` prefix mean?
It is just the lazy version of `namespace detail`, see https://duckduckgo.com/?q=namespace+detail or `git grep "namespace detail"` to denote internal details that should not be considered exposed.
Happy to wrap the symbol into a `namespace detail` properly.
💬 russeree commented on issue "Testnet4 consensus failure due to timewarp related "softfork"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2330612837)
> > My question is why did we merge code into Core that forked T4 without contacting any of the larger swaths of hashrate and or having the HR to outrun the previously canonical chain?
>
> There was no indication at the time that anyone would mine blocks that were outside of MAX_TIMEWARP of 600. And generally, the assumption is that if someone is running code from an unmerged PR, they should be following it and be aware that it might majorly change before it is merged.
>
> Also, it's testn
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2330612837)
> > My question is why did we merge code into Core that forked T4 without contacting any of the larger swaths of hashrate and or having the HR to outrun the previously canonical chain?
>
> There was no indication at the time that anyone would mine blocks that were outside of MAX_TIMEWARP of 600. And generally, the assumption is that if someone is running code from an unmerged PR, they should be following it and be aware that it might majorly change before it is merged.
>
> Also, it's testn
...
💬 jadijadi commented on issue "btc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29562#issuecomment-2330639061)
what is this? any more info?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29562#issuecomment-2330639061)
what is this? any more info?
💬 TheCharlatan commented on issue "build: reproducibility issue with macOS Guix builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30815#issuecomment-2330640392)
They seem to be, yes.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30815#issuecomment-2330640392)
They seem to be, yes.
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Create usable static kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30814#issuecomment-2330655804)
Re-worked this, it now installs all the required libraries when the static kernel lib is being built. Couldn't figure out why the previous method was working on my machines, but not in the CI container. Since it is not a standard thing to do (just about touching undefined behaviour territory), and some reviewers commented they would support installing all libraries as an alternative, this now seems like the better and future-proof solution to me.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30814#issuecomment-2330655804)
Re-worked this, it now installs all the required libraries when the static kernel lib is being built. Couldn't figure out why the previous method was working on my machines, but not in the CI container. Since it is not a standard thing to do (just about touching undefined behaviour territory), and some reviewers commented they would support installing all libraries as an alternative, this now seems like the better and future-proof solution to me.
✅ maflcko closed an issue: "btc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29562)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29562)
👋 TheCharlatan's pull request is ready for review: "kernel: Create usable static kernel library"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30814)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30814)
:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "btc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29562)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29562)
💬 garlonicon commented on issue "Testnet4 consensus failure due to timewarp related "softfork"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2330694091)
Also, we can now clearly see, why weak blocks are needed: mempool.space shows more than 500 transactions, waiting for being confirmed, but only a few of them are really mined, and the rest is waiting patiently, because nobody rebroadcasted them.
And there is more: it is possible to easily double-spend them, because it will take some time, before they will be shared in P2P way.
It is also something to consider, in case when mempools are congested: if you can see a miner, sending blocks with
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2330694091)
Also, we can now clearly see, why weak blocks are needed: mempool.space shows more than 500 transactions, waiting for being confirmed, but only a few of them are really mined, and the rest is waiting patiently, because nobody rebroadcasted them.
And there is more: it is possible to easily double-spend them, because it will take some time, before they will be shared in P2P way.
It is also something to consider, in case when mempools are congested: if you can see a miner, sending blocks with
...
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "signet: fixing mining for OP_TRUE challenge":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29032#issuecomment-2330721828)
Rebased after #28417.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29032#issuecomment-2330721828)
Rebased after #28417.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "contrib/signet/miner updates":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28417#issuecomment-2330721959)
If you liked this PR, you may also like the freshly rebased #29032!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28417#issuecomment-2330721959)
If you liked this PR, you may also like the freshly rebased #29032!
💬 Sjors commented on issue "Testnet4 consensus failure due to timewarp related "softfork"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2330736873)
@garlonicon I think you're going a bit off topic here, a weak blocks proposals seems more suitable for the mailinglist.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2330736873)
@garlonicon I think you're going a bit off topic here, a weak blocks proposals seems more suitable for the mailinglist.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "build: Minor build system fixes and amendments":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30803#discussion_r1744925332)
This explanation makes more sense to me than the current code comment.
> try `find_package(ZeroMQ)` first, and fallback to `pkg_check_modules(libzmq)`
That would be nice. Then a short clarifying comment could be:
```
# Use CMake config file if the distro provides it (pseudo code)
try find_package(ZeroMQ)
# Otherwise
catch pkg_check_modules(libzmq)
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30803#discussion_r1744925332)
This explanation makes more sense to me than the current code comment.
> try `find_package(ZeroMQ)` first, and fallback to `pkg_check_modules(libzmq)`
That would be nice. Then a short clarifying comment could be:
```
# Use CMake config file if the distro provides it (pseudo code)
try find_package(ZeroMQ)
# Otherwise
catch pkg_check_modules(libzmq)
```
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "build: Minor build system fixes and amendments":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30803#discussion_r1744927863)
cc9d65dc05f802aaaa108a2edcf30c3758c3f459: maybe add a comment for why there's not test command (yet?)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30803#discussion_r1744927863)
cc9d65dc05f802aaaa108a2edcf30c3758c3f459: maybe add a comment for why there's not test command (yet?)
👍 MarnixCroes approved a pull request: "doc: fix assumeutxo design doc link"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30819#pullrequestreview-2282046097)
ACK e5f7272ad322aa4eb7a7d6f531419a4d7aee4802
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30819#pullrequestreview-2282046097)
ACK e5f7272ad322aa4eb7a7d6f531419a4d7aee4802