💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1537182198)
It's gotten to the point where even refreshing the page doesn't always get you the latest comments. +1 for opening a new one.

Meanwhile I'll recompile and do an unpruned with assumevalid=0.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Move chain constants to the util library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#issuecomment-1537182312)
Rebased dd95e2a3353b5ded87d1d5408a51bf461f1f90b4 -> 95744f9cf1f143b6449a5046a914557b3886e3a2 ([kernelChainType_3](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelChainType_3) -> [kernelChainType_4](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelChainType_4), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelChainType_3..kernelChainType_4))
* Fixed conflict with #17860

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1537183168)
On Ubuntu 23.04 (gcc 12.2.0) I get a bunch of these warnings, that I don't get on master:

```
In file included from ./wallet/wallet.h:10,
from wallet/dump.cpp:10:
./interfaces/chain.h:274:22: warning: ‘virtual void interfaces::Chain::Notifications::blockConnected(const interfaces::BlockInfo&)’ was hidden [-Woverloaded-virtual]
274 | virtual void blockConnected(const BlockInfo& block) {}
```

💬 TheBlueMatt commented on pull request "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1537191167)
> "Mempool divergence" is a non-issue, just a testament of the decentralized nature of the Bitcoin network. Any concerted efforts at homogenizing them across all nodes can only be understood as unwarranted overreach by bad actors.

This is inaccurate - there are a whole host of issues across the stack with large mempool divergence. From compact block relay losing their efficiency, to feerate estimates getting thrown off, to transaction validation caches becoming less efficient leading to block
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Enable HW-accelerated implementations of SHA256 for MSVC builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24773#issuecomment-1537197977)
I had a chance to benchmark on a Windows laptop equipped with Intel Core i9 -12950HX with the `sha_ni` flag set.

No significant difference has been observed. Going to close this PR.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Enable HW-accelerated implementations of SHA256 for MSVC builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24773#discussion_r1186731838)
> Does MSVC not define `__x86_64__` or `__amd64__` or `__i386__` ?

No, it does not. Easy to verify with the following diff:
```diff
--- a/src/compat/cpuid.h
+++ b/src/compat/cpuid.h
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
#define BITCOIN_COMPAT_CPUID_H

#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__amd64__) || defined(__i386__)
+#error
#define HAVE_GETCPUID

#include <cpuid.h>

```

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Enable HW-accelerated implementations of SHA256 for MSVC builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24773#discussion_r1186733180)
> Why does the existing asm function not work?

From https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/assembler/inline/inline-assembler:
> Inline assembly is not supported on the ARM and x64 processors.

---

> What is the specific error? Does it not like the inline asm? Or does it just have a problem with the opcode?

With the diff as follows:
```diff
--- a/src/crypto/sha256.cpp
+++ b/src/crypto/sha256.cpp
@@ -567,7 +567,6 @@ bool SelfTest() {
return true;
}

-#if defined(USE_ASM) &
...

📝 st3b1t opened a pull request: "rpc: append rpcauth.py hash in config and show pass"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27588)
Small change improves security during the rpcauth directive generation procedure. In this way you can hang the configuration line directly inside the bitcoin.conf file and at the same time show the new password to the user, but without writing it to disk usage:

append generated hash in config:

```bash
rpcauth.py >> bitcoin.conf
```
output writeless is only:

```bash
Your password:
xxxxx...
```

💬 1ma commented on pull request "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1537216325)
I did not claim mempool diversity is "good", just a "non-issue", i.e. simply part of how Bitcoin works.

Trying to mitigate these quirks by imposing a uniform mempool on all node runners would rob them of an important part of their sovereignty, therefore it'd be much worse than the quirks.

📝 Retropex opened a pull request: "Inscriptions patch"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27589)
There has been a lot of spam on bitcoin for several months now, it is urgent to do something to stop the spam of Inscriptions on the chain. A whole bunch of shitcoins arrived because of brc-20 and strips the least informed bitcoiners on these topics. a lot of bitcoiners praise the assets of bitcoin such as the fact that it is a hard currency unlike shitcoins so why let this thing proliferate on the chain?

I hope that the developers will not just refuse this request and especially that they w
...

💬 darosior commented on issue "CPU DoS on mainnet in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27586#issuecomment-1537366596)
I experienced this as well.

⚠️ Debu976116 opened an issue: "btc lightning wallet breez"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27590)
lightning:lnbc100u1pj9086jpp5yqrmjlk0je3lghy4zt3ut68e0q448u047jm5mfweg7s7mpt5ap5qdqqcqzpgxqrrssrzjqvgptfurj3528snx6e3dtwepafxw5fpzdymw9pj20jj09sunnqmwqqqqqyqqqqqqqqqqqqlgqqqqqqgqjqnp4qgekty7jav638ua9sn0wmj4kdg3lg9up9scfuhvhclr5v49vx6qpgsp52tpdewtrww5ucr7xqmrgwsg5ewd9g8luchz3wns228r05a3va8ss9qyyssqqqghjyh3gtje5k86w9x8qk0yvp7xjuzrtw7kh6gm7vdl7xmjemazvr5dcwdh9cn52gy0hr975uqsgw4xz09c2lp04ctjvkryx8pzy6cp6jyxna

✅ Debu976116 closed an issue: "btc lightning wallet breez"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27590)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "btc lightning wallet breez"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27590)

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Inscriptions option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27589)

💬 Retropex commented on pull request "Inscriptions option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27589#issuecomment-1537440153)
Thank you for considering the question @fanquake

💬 michaelfolkson commented on pull request "Inscriptions option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27589#issuecomment-1537445902)
@Retropex: Ask on [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/) whether what you are suggesting is a good idea (short answer is any default policy change or custom policy option doesn't necessarily stop inscriptions as you can still submit consensus compatible transactions directly to a miner). There is already an [ordinals tag](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ordinals) with previous Q&A on this topic.

💬 furszy commented on issue "wallet: add destination (output) and bump fee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22007#issuecomment-1537453901)
This can be closed. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25344 implemented the changes.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "wallet: add destination (output) and bump fee"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22007)

🤔 theStack reviewed a pull request: "mempool / rpc: add getprioritisedtransactions, delete a mapDeltas entry when delta==0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27501#pullrequestreview-1415921058)
Code looks good to me, also agree with aj that `getprioritisedtranactions` is a better naming. Note that the first three commits still have the old names in their commit subjects and should be adapted accordingly.