💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "wallet: migration, avoid loading legacy wallet after failure when BDB isn't compiled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31451#discussion_r2018987451)
@furszy, let me know if this is what you meant... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/401121530c0f0331ad73938f30bf18f11d759bfc (you can comment there if you like before I open a PR)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31451#discussion_r2018987451)
@furszy, let me know if this is what you meant... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/401121530c0f0331ad73938f30bf18f11d759bfc (you can comment there if you like before I open a PR)
💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "miner: timelock the coinbase to the mined block's height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32155#issuecomment-2762061412)
> That's what activating the soft-fork does. But there's a chicken-egg problem, because one reason to delay activating a soft fork is because part of the ecosystem isn't ready
Sorry maybe I didn't explain myself. I meant to introduce the code, but without activating it and without activation date. So if this consensus change doesn't go forward, we make sure that we will not have hard fork because of nodes running a version with the check code implemented. Just put it there to say: "Here it is
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32155#issuecomment-2762061412)
> That's what activating the soft-fork does. But there's a chicken-egg problem, because one reason to delay activating a soft fork is because part of the ecosystem isn't ready
Sorry maybe I didn't explain myself. I meant to introduce the code, but without activating it and without activation date. So if this consensus change doesn't go forward, we make sure that we will not have hard fork because of nodes running a version with the check code implemented. Just put it there to say: "Here it is
...
💬 DaanyaalSobani commented on issue "Allow sending untrusted utxos in the sendtoaddress api":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32034#issuecomment-2762107181)
Is there currently a difference between untrusted and unconfirmed?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32034#issuecomment-2762107181)
Is there currently a difference between untrusted and unconfirmed?
💬 glozow commented on pull request "Replace MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE to preclude 64 non-witness bytes only":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26398#discussion_r2019134032)
Ah I see!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26398#discussion_r2019134032)
Ah I see!
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "doc: document workaround and fallback for macOS fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32084#discussion_r2019138847)
It seems to have worked with older macos and/or clang versions in the past and I have heard from someone that they avoid upgrading because they don't want to deal with these issues. So there are un-upgraded users that may not run into this and hopefully in the future this will be fixed again and the instructions are not necessary anymore.
Would be great to remove the section as a whole in the future. The problem is that if we make everyone run the special instructions we will not know if they
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32084#discussion_r2019138847)
It seems to have worked with older macos and/or clang versions in the past and I have heard from someone that they avoid upgrading because they don't want to deal with these issues. So there are un-upgraded users that may not run into this and hopefully in the future this will be fixed again and the instructions are not necessary anymore.
Would be great to remove the section as a whole in the future. The problem is that if we make everyone run the special instructions we will not know if they
...
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "doc: document workaround and fallback for macOS fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32084#discussion_r2019141108)
I am here commenting in this issue because I ran into the problem. Macos users that don't have this problem will probably not even look at this issue. So could be that the people that have the problem are in the minority.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32084#discussion_r2019141108)
I am here commenting in this issue because I ran into the problem. Macos users that don't have this problem will probably not even look at this issue. So could be that the people that have the problem are in the minority.
🤔 instagibbs reviewed a pull request: "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#pullrequestreview-2725655591)
Looking good 0630995fee22990402771547be1480b8706c76ce
No real show-stoppers except for the diagram check fuzz test conceptual issue I'm still having.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#pullrequestreview-2725655591)
Looking good 0630995fee22990402771547be1480b8706c76ce
No real show-stoppers except for the diagram check fuzz test conceptual issue I'm still having.
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018742079)
micro-nit
```Suggestion
std::vector<FeeFrac> chunk_feerates;
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018742079)
micro-nit
```Suggestion
std::vector<FeeFrac> chunk_feerates;
```
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018744853)
We don't care or it will be respected within clusters due to CFR?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018744853)
We don't care or it will be respected within clusters due to CFR?
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018933019)
nit: const chunk_count
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018933019)
nit: const chunk_count
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018913351)
maybe overkill but `m_main_chunkindex` since there's a lot of level==0 checks everywhere gating access/modification
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018913351)
maybe overkill but `m_main_chunkindex` since there's a lot of level==0 checks everywhere gating access/modification
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018886603)
1d500a50b698a638c840ca79504c2a9a421e8756 stretch goal, have SanityCheck check m_chunk_count directly?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018886603)
1d500a50b698a638c840ca79504c2a9a421e8756 stretch goal, have SanityCheck check m_chunk_count directly?
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018829062)
micro-nit: I know they're identical, but having the list being built via `stage_real_diagram` seems easier to digest what's being computed
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018829062)
micro-nit: I know they're identical, but having the list being built via `stage_real_diagram` seems easier to digest what's being computed
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018906562)
nit: Could we note that this is initialized first in `AddTransaction`?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018906562)
nit: Could we note that this is initialized first in `AddTransaction`?
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019037611)
```Suggestion
// The same order should be obtained through a BlockBuilder as implied by CompareMainOrder, if nothing is skipped.
```
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019037611)
```Suggestion
// The same order should be obtained through a BlockBuilder as implied by CompareMainOrder, if nothing is skipped.
```
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018984013)
b130e185f54c7f762da6ef435882335e4f0b98ff
Could the documentation get beefed up a bit for this? What the shape that range should look like, etc. Was only clear later when seeing usages.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2018984013)
b130e185f54c7f762da6ef435882335e4f0b98ff
Could the documentation get beefed up a bit for this? What the shape that range should look like, etc. Was only clear later when seeing usages.
💬 glozow commented on pull request "fuzz: extract unsequenced operations with side-effects":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32141#issuecomment-2762140874)
Backported in #32136
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32141#issuecomment-2762140874)
Backported in #32136
💬 glozow commented on pull request "cmake: Add `NO_CACHE_IF_FAILED` option for checking linker flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32027#issuecomment-2762141394)
Backported in #32136
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32027#issuecomment-2762141394)
Backported in #32136
💬 glozow commented on pull request "depends: set `CMAKE_*_COMPILER_TARGET` in toolchain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31849#issuecomment-2762141871)
Backported in #32136
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31849#issuecomment-2762141871)
Backported in #32136
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "test: create assert_not_equal util":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29500#discussion_r2019167894)
> The traceback in this case does print the source code line, so a comment on the same line could be sufficient. It depends on how the error is presented. Example failure:
This is an annoying draw back that the stack trace won't contain the line in the test that's in error, but instead the line in the `assert_not_equal` helper. In Rust, one can decorate the helper function with the `track_caller` macro. I don't see anything that is similar for C++ sadly.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29500#discussion_r2019167894)
> The traceback in this case does print the source code line, so a comment on the same line could be sufficient. It depends on how the error is presented. Example failure:
This is an annoying draw back that the stack trace won't contain the line in the test that's in error, but instead the line in the `assert_not_equal` helper. In Rust, one can decorate the helper function with the `track_caller` macro. I don't see anything that is similar for C++ sadly.