π¬ Sjors commented on pull request "doc: warn that CheckBlock() underestimates sigops":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31624#discussion_r2060159606)
As explained in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2830264751 this is fine. `TestBlockValidity` also calls the more thorough method.
I don't know why this check is here, perhaps just a way to quickly reject a block with lots of sigops?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31624#discussion_r2060159606)
As explained in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2830264751 this is fine. `TestBlockValidity` also calls the more thorough method.
I don't know why this check is here, perhaps just a way to quickly reject a block with lots of sigops?
π hebasto opened a pull request: "test: Increase stack size for "Debug" builds with MSVC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349)
This PR accommodates the deep recursion in the `FindChallenges()` function used in `test/miniscript_tests.cpp`.
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32341#issuecomment-2829441596.
CI log: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/actions/runs/14664806617/job/41156972137
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349)
This PR accommodates the deep recursion in the `FindChallenges()` function used in `test/miniscript_tests.cpp`.
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32341#issuecomment-2829441596.
CI log: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/actions/runs/14664806617/job/41156972137
π¬ hebasto commented on issue "ctest -C Debug fails on vs2022 (miniscript_tests (SEGFAULT))":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32341#issuecomment-2830328335)
> Thx. Though, now it says:
>
> ```
> The following tests FAILED:
> 60 - miniscript_tests (SEGFAULT)
> Errors while running CTest
> ```
>
> * I guess this is not really a segfault/bug in the code, but rather a stack overflow, due to the debug config eating more memory?
Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32341#issuecomment-2830328335)
> Thx. Though, now it says:
>
> ```
> The following tests FAILED:
> 60 - miniscript_tests (SEGFAULT)
> Errors while running CTest
> ```
>
> * I guess this is not really a segfault/bug in the code, but rather a stack overflow, due to the debug config eating more memory?
Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349.
π¬ fanquake commented on pull request "wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#issuecomment-2830337961)
Looks like `is_bdb_compiled` & `skip_if_no_bdb` should have been dropped.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#issuecomment-2830337961)
Looks like `is_bdb_compiled` & `skip_if_no_bdb` should have been dropped.
π¬ maflcko commented on pull request "Add checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2830342567)
I've implemented a typo check in DrahtBot and there are more, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2697111800
Also, the CI is failing.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2830342567)
I've implemented a typo check in DrahtBot and there are more, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2697111800
Also, the CI is failing.
π¬ Pimpim11 commented on issue "Double Poisson Sum: Enhancing Energy Distribution in Bitcoin Proof of Work with Main Formula Ξ³^(i/R) + β(S[0:i]Β·ΟΒ·Ο^j)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348#issuecomment-2830347260)
@willcl-ark Thanks a lot, I did Muscle Memory in Math in 2016 for Syamailcoin, and I never know if it is not possible to market under 21 Million, CoinMarketCap say I must have Big Community to Enter the Crypto Market, in September 2024 I managed to run consensus but because I didn't think about the community from the beginning, i reset all and on 13 April 2025 i did the last revision in the whitepaper.
Maybe I'm a little tired, not a day goes by without thinking about this and whether the laws
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348#issuecomment-2830347260)
@willcl-ark Thanks a lot, I did Muscle Memory in Math in 2016 for Syamailcoin, and I never know if it is not possible to market under 21 Million, CoinMarketCap say I must have Big Community to Enter the Crypto Market, in September 2024 I managed to run consensus but because I didn't think about the community from the beginning, i reset all and on 13 April 2025 i did the last revision in the whitepaper.
Maybe I'm a little tired, not a day goes by without thinking about this and whether the laws
...
π¬ Pimpim11 commented on issue "Double Poisson Sum: Enhancing Energy Distribution in Bitcoin Proof of Work with Main Formula Ξ³^(i/R) + β(S[0:i]Β·ΟΒ·Ο^j)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348#issuecomment-2830349113)
@willcl-ark
I am Farrel Al Feshal who is currently active as a Cryptographer, and I want to realize this Syamailcoin, a Layer-1 that I know has never existed in our country, despite the trust because of artistic tokens and exchange tokens not being obstacles for me. This is not just referential reading, but I did Muscle Memory in Math in 2016 where I felt Mathematics is not just numbers but I can travel within Mathematics itself.
In short, I have successfully launched it but according to CMC,
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348#issuecomment-2830349113)
@willcl-ark
I am Farrel Al Feshal who is currently active as a Cryptographer, and I want to realize this Syamailcoin, a Layer-1 that I know has never existed in our country, despite the trust because of artistic tokens and exchange tokens not being obstacles for me. This is not just referential reading, but I did Muscle Memory in Math in 2016 where I felt Mathematics is not just numbers but I can travel within Mathematics itself.
In short, I have successfully launched it but according to CMC,
...
:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Double Poisson Sum: Enhancing Energy Distribution in Bitcoin Proof of Work with Main Formula Ξ³^(i/R) + β(S[0:i]Β·ΟΒ·Ο^j)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32348)
π¬ fanquake commented on pull request "test: Increase stack size for "Debug" builds with MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#discussion_r2060189048)
Where does this reserve value come from?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#discussion_r2060189048)
Where does this reserve value come from?
π¬ maflcko commented on pull request "wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#discussion_r2060197072)
the test doesn't look wallet related, so can probably remove this (albeit harmless)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#discussion_r2060197072)
the test doesn't look wallet related, so can probably remove this (albeit harmless)
π¬ l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Increase stack size for "Debug" builds with MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#issuecomment-2830372296)
I'm not against increasing the Windows stack depth, but the underlying problem may be that we're ignoring warnings such as `misc-no-recursion`, even when the fix is quite simple.
`FindChallenges` looks like a depth-first search, which should be straightforward to rewrite as a simple iterative function:
```diff
diff --git a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp b/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
index f253562a2f..14ac44e2c6 100644
--- a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/miniscript_tests.c
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#issuecomment-2830372296)
I'm not against increasing the Windows stack depth, but the underlying problem may be that we're ignoring warnings such as `misc-no-recursion`, even when the fix is quite simple.
`FindChallenges` looks like a depth-first search, which should be straightforward to rewrite as a simple iterative function:
```diff
diff --git a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp b/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
index f253562a2f..14ac44e2c6 100644
--- a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/miniscript_tests.c
...
π¬ hebasto commented on pull request "test: Increase stack size for "Debug" builds with MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#discussion_r2060209140)
Determined empiricallyβthis value was found to be sufficient during testing.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#discussion_r2060209140)
Determined empiricallyβthis value was found to be sufficient during testing.
π¬ hebasto commented on pull request "test: Increase stack size for "Debug" builds with MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#issuecomment-2830396855)
> I'm not against increasing the Windows stack depth, but the underlying problem may be that we're ignoring warnings such as `misc-no-recursion`, even when the fix is quite simple.
>
> `FindChallenges` looks like a simple depth-first search, which should be straightforward to rewrite as an iterative walk:
>
> ```diff
> diff --git a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp b/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
> index f253562a2f..14ac44e2c6 100644
> --- a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
> +++ b/src/test/m
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#issuecomment-2830396855)
> I'm not against increasing the Windows stack depth, but the underlying problem may be that we're ignoring warnings such as `misc-no-recursion`, even when the fix is quite simple.
>
> `FindChallenges` looks like a simple depth-first search, which should be straightforward to rewrite as an iterative walk:
>
> ```diff
> diff --git a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp b/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
> index f253562a2f..14ac44e2c6 100644
> --- a/src/test/miniscript_tests.cpp
> +++ b/src/test/m
...
π¬ darosior commented on pull request "test: Increase stack size for "Debug" builds with MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#issuecomment-2830408233)
That sounds sensible, can you open a PR with this patch and tag me?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349#issuecomment-2830408233)
That sounds sensible, can you open a PR with this patch and tag me?
π¬ vasild commented on pull request "net: remove unnecessary check from AlreadyConnectedToAddress()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32338#issuecomment-2830421188)
`0eac006a00...f1b142856a`: address suggestions - add fuzz test and an unit test.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32338#issuecomment-2830421188)
`0eac006a00...f1b142856a`: address suggestions - add fuzz test and an unit test.
π¬ Sjors commented on pull request "Add checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#discussion_r2060244002)
None of the `Assume` checks seem problematic in production. They would just be inconsistent with (my understanding of) previous behavior. I dropped them, since none of the tests and fuzzers tripped over them.
I dropped the `!block.fChecked `Assert`. The remaining `Assert`s are where we would crash anyway.
Finally I changed the pre-existing `assert` at the end into an Assume along with a LogError.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#discussion_r2060244002)
None of the `Assume` checks seem problematic in production. They would just be inconsistent with (my understanding of) previous behavior. I dropped them, since none of the tests and fuzzers tripped over them.
I dropped the `!block.fChecked `Assert`. The remaining `Assert`s are where we would crash anyway.
Finally I changed the pre-existing `assert` at the end into an Assume along with a LogError.
π¬ Sjors commented on pull request "Add checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2830435612)
Forgot to adjust the capnp file. Fixed more typos.
I moved `TestBlockValidity` out of `ChainstateManager` again, and pass in a `chainstate` parameter as suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#discussion_r2035713597.
> Probably also better for it not to `LOCK(cs_main)` to avoid unnecessary recursive mutex locking.
Can you elaborate on this?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2830435612)
Forgot to adjust the capnp file. Fixed more typos.
I moved `TestBlockValidity` out of `ChainstateManager` again, and pass in a `chainstate` parameter as suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#discussion_r2035713597.
> Probably also better for it not to `LOCK(cs_main)` to avoid unnecessary recursive mutex locking.
Can you elaborate on this?
π¬ pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#issuecomment-2830439480)
> Looks like `is_bdb_compiled` & `skip_if_no_bdb` should have been dropped.
That's done in #28710 (commit: "_build, wallet, doc: Remove BDB_").
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#issuecomment-2830439480)
> Looks like `is_bdb_compiled` & `skip_if_no_bdb` should have been dropped.
That's done in #28710 (commit: "_build, wallet, doc: Remove BDB_").
π¬ vasild commented on pull request "common: Close non-std fds before exec in RunCommandJSON":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32343#issuecomment-2830461557)
> /proc/self/fd
I would try something like this to check if `/proc/self/fd` is available:
```diff
--- i/ci/test/03_test_script.sh
+++ w/ci/test/03_test_script.sh
@@ -145,12 +145,17 @@ if [ "$RUN_UNIT_TESTS" = "true" ]; then
fi
if [ "$RUN_UNIT_TESTS_SEQUENTIAL" = "true" ]; then
DIR_UNIT_TEST_DATA="${DIR_UNIT_TEST_DATA}" LD_LIBRARY_PATH="${DEPENDS_DIR}/${HOST}/lib" "${BASE_OUTDIR}"/bin/test_bi
fi
+ls -l /proc || :
+ls -l /proc/self || :
+ls -l /proc/self/fd || :
+mount
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32343#issuecomment-2830461557)
> /proc/self/fd
I would try something like this to check if `/proc/self/fd` is available:
```diff
--- i/ci/test/03_test_script.sh
+++ w/ci/test/03_test_script.sh
@@ -145,12 +145,17 @@ if [ "$RUN_UNIT_TESTS" = "true" ]; then
fi
if [ "$RUN_UNIT_TESTS_SEQUENTIAL" = "true" ]; then
DIR_UNIT_TEST_DATA="${DIR_UNIT_TEST_DATA}" LD_LIBRARY_PATH="${DEPENDS_DIR}/${HOST}/lib" "${BASE_OUTDIR}"/bin/test_bi
fi
+ls -l /proc || :
+ls -l /proc/self || :
+ls -l /proc/self/fd || :
+mount
...
π maflcko opened a pull request: "test: Slim down previous releases bdb check "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32350)
The check iterates over several previous BDB-only releases to check that descriptor wallets are considered "corrupt" when loading. It is unclear why this needs to be done for more than one release.
Avoid the confusion by removing the unused releases from the test and from the download script.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32350)
The check iterates over several previous BDB-only releases to check that descriptor wallets are considered "corrupt" when loading. It is unclear why this needs to be done for more than one release.
Avoid the confusion by removing the unused releases from the test and from the download script.