🤔 adamandrews1 reviewed a pull request: "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#pullrequestreview-2810199344)
utACK 63d9b9e3b8e225eccd55209e7a4213604ec88425
Suggested some improvements, but not blocking ones IMO
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#pullrequestreview-2810199344)
utACK 63d9b9e3b8e225eccd55209e7a4213604ec88425
Suggested some improvements, but not blocking ones IMO
💬 adamandrews1 commented on pull request "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#discussion_r2070507164)
The final parameter (tx version) for this test should be set to `TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION + 1` or at least to a number with headroom like `999`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#discussion_r2070507164)
The final parameter (tx version) for this test should be set to `TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION + 1` or at least to a number with headroom like `999`.
💬 adamandrews1 commented on pull request "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#discussion_r2070505150)
This RPC error should be a formatted string so that it remains accurate as `TX_MIN_STANDARD_VERSION` and `TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION` get updated.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#discussion_r2070505150)
This RPC error should be a formatted string so that it remains accurate as `TX_MIN_STANDARD_VERSION` and `TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION` get updated.
💬 adamandrews1 commented on pull request "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#discussion_r2070510962)
Shouldn't this test be repeated for each valid `tx.version` in the range `[TX_MIN_STANDARD_VERSION, TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION]`?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#discussion_r2070510962)
Shouldn't this test be repeated for each valid `tx.version` in the range `[TX_MIN_STANDARD_VERSION, TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION]`?
💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#issuecomment-2845296384)
reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/7208ec2f1f0b9d72e1b4248dae9adbcc5ab625f7
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#issuecomment-2845296384)
reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/7208ec2f1f0b9d72e1b4248dae9adbcc5ab625f7
💬 BullishNode commented on issue "Allow sending untrusted utxos in the sendtoaddress api":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32034#issuecomment-2845322901)
No, a, unconfirmed transaction coming from an external wallet does not need external mechanism to sign.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32034#issuecomment-2845322901)
No, a, unconfirmed transaction coming from an external wallet does not need external mechanism to sign.
📝 Brotcrunsher opened a pull request: "doc: Add hint about avoiding spaces in paths when building on Windows"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32397)
When running the configuration step
cmake -B build --preset vs2022-static
from a directory with spaces in its path, CMake issues the following warning:
Warning: Paths with embedded space may be handled incorrectly by configure
The build subsequently fails with error code 77.
While the underlying issue should ideally be resolved, this hint may help users avoid related build failures in the meantime.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32397)
When running the configuration step
cmake -B build --preset vs2022-static
from a directory with spaces in its path, CMake issues the following warning:
Warning: Paths with embedded space may be handled incorrectly by configure
The build subsequently fails with error code 77.
While the underlying issue should ideally be resolved, this hint may help users avoid related build failures in the meantime.
💬 BullishNode commented on issue "Allow sending untrusted utxos in the sendtoaddress api":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32034#issuecomment-2845360188)
I meant that the transaction is coming from another wallet, not the input utxo.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32034#issuecomment-2845360188)
I meant that the transaction is coming from another wallet, not the input utxo.
💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "bitcoin-cli: Add -ipcconnect option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32297#discussion_r2070586745)
ea98a42640b9ff77a462e55887025ddd1da54727
Might want to indicate `status` is an "out" param?
I notice this also bypasses our only authorization barrier for RPC which is an HTTP header, maybe you deal with this in another commit but that should probably be documented in the `ipcbind` help text
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32297#discussion_r2070586745)
ea98a42640b9ff77a462e55887025ddd1da54727
Might want to indicate `status` is an "out" param?
I notice this also bypasses our only authorization barrier for RPC which is an HTTP header, maybe you deal with this in another commit but that should probably be documented in the `ipcbind` help text
💬 achow101 commented on issue "Allow sending untrusted utxos in the sendtoaddress api":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32034#issuecomment-2845443782)
Concept NACK
What problem specifically would this solve for you? If you know which untrusted inputs you want to pick and you just want to use fewer commands, the `send` RPC should work for that purposes as you can specify inputs to use, and it can fill in more if needed. If you want to be able to select any untrusted inputs automatically, I think that is a non-starter as it's a pretty big footgun.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32034#issuecomment-2845443782)
Concept NACK
What problem specifically would this solve for you? If you know which untrusted inputs you want to pick and you just want to use fewer commands, the `send` RPC should work for that purposes as you can specify inputs to use, and it can fill in more if needed. If you want to be able to select any untrusted inputs automatically, I think that is a non-starter as it's a pretty big footgun.
💬 laanwj commented on pull request "doc: Add hint about avoiding spaces in paths when building on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32397#issuecomment-2845465336)
That's too bad, we'd finally solved all the build-with-spaces issues with the old build system.
But yes i suppose it doesn't hurt too add a warning in the meantime...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32397#issuecomment-2845465336)
That's too bad, we'd finally solved all the build-with-spaces issues with the old build system.
But yes i suppose it doesn't hurt too add a warning in the meantime...
📝 strmfos opened a pull request: "chore(ci): bump docker/build-push-action to v6.16.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32398)
• update workflow to latest major for security patches & Buildx features
[Reference](https://github.com/docker/build-push-action/releases/tag/v6.16.0)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32398)
• update workflow to latest major for security patches & Buildx features
[Reference](https://github.com/docker/build-push-action/releases/tag/v6.16.0)
✅ achow101 closed an issue: ""Rolling forward" at startup can take a long time, and is not interruptible (after unclean shutdown)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11600)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11600)
🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "validation: write chainstate to disk every hour"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30611)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30611)
✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "chore(ci): bump docker/build-push-action to v6.16.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32398)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32398)
💬 andrewtoth commented on issue ""Rolling forward" at startup can take a long time, and is not interruptible (after unclean shutdown)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11600#issuecomment-2845541462)
Woohoo!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11600#issuecomment-2845541462)
Woohoo!
💬 strmfos commented on pull request "chore(ci): bump docker/build-push-action to v6.16.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32398#issuecomment-2845545697)
Hi! [fanquake](https://github.com/fanquake)
what's wrong?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32398#issuecomment-2845545697)
Hi! [fanquake](https://github.com/fanquake)
what's wrong?
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "doc: Add hint about avoiding spaces in paths when building on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32397#issuecomment-2845558709)
> from a directory with spaces in its path, CMake issues the following warning:
>
> ```
> Warning: Paths with embedded space may be handled incorrectly by configure
> ```
This is a vcpkg upstream issue. Another one has already been documented:https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blame/5b8046a6e893b7fad5a93631e6d1e70db31878af/doc/build-windows-msvc.md#L62-L72
This is not specific to CMake in general, nor to the Bitcoin Core build system.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32397#issuecomment-2845558709)
> from a directory with spaces in its path, CMake issues the following warning:
>
> ```
> Warning: Paths with embedded space may be handled incorrectly by configure
> ```
This is a vcpkg upstream issue. Another one has already been documented:https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blame/5b8046a6e893b7fad5a93631e6d1e70db31878af/doc/build-windows-msvc.md#L62-L72
This is not specific to CMake in general, nor to the Bitcoin Core build system.
💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "bitcoin-cli: Add -ipcconnect option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32297#issuecomment-2845567909)
While reviewing this I hit some weird behavior where `bitcoin-node` doesn't fully shutdown.
To reproduce:
In terminal 1: `build/bin/bitcoin-node -regtest -ipcbind=unix -debug=rpc -debug=http -debug=ipc`
Terminal 2: `build/bin/bitcoin-cli -regtest waitforblock 0000000000079f8ef3d2c688c244eb7a4570b24c9ed7b4a8c619eb02596f8862`
(this will wait forever)
go back to terminal 1 and ctrl-c. I get `Shutdown: done` in the output but the process does not quit.
Then funny stuff like this, in
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32297#issuecomment-2845567909)
While reviewing this I hit some weird behavior where `bitcoin-node` doesn't fully shutdown.
To reproduce:
In terminal 1: `build/bin/bitcoin-node -regtest -ipcbind=unix -debug=rpc -debug=http -debug=ipc`
Terminal 2: `build/bin/bitcoin-cli -regtest waitforblock 0000000000079f8ef3d2c688c244eb7a4570b24c9ed7b4a8c619eb02596f8862`
(this will wait forever)
go back to terminal 1 and ctrl-c. I get `Shutdown: done` in the output but the process does not quit.
Then funny stuff like this, in
...
💬 Brotcrunsher commented on pull request "doc: Add hint about avoiding spaces in paths when building on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32397#issuecomment-2845580066)
@hebasto Thanks for your feedback! I fixed the wording in the commit message to mention vcpkg instead of CMake. I agree that this isn't Bitcoin Cores fault, but IMO it would still be "nice" for new devs to have a warning in place. Might save them a minor headache.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32397#issuecomment-2845580066)
@hebasto Thanks for your feedback! I fixed the wording in the commit message to mention vcpkg instead of CMake. I agree that this isn't Bitcoin Cores fault, but IMO it would still be "nice" for new devs to have a warning in place. Might save them a minor headache.