π¬ 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.
π¬ 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
π¬ 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.
π¬ 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...
π strmfos opened a pull request: "chore(ci): bump docker/build-push-action to v6.16.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32398)
β’ 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)
β’ update workflow to latest major for security patches & Buildx features
[Reference](https://github.com/docker/build-push-action/releases/tag/v6.16.0)
β
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)
π 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)
β
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)
π¬ 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!
π¬ 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?
π¬ 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.
π¬ 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
...
π¬ 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.
π¬ ryanofsky commented on pull request "bitcoin-cli: Add -ipcconnect option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32297#issuecomment-2845582142)
> While reviewing this I hit some weird behavior where `bitcoin-node` doesn't fully shutdown.
Thanks for testing! These are all known issues which should be fixed by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32345
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32297#issuecomment-2845582142)
> While reviewing this I hit some weird behavior where `bitcoin-node` doesn't fully shutdown.
Thanks for testing! These are all known issues which should be fixed by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32345
π¬ mustafacryptolife commented on pull request "fuzz: Fix off-by-one in package_rbf target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32122#discussion_r2070707481)
[[[****]()]()]()
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32122#discussion_r2070707481)
[[[****]()]()]()
π¬ murchandamus commented on pull request "Refactor BnB tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#discussion_r2070717157)
Thanks, I used your suggestion.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#discussion_r2070717157)
Thanks, I used your suggestion.
π¬ murchandamus commented on pull request "Refactor BnB tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#discussion_r2070718791)
Right, it checks whether the expected result and the selected input set match, but the message here is printed in the case of a failure!
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#discussion_r2070718791)
Right, it checks whether the expected result and the selected input set match, but the message here is printed in the case of a failure!
π¬ murchandamus commented on pull request "Refactor BnB tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#issuecomment-2845620399)
> I was referring to something like the code below (which encapsulates the latest commit changes), but it was just a suggestion. The current code looks good to me too.
I see, thanks. I guess it could be nice to be able to run the test suite in smaller portions especially if some of the tests took a long time, but it overall runs extremely quickly, so Iβm not sure it is necessary to further structure the tests at this time.
I intend to work on porting the other algorithmsβ tests in the same
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#issuecomment-2845620399)
> I was referring to something like the code below (which encapsulates the latest commit changes), but it was just a suggestion. The current code looks good to me too.
I see, thanks. I guess it could be nice to be able to run the test suite in smaller portions especially if some of the tests took a long time, but it overall runs extremely quickly, so Iβm not sure it is necessary to further structure the tests at this time.
I intend to work on porting the other algorithmsβ tests in the same
...
π¬ murchandamus commented on pull request "Refactor BnB tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#issuecomment-2845620960)
Should be ready to review, again.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#issuecomment-2845620960)
Should be ready to review, again.
π¬ instagibbs commented on issue "p2p: lingering entries in `mapBlockSource`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29410#issuecomment-2845639973)
If we don't think a whole fix is in the cards soon, I'm partial to adding a test mechanically checking the weird behavior.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29410#issuecomment-2845639973)
If we don't think a whole fix is in the cards soon, I'm partial to adding a test mechanically checking the weird behavior.