kallewoof: sorry I missed you! You managed to evade the lists I pulled names from. I have a few different mails for you, pm me the one you'd like to use?
jnewbery: I also had a unicorn while at the building bitcoin conference, haven't seen any since yet, will take a look
jnewbery, I'm having trouble reviewing PSBT branch. What's with achow101 PRs anyways :)
(unicorns for days)
Empact: re #13632 sipa's C++ implementation of bech32 string operations in bitcoin is grossly slow in a dozen different ways, because it was made for simplicity and readability. The C implementation in the bech32 examples should be a lot faster (and also was not optimized for the highest speed). It seems weird to me to keep seeing PRs doing nibbling speed optimizations for code that just wasn
't intended to be fast. AFAIK there is basically no reason to make this code fast.
getting "unicorn!" too for 13557, not 12196 though
agree with gmaxwell, I don't think that needed to be re-opene
it's not on the critical path, why so much PR traaffic to optimize it
Fair enough, I don't have a good overall understanding of critical paths etc, was just picking up the work. Will close.
maybe at some point it would show up in a listunspent profile or simimlar, but I'm highly doubful that it'll ever be an issue. :)
I think kallewoof was interested because he was implementing a vanity key grinder... but for that, you can skip the bech32 entirely unless you need to match on the last couple characters. ... and even if you do, you'd be much better off optimizing the C implementation.
why is there no financial incentive for nodes on the network? could they for example get tx fees instead of the miners? Then just leave it up to the nodes to decide what blocks can be mined on it?