<glozow>
On the p2p side, I'm asking for some help reviewing #30111. It seems a bit stuck in rebase/reACK limbo and needs more eyes than instagibbs (thanks).
<gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30111 | locks: introduce mutex for tx download, flush rejection filters on UpdatedBlockTip by glozow · Pull Request #30111 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<instagibbs>
sipa q: the optimization commits are merely optimizations in efficiency sense?
<instagibbs>
or do they materially change linearization results
<cfields>
hi
saffi48 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<sipa>
instagibbs: there are a few "feature" changes (e.g. randomization of search order, being able to pass in an existing linearization to Linearize) which I wouldn't describe as optimizations, though they could indirectly lead to better results too.
<instagibbs>
I think maybe the data types + unopt + benchmarks might be a good place to chop it up?
<instagibbs>
I'm reviewing regardless
<glozow>
after the 7th commit?
<cfields>
sipa: could you recommend a good place for where to start with a conceptual understanding of
<sipa>
so some optimizations change performance without affecting the outcome (by just making operations faster, but performing the same search steps)
<kanzure>
hi
<sipa>
while others change how many search steps are needed, by skipping unnecessary ones, or making better guesses
<cfields>
the cluster mempool changes? There's lots to read spread out in many places. I'm unsure where to start with getting an understanding of what I'm about to review.
<sipa>
cfields: also always welcome for a whiteboard session :)
<cfields>
sipa: thanks. Need to wrap my head around the high level first.
Guest97 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<cfields>
I was going to suggest adding those to the PR description, but I see they're there now. Apologies if they've been there all along and I just missed them.
<sipa>
i don't think i had them there when I opened the PR
Talkless has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
emcy__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
mcey_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
marsupialSoup has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
marsupialSoup has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<brunoerg>
Is there a way to validate a miniscript from string considering the key (e.g. into a pk())? I mean, if the key is invalid, it should consider the miniscript itself as invalid.
infernix has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
Nebraskka_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Nebraskka has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
jon_atack has quit [Quit: WeeChat 4.3.1]
Nebraskka_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Nebraskka has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Nebraskka_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Nebraskka has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
infernix has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Nebraskka_ is now known as Nebraskka
<achow101>
brunoerg: I don't think keys are checked for full validity
jon_atack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jonatack has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
bomb-on has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
mudsip has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
mudsip has quit []
andrewtoth_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Yuvraj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Yuvraj has quit [Client Quit]
<brunoerg>
achow101: thanks
bugs_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
preimage has quit [Quit: WeeChat 4.3.2]
Yuvraj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Yuvraj has quit [Client Quit]
jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jon_atack has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
Guest21 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guest21 has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
jon_atack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jonatack has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
conman has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
Guest21 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jon_atack has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
Guest21 has quit [Client Quit]
pseudozach has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
pseudozach has quit [Client Quit]
ordinarius has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
marsupialSoup has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
marsupialSoup has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
marsupialSoup has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]