2023-12-07

<RubenSomsen> No big changes from last week. Still actively taking review on BIP352 and responding to feedback. For the BIP we are still discussing how to handle the outpoints: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1458#discussion_r1395934177

2023-11-30

<sipa> BlueMatt[m]: no, BIP144 is P2P protocol; though fair enough, RPC isn't P2P either
<BlueMatt[m]> yes, but BIP144 is about consensus, and these are not consensus :p
<sipa> BlueMatt[m]: BIP144 says you cannot use the extended encoding if there are no witnesses
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #28951: fuzz: BIP324: damage ciphertext/aad in full byte range (master...202311-fuzz-bip324-damage_in_full_byte_range) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28951
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 05d3f8e fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28951: fuzz: BIP324: damage ciphertext/aad in full b...
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e67634e Sebastian Falbesoner: fuzz: BIP324: damage ciphertext/aad in full byte range
<RubenSomsen> A change we're considering in outpoint hashing (to make things simpler for hardware wallets) has an issue with forced collisions (worst case is address reuse), a possible fix is being discussed at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1458#discussion_r1395934177
<RubenSomsen> Still actively taking review on BIP352, responding to feedback, and wanting review on #25273.

2023-11-28

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #28951: fuzz: BIP324: damage ciphertext/aad in full byte range (master...202311-fuzz-bip324-damage_in_full_byte_range) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28951

2023-11-16

<RubenSomsen> No major changes. Still actively taking review on BIP352, responding to feedback and wanting review on #25273.

2023-11-09

<RubenSomsen> instagibbs: this gives you some insight https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1458#discussion_r1372851725
<RubenSomsen> Actively taking review on BIP352 and responding to feedback. Biggest recent change is how labels are calculated. Every label is a completely independent 32-byte value now, could use more eyes on that change.

2023-11-02

<maxedw> so are we thinking: BIP324, Submit package, MacOS packaging, TapMiniscript
<fjahr> IMO BIP324 should definitely be included, there are a lot of people excited about turning it on in mainnet. For assumeutxo I would really like it if there would still be some encouragement still to test it. Bonus section sounds good to me.
<lightlike> I think that bip324 has sufficient "hype" in the wider community that many users will turn it on on mainnet - so it should be included in the testing.
<sipa> i think there's a difference between BIP324 and assumeutxo still; the former will probably end up being enabled by some, on mainnet, following 26.0 release, while assumeutxo is actually not usable on mainnet
<RubenSomsen> Actively taking review on BIP352 and responding to feedback. Currently reworking how the outpoints are hashed.

2023-10-26

<sipa> i've added some mentions of BIP324 support (because while it's off by default, it can be enabled on mainnet)
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28122 | Silent Payments: Implement BIP352 by josibake · Pull Request #28122 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-10-12

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #28634: test: BIP324: add check for detection of missing garbage terminator (master...202310-test-bip324-check_for_missing_garbage_terminator) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28634
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4a5aae9 fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28634: test: BIP324: add check for detection of miss...
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3bb51c2 Sebastian Falbesoner: test: BIP324: add check for missing garbage terminator detection

2023-10-10

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #28634: test: BIP324: add check for detection of missing garbage terminator (master...202310-test-bip324-check_for_missing_garbage_terminator) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28634

2023-10-05

<gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24748 | test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption by stratospher · Pull Request #24748 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #28588: test: BIP324: add checks for v1 prefix matching / wrong network magic detection (master...202310-test-add_v1_prefix_detection_wrong_network_magic_check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28588
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e130896 Sebastian Falbesoner: test: BIP324: add checks for v1 prefix matching / wrong network magic dete...
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 78fd3c2 fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28588: test: BIP324: add checks for v1 prefix matchi...
<bitcoin-git> [gui] hebasto merged pull request #754: Add BIP324-specific labels to peer details (master...230911-bip324-peer-details) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/754
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0e3de3b Hennadii Stepanov: Merge bitcoin-core/gui#754: Add BIP324-specific labels to peer details

2023-10-04

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #28588: test: BIP324: add checks for v1 prefix matching / wrong network magic detection (master...202310-test-add_v1_prefix_detection_wrong_network_magic_check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28588
<jamesob> sort of amazed at the level of excitement around pending guix builds for a backport vs. the merge of bip324/assumeutxo lol

2023-10-03

<jamesob> (and all bip324 reviewers)
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #28331: BIP324 integration (master...202308_bip324_integration) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28331

2023-10-02

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #28227: test: check for specific bip157 disconnect reasons, add test coverage (master...202308-test-p2p_blockfilters_improvements) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28227
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2ab7952 Sebastian Falbesoner: test: add bip157 coverage for (start height > stop height) disconnect
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e3b0528 fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28227: test: check for specific bip157 disconnect re...

2023-09-28

<achow101> there's the corresponding bips pr for that: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1498
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28331 | BIP324 integration by sipa · Pull Request #28331 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-09-26

<_aj_> sipa: (i'm assuming a thumbs up emoji is sufficient response on bips#1498)

2023-09-22

<hebasto> can someone share a couple of BIP324-enabled node addresses?

2023-09-14

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24748 | test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption by stratospher · Pull Request #24748 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28331 | BIP324 integration by sipa · Pull Request #28331 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-09-12

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28196 | BIP324 connection support by sipa · Pull Request #28196 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-09-07

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28196 | BIP324 connection support by sipa · Pull Request #28196 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24748 | test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption by stratospher · Pull Request #24748 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28331 | BIP324 integration by sipa · Pull Request #28331 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28196 | BIP324 connection support by sipa · Pull Request #28196 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-09-03

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15437 | p2p: Remove BIP61 reject messages by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #15437 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<sipa> we don't even have hooks for BIP61 anymore in net_processing, so those messages are completely ignored

2023-09-02

<sipa> depending on CPU architecture, the overhead of BIP324 v2 connections is actually less than v1
<vasild> How much is the overhead of BIP324 wrt to network traffic volume and CPU load?

2023-08-31

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28122 | Silent Payments: Implement BIP352 by josibake · Pull Request #28122 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28331 | BIP324 integration by sipa · Pull Request #28331 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28196 | BIP324 connection support by sipa · Pull Request #28196 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<luke-jr> I think non-adjusted is only relevant because BIP141 specified it

2023-08-24

<sipa> but bip173 has tighter range requirements than just the bech32 ones
<PaperSword> If you are inclined to answer this one as well, I have looked at BIP173 which you authored. You state that "string is at most 90 characters long..." then detail the spec of at min 1 hrp char, 1 separator, and 6 data chars. As such is the minimum length implied from the spec as 8 base32 chars?
<sipa> or the inconsistency in ECDSA parsing fixed by BIP66 (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009697.html)
<furszy> so the node connects to bip324 peers because of a change in the desirable services flags?
<sipa> so i think 28331 will probably be my last big PR relating to bip324
<sipa> which i plan to leave out of 28331, but my plan is to work now on adding unit and functional tests (which don't require bip324 in python) to 28331
<sipa> there is also stratospher's bip324 implementation in test framework, and tests using it
<gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28331 | BIP324 integration by sipa · Pull Request #28331 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<achow101> this is everything in bip324 but without actually using it?
<gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28196 | BIP324 connection support by sipa · Pull Request #28196 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-08-17

<sipa> achow101: possibly - i'm happy to continue with bip324 stuff without 28100 so it's not a blocker
<sipa> 28165 is i think mostly independently-useful improvements (though inspired by the needs of bip324)

2023-08-15

<achow101> sipa: what's the next bip324 pr?
<hdbbdh> I have a question with transaction 6a26d2ecb67f27d1fa5524763b49029d7106e91e3cc05743073461a719776192633166 on bitcoin mainnet. It's the transaction given in BIP16 for P2SH, but I can't find the signature for the redeem script. Why isn't there a signature?

2023-08-11

<sipa> hi! back online; will address feedback on bip324-related PRs next week

2023-08-10

<b10c> currently bitcoin/bitcoin, bitcoin/bips, bitcoin-core/secp256k1, bitcoin-core/gui, but will consider other repos with important comments if there are requests

2023-08-03

<sipa> Interesting; that must mean either some other people are running it with *, or are running the old bip324 branch.
<sipa> @Sjors What did you set for -bip324= ?
<sipa> After that, I'll probably drop the test-only -bip324 option from the v2 transport stuf, and implement actual service bit based decisions, maybe in a separate PR.
<sipa> bitcoin.sipa.be runs this code, if you need a remote to connect to (-addnode=NAME -bip324=NAME should suffice).
<sipa> With the last one, you can experiment with bip324 connections, though in a test-only form only (using -bip324=ip).

2023-08-01

<pinheadmz> hm i saw bip324 PR open message on matrix but not IRC
<sipa> If anyone wants to experiment with bip324 connections: ^

2023-07-27

<sipa> I'm working on a follow-up that will depend on both of these, that adds the actual v2 transport code, which may offer a way to force (with a test-only option) actual BIP324 connections to test with.
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28008 | BIP324 ciphersuite by sipa · Pull Request #28008 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<sipa> #28008, the BIP324 cipher suite has been making good progress in review.

2023-07-25

2023-07-23

2023-07-21

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] josibake opened pull request #28122: Silent Payments: Implement BIP352 (master...implement-bip352) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122

2023-07-20

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28008 | BIP324 ciphersuite by sipa · Pull Request #28008 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-07-19

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky merged pull request #27928: test: Add more tests for the BIP21 implementation (master...feature/2023-BIP21-URI-tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27928
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f1d807e Kiminuo: Add more tests for the BIP21 implementation
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5608e1d Ryan Ofsky: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#27928: test: Add more tests for the BIP21 implementa...

2023-07-06

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24748 | test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption by stratospher · Pull Request #24748 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28008 | BIP324 ciphers: FSChaCha20 and FSChaCha20Poly1305 by sipa · Pull Request #28008 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-06-30

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4f4d039 stratospher: test: add ellswift test vectors from BIP324

2023-06-29

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #28008: BIP324 ciphers: FSChaCha20 and FSChaCha20Poly1305 (master...202306_bip324_ciphersuite) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008
<sipa> I've opened two preparatory ones as they're kind of stand-alone improvements (27985 and 27993), but the next big I plan to open today (the bip324 stream ciphers FSChaCha20 and FSChaCha20Poly1305).

2023-06-26

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #27479: BIP324: ElligatorSwift integrations (master...202304_bip324_ellswift) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27479

2023-06-22

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27479 | BIP324: ElligatorSwift integrations by sipa · Pull Request #27479 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-06-21

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kiminuo opened pull request #27928: Add more tests for the BIP21 implementation (master...feature/2023-BIP21-URI-tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27928
<josie> lets gooo, bip324!

2023-06-19

<Kiminuo> Hey, would anyone know an answer to this question: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/118654/how-to-interpret-bip21-uri-with-amount-specified-twice/ ? Thank you.

2023-06-15

<josie> is there a reason we use bcrt for regtest in bitcoin core? its not defined in BIP173 or BIP350 and it seems easier to use the same HRP for all test networks

2023-06-08

<achow101> josie: open to the bips repo and you'll get a number
<sipa> no BIP324 updates, i expect there'll be progress on ellswift secp next week
<josie> we've got a BIP proposal open here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1458

2023-06-01

<glozow> If people are looking for something easier to review, the BIP PR is updated and open for review: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1382
<gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27742 | [NO MERGE] BIP331 Ancestor Package Relay by glozow · Pull Request #27742 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-05-26

<jamesob> For what it's worth, I've created ##bitcoin-assumeutxo and ##bitcoin-bip345 for discussion on those topics. I'm going to try to post more in there as opposed to DMing, so if you've been active on those projects, please join!
<glozow> luke-jr: I think I know what you are talking about and will follow up offline. For the sake of saying things in the open, I had a couple in-person conversations about bip35+37 usage in miami. Was open about what I think the disadvantages are but did not intend/realize it to be seen as "pressuring." Will follow up to try to clear things up.

2023-05-25

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27742 | [NO MERGE] BIP331 Ancestor Package Relay by glozow · Pull Request #27742 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-05-24

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow opened pull request #27742: [NO MERGE] BIP331 Ancestor Package Relay (master...package-relay-token-bucket) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27742

2023-05-23

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #27177: test: fix intermittent issue in `feature_bip68_sequence` (master...2023-02-fix-feature-bip68-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27177

2023-05-15

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27634 | BIP324 tracking issue · Issue #27634 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-05-12

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27634 | BIP324 tracking issue · Issue #27634 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-05-11

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27479 | BIP324: ElligatorSwift integrations by sipa · Pull Request #27479 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27479 | BIP324: ElligatorSwift integrations by sipa · Pull Request #27479 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<theStack> would be good to update https://bip324.com/sections/code-review/ (not sure who is in charge of that those days)
<brunoerg> Is there an issue (or other place) to track BIP324 like package relay/libbitcoinkernel?

2023-05-06

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #24545: BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport (master...bip324-enable) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24545
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #23233: BIP324: Add encrypted p2p transport {de}serializer (master...bip324-net-v2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23233
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #25361: BIP324: Cipher suite (master...bip324-cipher-suite) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25361

2023-05-04

<theStack> i'll focus mainly on bip324 review (mostly non-secp stuff, ofc)
<lightlike> I'll review the non-crypto content from bip324, plus the p2p content from pkgrelay
<instagibbs> I'll be focusing on BIP324 and package relay. I can champion either in limited ways
<achow101> someone will need to make a bip324 tracking issue
<jamesob> (i.e. BIP324 and package relay are more critical IMO)
<jamesob> What I'll say is that assumeutxo is "nice to have" relative to BIP324 and package relay, albeit it's pretty close
<instagibbs> _aj_ the whole project? the crypto library changes aren't even merged for bip213
<instagibbs> fjahr BIP324/package relay aren't going to make it into 26 in entirety... absolutely no way
<fanquake> aussume utxo, bip324, kernel, package relay
<instagibbs> e.g., https://bip324.com/sections/code-review/ is stale, would be better imo to just have a tracking issue like package relay

2023-05-02

<instagibbs> fjahr https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1382#issuecomment-1531716890 I think this might be "generic " vs "ancestor" package relay confusion, which also confuses me as to the purpose of the former
<darosior> Regarding BIP37 being manually enabled by node-in-a-box solutions, i've opened an issue in the Umbrel and Raspiblitz repositories. Just FYI: https://github.com/getumbrel/umbrel/issues/1624 https://github.com/rootzoll/raspiblitz/issues/3781.
<furszy> yeah. There are two modes: manual and automatic. The manual mode moves the sync responsibility to any external software (RPC commands to request filters, get the wallet needle set, check if filter matches, request the block, etc). And a automatic mode that follows bip157 client side specs.
<furszy> so.. will try to get in-touch with Bisq and see what they have planned. Even if this doesn’t get into core soon (or never if there is no consensus), it’s a good use case for them and for us to get rid-off bip35 and bip37 net support.
<darosior> About the BIP37 issue i was stunt too so i've asked on Twitter yesterday why do those node-in-a-box set `peerbloomfilters` and a Raspiblitz contributor said it was indeed for Bisq support (as glozow suggested). https://twitter.com/darosior/status/1653037196704727046
<sipa> BIP37 (or BIP111 now...) support should really be enabled just for peers trusted not to DoS.
<sipa> If we do want to keep support for that, I think it's reasonable to indeed exclude non-yet-announced transactions from the BIP35 response.

2023-05-01

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27426 | Remove BIP35 mempool p2p message by willcl-ark · Pull Request #27426 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] willcl-ark closed pull request #27426: Remove BIP35 mempool p2p message (master...remove_p2p_mempool_msg) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27426

2023-04-18

<provoostenator> BIP324 question: does key rotation require that both peers agree on which 224 they exchanged?
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #23561: BIP324: Handshake prerequisites (master...bip324-handshake) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23561
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #23432: BIP324: CKey encode/decode to elligator-swift (master...bip324-ellsq) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23432

2023-04-17

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #27479: BIP324: ElligatorSwift integrations (master...202304_bip324_ellswift) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27479

2023-04-05

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dimitaracev opened pull request #27427: validation: Replicate MinBIP9WarningHeight with MinBIP9WarningStartTime (master...validation-replace-min-bip9-height-to-min-bip9-start-time) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27427
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] willcl-ark opened pull request #27426: Deprecate and remove BIP35 mempool p2p message (master...remove_p2p_mempool_msg) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27426

2023-04-01

<darosior> scg: committing to a 0x00....00 in case of out-of-bound SIGHASH_SINGLE was intentional for Segwit: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0143.mediawiki#cite_note-7

2023-03-31

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #27385: net: extract Network and BIP155Network logic to node/network (master...2023-04-extract-network) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27385

2023-03-25

<andytoshi> i see, i think i'd misunderstood bip32 ... we always specify paths as <xpub>/1/2/3 or m/1/2/3 where the m is literally 'm' and the seed is off to the side somewhere
<andytoshi> achow101: is it true that with descriptor wallets, there is no way to provide your own bip32 seed?

2023-03-15

<sipa> @PaperSword A bech32 encoding can have more than one "1" in it, under the conditions you state. But a BIP173 address cannot, as it has HRP "bc" or "tb".

2023-03-13

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/24.x 787affb fanquake: doc: update version in bips.md to v24.1

2023-03-08

<MacroFake> kalle: GitHub Actions requests write access as the CI, last time we checked. Which seems inappropriate. Not sure if this is relevant for the BIPs repo, but for Bitcoin Core we'd also want to be able to easily switch providers or run locally, so there is a single entry point script to be maximally flexible.
<kalle> As a sidenote, I was able to enable Cirrus CI on the bips repo on my own, but now that I chose not to use it, only an org owner is able to undo that. Someone should probably do that at some point. No rush though. :/
<kalle> Someone pointed out Github Actions may be a better choice over Cirrus CI, so I tried that and it ultimately felt more intuitive. Anyway, would be nice ifs omeone gave https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1432 a quick look.
<kalle> Can someone enable cirrus CI on the bitcoin/bips repo plox?

2023-02-28

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] brunoerg opened pull request #27177: test: fix intermittent issue in `feature_bip68_sequence` (master...2023-02-fix-feature-bip68-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27177

2023-02-21

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #27122: script: BIP341 txdata cannot be precomputed without spent outputs (master...202302_tap_ready_needs_prevouts) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27122
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ad46141 Andrew Chow: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#27122: script: BIP341 txdata cannot be precomputed w...
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 95f12de Pieter Wuille: BIP341 txdata cannot be precomputed without spent outputs

2023-02-17

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #27122: BIP341 txdata cannot be precomputed without spent outputs (master...202302_tap_ready_needs_prevouts) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27122

2023-02-15

2023-02-07

<instagibbs> as well as other rules ala bip125 rule#3

2023-02-05

<phantomcircuit> for the bip157/158 filters there's an optimal size, since there's a single thing you're optimizing for, bandwidth, but with filters on disk it's definitely harder to choose a filter size as it's a time/disk space trade off

2023-02-01

<instagibbs> It would mean TrimToFee step might do 2500 trims vs 100(bip125 direct conflict limit)

2023-01-27

<cbdc-core-dev> luke-jr was asked to leave bitcoin bips editor permissions, why dont you leave it as well?

2023-01-19

<scg> gm! why does bitcoind creates a PSBTv0 if I specify locktime ?? I can see that it set PSBT_GLOBAL_FALLBACK_LOCKTIME on psbt but kept version of psbt 0. In BIP174 I read that v0 psbts require exclusion of PSBT_GLOBAL_FALLBACK_LOCKTIME. What am I missing ?
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23432 | BIP324: CKey encode/decode to elligator-swift by dhruv · Pull Request #23432 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-01-18

<_aj_> sipa: any thoughts on the bip324 shortid negotitation? having net_processing do the shortid/command mapping seems like it makes sense, and just requires a bit of tweaking of the CNetMsgMaker api so that it can choose a shortid instead of the lower level Serializer
<phantomcircuit> sipa: personally i think it's pretty reasonable for this not to detect n-of-n multisig where we have all the keys, but i absolutely could make the filter work more like bip37 and include each data push to make that possibl

2023-01-15

<sipa> bip158's point is being able to provide bip157 filters over the network, which must be deterministic... and once you have those, you might as well use them for rescanning
<sipa> theStack: phantomcircuit is suggesting not using bip158 filters for rescanning, but another filter type, where instead of the deterministic bip158 per-block-salted one, a static per-host one is used.
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25957 | wallet: fast rescan with BIP157 block filters for descriptor wallets by theStack · Pull Request #25957 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2023-01-13

<Murch1> BIP47 is terrible

2023-01-11

<PaperSword> @sipa: On a side note thanks so much for creating BIP30 did a lesson on twitter and the consequences of duplicate TXIDs was amazing to think about.

2023-01-05

<lisper29> Ah I see, it's low probability, got it. I did see the 2^-126 probability for another section of BIP32. This section didn't mention it. And anyway its specified algorithm says that if invalid then try the next. So not being cryptographer or mathematician, I figured I must follow prescribed algorithm.
<lisper29> I'm learning to use BIP32 derived addresses in bitcoind. BIP32 4.3.2 (pub->pub) ends by specifying that when a derivation at index i is invalid "one should proceed with the next value for i". So if the deriveaddresses RPC returns an error, I'll try the next index. But I don't see the getnewaddress RPC or the Qt "create new receiving address" button's code trying the next index for this type of failed derivation. Do
<lisper29> they have a bug in that they'll never get past that invalid index? (pubkey.cpp CPubKey::Derive is what I assume performs the BIP32 4.3.2 validation.)

2022-12-15

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dhruv reopened pull request #24545: BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport (master...bip324-enable) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24545
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24545 | BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport by dhruv · Pull Request #24545 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dhruv closed pull request #24545: BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport (master...bip324-enable) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24545

2022-12-14

<ariard> jamesob: iirc, descendant junk where the adversary attaches a chain of transactions with low-feerate, high-fee from a new bip143 input/ouptut pair. Under BIP125 rule 3, your replacement candidate will be rejected

2022-11-09

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #26472: test: add missing bech32m / BIP86 test-cases to wallet_descriptor.py (master...202211-test-add_missing_bech32m_bip86_tests_to_wallet_descriptor_py) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26472
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9dce301 MacroFake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#26472: test: add missing bech32m / BIP86 test-cases ...
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 887d85e Sebastian Falbesoner: test: add missing bech32m / BIP86 test-cases to wallet_descriptor.py

2022-11-05

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/23.x 5a57b65 Sebastian Falbesoner: doc: mention BIP86 in doc/bips.md

2022-11-04

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #26443: doc: mention BIP86 in doc/bips.md (master...202201-doc-add_bip86_to_bipsmd) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26443
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 303fb8f Sebastian Falbesoner: doc: mention BIP86 in doc/bips.md
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 83cf055 fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#26443: doc: mention BIP86 in doc/bips.md

2022-11-03

<bytes1440000> its a basic thing thats lacking and nobody likes bip47

2022-11-02

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/22.x 3343ec5 fanquake: doc: update version number in bips.md to v22.1

2022-11-01

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #26443: doc: mention BIP86 in doc/bips.md (master...202201-doc-add_bip86_to_bipsmd) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26443

2022-10-27

<luke-jr> FWIW, lack of bitcoin org ownership prevented me from adding Kalle to the bips repo a while back, but I'm not sure I want that kind of access (in terms of becoming a possible target)

2022-10-26

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #26341: test: add BIP158 false-positive element check in rpc_scanblocks.py (master...202210-test-check_for_false_positives_in_scanblocks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26341
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3bca6cd Sebastian Falbesoner: test: add compact block filter (BIP158) helper routines
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #25957: wallet: fast rescan with BIP157 block filters for descriptor wallets (master...202208-speedup_descriptor_wallet_rescan_with_block_filters) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25957

2022-10-23

<sipa> ping was part of the original codebase, pong was added in bip31

2022-10-20

<ariard> achow101: tbh, few contributors have already to live in a multi repo world, in the sense monitoring libsecp256k1, the bips repo, the bolts repo, maybe a lightning implem, maybe bitcoin-inquisition, sounds more a question of personal time-management

2022-10-19

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #26341: test: add BIP158 false-positive element check in rpc_scanblocks.py (master...202210-test-check_for_false_positives_in_scanblocks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26341

2022-10-13

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e899d4c Chris Geihsler: init: limit bip30 exceptions to coinbase txs
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/24.x da6fba6 Andrew Chow: docs: Add 371 to bips.md

2022-10-03

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #26231: doc: bump bips.md up-to-date version to v24.0 (master...202210-doc-update_bips_for_24x) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26231
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 25742aa fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#26231: doc: bump bips.md up-to-date version to v24.0
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a9d20ee Sebastian Falbesoner: doc: bump bips.md up-to-date version to v24.0

2022-10-02

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #26231: doc: bump bips.md up-to-date version to v24.0 (master...202210-doc-update_bips_for_24x) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26231

2022-09-29

<sipa> Yes, of course you are - BIP350 specifies that taproot addresses use bech32m.

2022-09-26

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow closed pull request #22867: test: Extend test coverage of BIP125 and document confusing/inconsistent behavior (master...test_bip125_edge_cases) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22867

2022-09-22

<jonatack> (idem for git cloning the bips repository locally)
<amovfx> I've seen a few videos, Ill read over the BIPS today thanks
<sipa> amovfx: Have you read the BIPs (341 and 342 mostly)? There are more high-level explainers on various online media too. I've done one or two talks about it too.
<sipa> the interaction with bip324 i'd say is an implementation detail; the spec doesn't care about what port it runs on, and bip324 capable listeners can accept both on the same port
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24545 | BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport by dhruv · Pull Request #24545 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<warren> I was curious if anyone knows what's going on with BIP324?

2022-09-19

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0b02ce9 glozow: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#26124: docs: Add 371 to bips.md
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow merged pull request #26124: docs: Add 371 to bips.md (master...doc-psbt-bips) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26124
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d3d6a18 Andrew Chow: docs: Add 371 to bips.md
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #26124: docs: Add 371 to bips.md (master...doc-psbt-bips) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26124

2022-09-15

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25874 | BIP155 CJDNS address with length 187 (should be 16) · Issue #25874 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<glozow> bip35 mempool should be disabled unless you offer them bip 37 bloom filter services iirc

2022-09-06

2022-08-29

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #25957: wallet: fast rescan with BIP157 block filters for descriptor wallets (master...202208-speedup_descriptor_wallet_rescan_with_block_filters) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25957

2022-08-26

<xnf0k> Hey just wanted to let you folks know that https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki had some unrelated content. I reverted it, but maybe the page(s) should be locked since this isn't the first time it has happened.

2022-08-24

<jeremyrubin> btw people might be interested to see that https://bipbounty.org/ is "all set up" now, as a 501c3 for setting up BIP oriented bounties. If anyone doing work that they think would benefit from having such a program set up, please be in touch.

2022-08-22

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 375ebad glozow: fixups for BIP125 doc cleanup
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 92bb700 MacroFake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#25902: fixups for BIP125 doc cleanup
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #25902: fixups for BIP125 doc cleanup (master...2022-08-125-fixup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25902
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow opened pull request #25902: fixups for BIP125 doc cleanup (master...2022-08-125-fixup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25902
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #25775: docs: remove non-signaling mentions of BIP125 (master...2022-08-bip125-signal-only) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25775
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c5f0cbe fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#25775: docs: remove non-signaling mentions of BIP125
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 32024d4 glozow: scripted-diff: remove mention of BIP125 from non-signaling var names
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1dc03dd glozow: [doc] remove non-signaling mentions of BIP125

2022-08-07

<PaperSword> meaning the next soft fork version per BIP9 would be 0x1000?

2022-08-03

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow opened pull request #25775: docs: remove non-signaling mentions of BIP125 (master...2022-08-bip125-signal-only) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25775

2022-07-25

<luke-jr> achow101: poke, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1293 seems to be waiting on you since April ;)

2022-07-14

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #25602: wallet, RPC: Default BIP125 signal to -mempoolfullrbf (master...2207-rpc-wallet-replace-🌡) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25602

2022-07-13

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #25596: scripted-diff: [test] Rename BIP125_SEQUENCE_NUMBER to MAX_BIP125_RBF_SEQUENCE (master...2207-test-scrpt-rbf-🐴) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25596
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 31c6309 MacroFake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#25596: scripted-diff: [test] Rename BIP125_SEQUENCE_...
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa0404d MacroFake: scripted-diff: [test] Rename BIP125_SEQUENCE_NUMBER to MAX_BIP125_RBF_SEQU...
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #25602: wallet, RPC: Default BIP125 signal to -mempoolfullrbf (master...2207-rpc-wallet-replace-🌡) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25602

2022-07-12

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #25596: scripted-diff: [test] Rename BIP125_SEQUENCE_NUMBER to MAX_BIP125_RBF_SEQUENCE (master...2207-test-scrpt-rbf-🐴) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25596

2022-07-07

<sipa> kanzure: Yes, definitely - nothing changes there. Though lately the projects I work on are more research-oriented, like miniscript, bip324, and various other things. I plan to keep writing code and reviewing.

2022-06-30

<laanwj> well, bips is the thing that can be argued to belong under bitcoin itself
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23233 | BIP324: Add encrypted p2p transport {de}serializer by dhruv · Pull Request #23233 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub

2022-06-23

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #25446: p2p: Set CNode::m_relays_txs=true when receiving BIP37 filters (master...2022-06-22778-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25446
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e7a9133 dergoegge: [net processing] Set CNode::m_relays_txs=true when receiving BIP37 filters

2022-06-22

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dergoegge opened pull request #25446: [net processing] Set CNode::m_relays_txs=true when receiving BIP37 filters (master...2022-06-22778-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25446

2022-06-17

<sipa> vasild: Uh, my guess would be that it's just "these can't be updated because they're irrelevant", and this logic predates BIP155.
<laanwj> is something unclear to you in the motivation https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0322.mediawiki#Motivation ?

2022-06-15

<instagibbs> are there any tapscript spending vectors lying around for wallet implementors like https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341/wallet-test-vectors.json ?

2022-06-13

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dhruv opened pull request #25361: BIP324: Cipher suite (master...bip324-cipher-suite) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25361

2022-06-07

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #25228: test: add BIP-125 rule 5 testcase with default mempool (master...2022-05-bip125-rule5-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25228

2022-06-04

<DavidBakin> the file src/test/data/bip341_wallet_vectors doesn't have that for the "scriptPubKey" tests that test the MAST so it doesn't have enough information

2022-06-02

<laanwj> i've been looking into BIP324, and catching up with the libbitcoin kernel stuff
<laanwj> speaking of that i've reviewed one of the BIP324 PRs today (#20962)
<sipa> Also, spec work on BIP324 (v2 p2p transport) with dhruv and real_or_random, hopefully public soon.
<sipa> There is some context that explains common usage, but that's not really the full description of everything one could do with these BIPs... that'd be unbounded.
<sipa> Oh, the BIPs don't really describe the creation. They're specifying the validation rules, not construction.
<sipa> If the sig is 64 bytes long, return Verify(p, hashTapSighash(0x00 || SigMsg(0x00, 1) || ext), sig), where Verify is defined in BIP340.
<sipa> BIP342 has very similar text:
<sipa> If the sig is 64 bytes long, return Verify(q, hashTapSighash(0x00 || SigMsg(0x00, 0)), sig)[20], where Verify is defined in BIP340.
<sipa> The rules for verifying signatures in the context of taproot key path spends are specified in BIP341. The rules for verifying signatures in the context of tapscript script path spends are in BIP342.
<sipa> BIP340 describes a digital signature scheme, it has no notion of sighash types or even anything related to Bitcoin at all.
<sipa> davidbakin: (1) luke-jr gave the link to the spec for key path spending in BIP341. For tapscript script path spending it's in BIP342, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0342.mediawiki#signature-validation
<sipa> @davidbakin The annex is completely different from the tapscript extension. Annex is defined in BIP341, and is a way to add extra fields to txins generically. The tapscript extension is what is added to the common sighash computation from BIP341 in BIP342 with the tapscript-specific fields.
<reardencode> davidbakin: 2: The extension is to the `Common Signature Message` which is hashed with hash_TapSighash. 3: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawiki#cite_ref-10-0
<DavidBakin> P.S. for the 64-byte vs 65-byte signature I also see the hash_type in src/script/interpreter.cpp@1687 but still don't know where that shows up in the BIPs
<DavidBakin> I'm trying to understand BIPS-341 and -342 - why is the sig sometimes 64 bytes and sometimes 65 byte? I infer from BIP-341 note 21 that the 64-byte sig is with hash_type == 0 (i.e., SIGHASH_DEFAULT) and that the 65-byte sigs are for the other hash_types which are _appended_ to the sig - but where is this actually specified (besides this note 21)?

2022-05-31

<sdaftuar> _aj_: I'm not sure I think of that bip125 issue as a bug in the code -- I think the code does what is intended, and the BIP should just be clarified

2022-05-30

<instagibbs> does core currently have issues with computing bip125 inherited signaling? Lost track of this
<theStack> bip324 question about handshake: in older slides (from breaking bitcoin 2019) i saw it was proposed that only odd pubkeys (i.e. starting with 0x03) are allowed, but the current BIP states only even pubkeys (i.e. starting with 0x02) are. any specific reason for this change?
<theStack> b10c: (RE BIP324 link) That seems to be very useful, thanks! Indeed I wasn't aware that there is a dedicated webpage for BIP324
<b10c> theStack: not sure if you've seen https://bip324.com/sections/code-review/ (RE https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24545#issuecomment-1141148561) also not sure if that's up-to-date

2022-05-27

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jamesob opened pull request #25228: test: add BIP-125 rule 5 testcase with default mempool (master...2022-05-bip125-rule5-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25228

2022-05-26

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c4c5b9c Anthony Towns: consensus/params: set default values for BIP9Deployment

2022-05-19

<pinheadmz_> Is this a discrepency between bip341 and taproot sighash implementation?

2022-05-18

<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e016c00 MacroFake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#25126: test: add BIP157 message parsing support (via...
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5dc6d92 Sebastian Falbesoner: test: make BIP157 messages default-constructible (MESSAGEMAP compatibility)
<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #25126: test: add BIP157 message parsing support (via MESSAGEMAP) (master...202205-test-support_BIP157_deser_via_messagemap) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25126
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 71e4cfe Sebastian Falbesoner: test: p2p: add missing BIP157 message types to MESSAGEMAP

2022-05-13

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #25126: test: add BIP157 message parsing support (via MESSAGEMAP) (master...202205-test-support_BIP157_deser_via_messagemap) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25126

2022-05-05

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25038 | BIP125-based Package RBF by glozow · Pull Request #25038 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<theStack> are there currently any alternative concepts availabe or for discussion for BIP322? i'd like to focus more on generic signing support and wonder if there's a reason why the BIP322 PR (#24058) didn't get more traction yet
<fanquake> *bips wiki
<achow101> bips wiki specifically

2022-04-30

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow opened pull request #25038: BIP125-based Package RBF (master...package-rbf) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25038

2022-04-26

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #24979: Precomputed hashes are note #16 in BIP341 (master...bip341_note_16) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24979
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master df08c23 Gregory Sanders: Precomputed hashes are note #16 in BIP341
<bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 30c1c6e fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#24979: Precomputed hashes are note #16 in BIP341

2022-04-25

<bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #24979: Precomputed hashes are note #16 in BIP341 (master...bip341_note_16) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24979

2022-04-12

<sipa> Both are interesting actually; the context is for BIP324 it'd be good to have an idea of how much per-message CPU cost overhead has. If most of the bandwidth on the network is due to large messages, this doesn't matter as much, for example.

2022-04-10

<cornfeedhobo> can anyone tell me if there has been any movement on getting bip300/301 enacted?

2022-04-08

<dhruv> laanwj: #24792 brings in secp master, but BIP324 depends on secp/#979 and scp/#982 which are still pending review. The conflict is likely because the tree changes iiuc.
<laanwj> dhruv: #24792 bumping secp256k1 probably helps with BIP324? (i see it conflicts with about every BIP324 PR but don't know if they're the same changes)

2022-04-07

<sipa> note that BIP324's spec is undergoing some changes still... the protocol will likely not be interoperable
<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24545 | BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport by dhruv · Pull Request #24545 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<laanwj> oh PSA: i've started testing BIP324 P2P v2 (#24545) on a node, let me know if you want to also test and connect

2022-04-06

<gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24545 | BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport by dhruv · Pull Request #24545 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub