<josie>
achow101: sounds good, but I do think its important to limit voting to people who are actively contributing/reviewing in the project. this isnt a vote of "what would you like to see in bitcoin core" and more signaling "i will prioritise working on and reviewing x"
<D33r-Gee>
Testing PR #27596 (AssumeUTXO) and the pruning (prune=3000) doesn't work, still getting a 'blocks' folder size of 37 GB even after the progress has reached 1 (progress=1.000000), am I missing something perhaps in the bitcoin.conf file?
<BlueMattTest>
Sadly because this room is registered-only this requires actually signing in with @libera_irc_NickServ:bitcoin.ninja and then storing a password through a bridge I operate. I do promise I'm too lazy to look up your password, but no promises, of course.
<BlueMatt[m]>
I added this channel to my matrix bridge for those who want to access via matrix after the all-of-libera bridge was shutdown - #libera_bitcoin-core-dev:bitcoin.ninja.
<dergoegge>
actually no i don't think that explains it because the timeouts reproduce locally using `python infra/helper.py run_fuzzer --engine afl bitcoin-core process_messages`
2023-09-12
<PaperSword>
Is there method in CScript that will print the op codes in the same way bitcoin-cli decodescript does?
<PaperSword>
I created pull https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28447, becuase I thought it was what was causing the linter errors. It was not. I closed it. None the less it might be good to consider to remove linter warnings for those 2 words.
<fjahr>
some probably read the previous conversation here, pinheadmz made a new github bot that currently lives in #bitcoin-core-github and now emulates the behavior of the matrix bridge/gh-bot. If people like it could be pointed on this channel as well. But I guess it’s also fine to have a separate channel, at least that also works for me. Just wanted to put it out there as an option.
<sipa>
the bot is working fine, except it's posting to the #bitcoin-core-dev:libera.chat matrix channel, and the bridge between that channel and here is suspended indefinitely
<PaperSword>
What are you interested in working on in Bitcoin?
2023-08-18
<sipa>
Bz0: try bitcoin.stackexchange.com
<Bz0>
const bitcoin = new BitcoinCore(config);"
<Bz0>
host: '127.0.0.1', // Your Bitcoin Core node's IP address
<Bz0>
Can anyone help me out connecting my NodeJS script to my bitcoin core node? No matter what i try it constantly tells me "ThreadRPCServer incorrect password attempt". ive tried with rpcuser+rpcpassword first, then tried the rpcauth method and finally tried the __cookie__ method, nothing works... Using windows 10. i have this at the top of my JS file
<fjahr>
This channel is particularly for development of bitcoin core, an alternative implementation of the protocol is out of scope. I would recommend you post your question on bitcoin stack exchange. And fwiw, you should also check if you can achieve your goal by just using bitcoin core's zmq interface, then you won't need to think about version messages etc.
<ne0h>
i am trying to make a program that connects to the bitcoin network to collect new transactions in the mempool and new blocks in real time, but I am having trouble getting it going. My version message doesn't get a response... I suspect it's something to do with the formatting or something, but i have tried a few things and nothing has worked so far, if anybody could help me get this running it would be quite appreciated
<MacroFake>
cfields: There may be a chance we can use native C++20 instead of the bitcoin-unterminated-logprintf tidy rule
<cfields>
jamesob: fyi, those /* Continued */ are gone because clang-tidy is smarter than our python scripts. We now opt-out with // NOLINT(bitcoin-unterminated-logprintf)
<sipa>
and yes, we could prune some more unspendable outputs, but that's an implementation detail inside bitcoin core, which imho shouldn't really interact with questions about relay policy
<sipa>
bitcoin-dev
<_aj_>
provoostenator: "why would they not mine them" -- because they have a long term investment in bitcoin, and they believe mining those txs is bad for that investment, same as the reason why people would want to remove the spam in the first place
<luke-jr>
provoostenator: it's malicious to setup private relay networks to mine attacks on Bitcoin that the community is actively trying to mitigate
<hdbbdh>
Any help is greatly appreciated. The script isn't a normal P2SH or P2WSH or anything normal. It is a script implementing the swap algorithm [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Atomic_swap].
<PaperSword>
Per: https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/soft-fork-activation "A second poll of the thousand most recent blocks occurred on March 15th; this had sufficient support and so developers released Bitcoin 0.6.0 on March 30th with an activation date of April 1st."
<hdbbdh>
I guess it was. so where can I find the exact activation date and after P2SH is activated and, will the trasaction 6a26d2ecb67f27d1fa5524763b49029d7106e91e3cc05743073461a719776192633166 be regarded as invalid trasaction by the new bitcoin program?
<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?
<b10c>
currently bitcoin/bitcoin, bitcoin/bips, bitcoin-core/secp256k1, bitcoin-core/gui, but will consider other repos with important comments if there are requests
<b10c>
just wanted to mention that I'm backing up and mirroring (to test the backups) the issues and pull-requests of some Bitcoin Core related repos on https://mirror.b10c.me
<MacroFake>
josie: It is a single line of bash: "DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1 docker build -t bitcoin-linter --file "./ci/lint_imagefile" ./ && docker run --rm -v $(pwd):/bitcoin -it bitcoin-linter"
<MacroFake>
If you trust docker, all you need to run is "DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1 docker build -t bitcoin-linter --file "./ci/lint_imagefile" ./ && docker run --rm -v $(pwd):/bitcoin -it bitcoin-linter"
<sipa>
Ideally libsecp can follow whatever Bitcoin Core does, but only if that doesn't add costs/burden to people running it.
<fanquake>
Does anyone running Windows want to Guix build #28151, and check if the binaries (I think specifically bitcoin-qt.exe) work?
<vasild>
MacroFake: wrt https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#issuecomment-1660675919 "explain what is wrong/missing from the example", I have to check how this works in order to be sure, but in the second step in the example it does "adding back the parent to the mempool". How does that add-back work? It must be added as unbroadcast tx, if not I will have to change it. Then, when both txs are
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master fabef12 MarcoFalke: refactor: Use EnsureAnyNodeContext
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #28185: ci: Use hard-coded root path for CI containers (bugfix) (master...2307-ci-hard-code-) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28185
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] aureleoules closed pull request #28174: docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing (master...2023-07-update-readme) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #28178: fuzz: Generate with random libFuzzer settings (master...2307-fuzz-rand-gen-) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28178
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #28171: test: blockstore test with chattr instead of chmod (master...blockstore-tests-chattr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28171
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] kevkevinpal opened pull request #28176: tests: add coverage to feature_addrman.py (master...test-addrman-large-vals) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28176
2023-07-27
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #28175: CONTRIBUTING: Caution against using AI/LLMs (ChatGPT, Copilot, etc) (master...doc_no_ai) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] aureleoules opened pull request #28174: docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing (master...2023-07-update-readme) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174