< ZEFRON>
2. When I tried to fork Bitcoin-core I hit a roadblock with my implementation at the inability to gracefully access node.chainman within CheckProofOfWork()
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] prayank23 opened pull request #22430: Fix syntax for `getindexinfo` params in help examples (master...getindexinfo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22430
< brcolow>
I am confused by something. If you look at this line of code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/crypto/sha256_avx2.cpp#L63 it is writing a 32-bit (4byte) integer. In the case of -1996298034 that is, in big endian, 8902 e8ce - then it's converted to little endian which is CEE8 0289 - however what's strange is that WriteLE32 function writes CEE8289 - it skips the
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #22421: Make IsSegWitOutput return true for taproot outputs (master...202107_taproot_is_segwit) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22421
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #22253: validation: distinguish between same tx and same-nonwitness-data tx in mempool (master...2021-06-same-txid-diff-wtxid) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22253
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master fdb4816 glozow: [validation] distinguish same txid different wtxid in mempool
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master b7a8cd9 glozow: [test] submit same txid different wtxid as mempool tx
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 8ab0c77 W. J. van der Laan: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22253: validation: distinguish between same tx and s...
<@gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22253 | validation: distinguish between same tx and same-nonwitness-data tx in mempool by glozow · Pull Request #22253 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 285a65c Sebastian Falbesoner: test: use script_util helpers for creating P2SH scripts
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #22363: test: refactor: use `script_util` helpers for creating P2{PKH,SH,WPKH,WSH} scripts (master...202106-test-refactor-use_scriptpubkey_helpers) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22363
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master b57b633 Sebastian Falbesoner: test: use script_util helpers for creating P2PKH scripts
< bitcoin-git>
[gui] ryanofsky opened pull request #379: Prompt to reset settings when settings.json cannot be read (master...pr/badset) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/379
< prayank>
Overall goal: Get feedback for my project which is related to testing bitcoin core in a different way from people who are involved in testing core regularly
< prayank>
Hi everyone 👋 I wanted to get some feedback on few things related to testing in Bitcoin Core. So, created this form with 5 simple questions. Will be helpful if you could answer them:
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] luke-jr closed pull request #18479: RPC: Show fee in results for signrawtransaction* for segwit inputs (master...rpc_sign_show_fees) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18479
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke reopened pull request #22402: doc: Install Rosetta on M1-macOS for qt in depends (master...210705-rosetta) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22402
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #22402: doc: Install Rosetta on M1-macOS for qt in depends (master...210705-rosetta) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22402
< fanquake>
I wonder if we can further restrict permissions to prevent that from happening. There's really no need for anyone to ever push their development branches to bitcoin/bitcoin.
< fanquake>
wumpus / sipa : can you delete the "please-delete-accidental-push" and "checktemplateverify-rebase-4-15-21" branches that have been pushed to bitcoin/bitcoin
2021-07-05
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #22408: test: add tests for `bad-txns-prevout-null` reject reason (master...202107-test-add_test_for_bad-txns-prevout-null) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22408
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 16b0a93 Carl Dong: guix: Rebase toolchain on glibc 2.24 (2.27 for riscv64)
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #22402: doc: Install Rosetta on M1-macOS for qt in depends (master...210705-rosetta) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22402
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] amitiuttarwar reopened pull request #22387: Rate limit the processing of rumoured addresses (master...202106_rate_limit_addr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22387
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] amitiuttarwar closed pull request #22387: Rate limit the processing of rumoured addresses (master...202106_rate_limit_addr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22387
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #22397: build: Fix macOS Apple Silicon build with miniupnpc and libnatpmp (master...210703-brew-arm) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22397
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 7fc1e14 fanquake: ci: use Ubuntu 20.04 as the default Docker container
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 7a49fdc MarcoFalke: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22388: ci: use Ubuntu 20.04 as the default Docker co...
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #22388: ci: use Ubuntu 20.04 as the default Docker container (master...ci_ubuntu_20_04) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22388
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #22390: system: skip trying to set the locale on NetBSD (master...netbsd_dont_set_locale) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22390
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #22390: system: skip trying to set the locale on NetBSD (master...netbsd_dont_set_locale) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22390
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #22388: ci: use Ubuntu 20.04 as the default Docker container (master...ci_ubuntu_20_04) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22388
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #22388: ci: use Ubuntu 20.04 as the default Docker container (master...ci_ubuntu_20_04) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22388
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #22387: Rate limit the processing of rumoured addresses (master...202106_rate_limit_addr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22387
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #22387: Rate limit the processing of rumoured addresses (master...202106_rate_limit_addr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22387
< harding>
We've had to update the expiration on laanwj's key before, which created some confusion but not much. On Bitcoin.org years ago, we saw that 99% of people who downloaded binaries didn't download the SHASUMs file, so most people aren't verifying in any case.
< harding>
We've had to update the expiration on laanwj's key before, which created some confusion but not much. On Bitcoin.org years ago, we saw that 99% of people who downloaded binaries didn't download the SHASUMs file, so most people aren't verifying in any case.
< laanwj>
harding: this is not a major version update (0.21.0 to 0.21.1) ... but i agree all of this is manouvring around auto-updates just being a bad idea for bitcoin in the first place, and people who use it through a package manager sign up for that
< laanwj>
harding: this is not a major version update (0.21.0 to 0.21.1) ... but i agree all of this is manouvring around auto-updates just being a bad idea for bitcoin in the first place, and people who use it through a package manager sign up for that
< sipa>
i think the message really isn't so much "warning, this has taproot, do you like that?", but it is "warning: the package maintainer you trust has power to make your system update to new consensus rules, you should be aware of that risk, and evaluate whether that's an acceptable way to use bitcoin"
< sipa>
it can also say "in this case, it is following the bitcoin core upstream release which has the taproot update included"
< sipa>
it can also say "in this case, it is following the bitcoin core upstream release which has the taproot update included"
< sipa>
i think the message really isn't so much "warning, this has taproot, do you like that?", but it is "warning: the package maintainer you trust has power to make your system update to new consensus rules, you should be aware of that risk, and evaluate whether that's an acceptable way to use bitcoin"
< earnestly>
sipa: Wouldn't bitcoin core ship with its own prefered defaults allowing users to override them?
< earnestly>
sipa: Wouldn't bitcoin core ship with its own prefered defaults allowing users to override them?
< harding>
Some packages in debian come shipped in a not-completely-functional state; you have to flip some flag in /etc/defaults/package-name. You can have Bitcoin Core 0.21.1+ require you put "taproot = yes" in that file before it'll run.
< harding>
Some packages in debian come shipped in a not-completely-functional state; you have to flip some flag in /etc/defaults/package-name. You can have Bitcoin Core 0.21.1+ require you put "taproot = yes" in that file before it'll run.
< laanwj>
right, it's for good reason we resisted bitcoin being part of package repositories for a long time
< laanwj>
right, it's for good reason we resisted bitcoin being part of package repositories for a long time
< sipa>
this is the reason why bitcoin core's own release mechanism explicitly does not have an auto-upgrade mechanism
< sipa>
this is the reason why bitcoin core's own release mechanism explicitly does not have an auto-upgrade mechanism
<@gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22365 | guix: Avoid relying on newer symbols by rebasing our cross toolchains on older glibcs by dongcarl · Pull Request #22365 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<@gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22365 | guix: Avoid relying on newer symbols by rebasing our cross toolchains on older glibcs by dongcarl · Pull Request #22365 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< vasild>
sdaftuar: "to what extent it makes sense for nodes that don't understand, say, i2p addresses to be participating in i2p address relay at all" -- https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0155.mediawiki contains this sentence: "Clients are RECOMMENDED to gossip addresses from all known networks even if they are currently not connected to some of them. That could help multi-homed nodes and
< vasild>
sdaftuar: "to what extent it makes sense for nodes that don't understand, say, i2p addresses to be participating in i2p address relay at all" -- https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0155.mediawiki contains this sentence: "Clients are RECOMMENDED to gossip addresses from all known networks even if they are currently not connected to some of them. That could help multi-homed nodes and
< vasild>
"A low-resource attacker can gain full control of information flows between all users who chose to use Bitcoin over Tor" :-O
< vasild>
"A low-resource attacker can gain full control of information flows between all users who chose to use Bitcoin over Tor" :-O
< vasild>
btw, to be clear - the last commit from 22112 is kind of optional - it is only to convert the addrmans of early users who run un-relased bitcoin core
< vasild>
btw, to be clear - the last commit from 22112 is kind of optional - it is only to convert the addrmans of early users who run un-relased bitcoin core
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jlopp opened pull request #22383: prefer to use txindex if available for GetTransaction (master...GetTransactionPerformance) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22383
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jlopp opened pull request #22383: prefer to use txindex if available for GetTransaction (master...GetTransactionPerformance) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22383
<@gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22381 | guix: Test security-check sanity before performing them (with macOS) by fanquake · Pull Request #22381 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<@gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22365 | guix: Avoid relying on newer symbols by rebasing our cross toolchains on older glibcs by dongcarl · Pull Request #22365 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<@gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22365 | guix: Avoid relying on newer symbols by rebasing our cross toolchains on older glibcs by dongcarl · Pull Request #22365 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<@gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22381 | guix: Test security-check sanity before performing them (with macOS) by fanquake · Pull Request #22381 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #20980: guix: Test security-check sanity before performing them (master...2020-12-guix-mingw-extra-flags) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20980
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #20980: guix: Test security-check sanity before performing them (master...2020-12-guix-mingw-extra-flags) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20980
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #22381: guix: Test security-check sanity before performing them (with macOS) (master...20980_macOS_fixups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22381
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #22381: guix: Test security-check sanity before performing them (with macOS) (master...20980_macOS_fixups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22381
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #22348: build: Fix cross build for Windows with Boost Process (master...210627-boost) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22348
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #22348: build: Fix cross build for Windows with Boost Process (master...210627-boost) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22348