< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #21869: depends: Add missing -D_LIBCPP_DEBUG=1 to debug flags (master...2105-dependsDebug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21869
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #21867: test: use MiniWallet for p2p_blocksonly.py (master...20210505-test-convert_p2pblocksonly_miniwallet) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21867
2021-05-05
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] dongcarl opened pull request #21866: [Bundle 7/7] validation: Farewell, global Chainstate! (master...2020-10-libbitcoinruntime-v9) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21866
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] glozow opened pull request #21864: fix permissions on 00_setup_env_native_fuzz_with_msan.sh (master...2021-05-lint) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21864
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #21863: ci: Set depends DEBUG=1 for msan tasks to get line numbers (master...2105-ciMsanDebug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21863
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #21863: ci: Set depends DEBUG=1 for msan tasks to get line numbers (master...2105-ciMsanDebug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21863
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #21681: validation: fix ActivateSnapshot to use hardcoded nChainTx (master...2021-04-au-nchaintx-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21681
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 128b98f MarcoFalke: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#21681: validation: fix ActivateSnapshot to use hardc...
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 91d93aa James O'Beirne: validation: remove nchaintx from assumeutxo metadata
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 931684b James O'Beirne: validation: fix ActivateSnapshot to use hardcoded nChainTx
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #21664: contrib: use LIEF for macOS and Windows symbol & security checks (master...macos_win_lief) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21664
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 7e7eae7 fanquake: contrib: use f strings in security-check.py
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonatack closed pull request #21855: fuzz: enable passing a max value to FuzzedDataProvider::ConsumeEnum() (master...ConsumeEnum-enable-passing-max-value) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21855
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #21862: test: Set regtest.BIP65Height = 112 to speed up tests (master...2105-testFasterBip65) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21862
< gmaxwell>
well, sipa is weird but his bitcoin node isn't. :P
< gmaxwell>
Like, have we made a series of single steps that were logcal but gives a weird outcome? Step 1. relay faster to outbound peers because we control them, so they're less likely to be spies monitoring our txn. Step 2. Introduce reconcillation, but make flooding only happen for reachable nodes because it has some moral similarity to step 1. Conclusion, 80% of bitcoin nodes no longer participate
< gmaxwell>
for one thing it takes 80% or whatever of bitcoin nodes out of participation in rapidly forwarding transactions, which seems ... like a really big step to take without an obvious reason.
< gmaxwell>
Basically nowhere else in the bitcoin protocol is there this in/out distinction -- just in tx relay privacy timers (which were 'recently' introduced relatively speaking) and in peer eviction.
< gmaxwell>
gleb: I think in general when we talk about erlay (e.g. in the paper and elsewhere) we use this "non-reachable peer" terminology, but non-reachability doesn't exist explicitly anywhere in the implementation of bitcoin core or the bitcoin protocol... so although non-reachable peers were a good concept for modling, it can be a little confusing when it comes to the implementation.
< sipa>
gleb: was it needed to include minisketch in bitcoin-tx?
< gmaxwell>
Current bitcoin core causes really old nodes to be unable to sync and to dos attack you. The issue is that prior to 0.7-ish the size of headers messages wasn't limited, and the node requests headers from everyone. They blast you with a multimegabyte header and disconnect and go do it to someoen else. These old nodes seem to have also formed a fork at an early height, nodes that have this
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #21855: fuzz: enable passing a max value to FuzzedDataProvider::ConsumeEnum() (master...ConsumeEnum-enable-passing-max-value) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21855
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #21851: [WIP] build: support cross-compiling for arm64-apple-darwin20 (Apple M1) in depends (master...m1_support_depends) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21851
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] kiminuo opened pull request #21850: Remove `GetDataDir(net_specific)` function (master...feature/2021-05-get-data-dir-step-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21850
< michaelfolkson>
hugohn: They aren't really bundled with the Core project. It is true the BIPs repo is under the Bitcoin Core GitHub org but no Bitcoin Core maintainers merge BIP PRs afaik so I think it is fine under the Core org
< hugohn>
As the Bitcoin protocol slowly ossifies, the bulk of new specs will likely be in the Application layer. It does make less sense to bundle them with the Core project.
< michaelfolkson>
I think there will be future discussions on a revised BIP process once (hopefully) Taproot activation is completed hugohn if you'd like to engage with that https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1015
< wumpus>
in any case, this discussion is kind of off-topic here, the bitcoin core project is one implementation, that the current BIPs repository is in the same orginazation is a historical artifact, it does not mean BIPs 'belong' to bitcoin core or something like that
< wumpus>
yes, moving to names might make sense too, in any case please don't let bitcoin innovation be stuck on having to centrally assign numbers, this shouldn't be an issue
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #21849: fuzz: Limit toxic test globals to their respective scope (master...2105-fuzzToxic) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21849
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #21848: refactor: Make CFeeRate constructor arch-independent (master...2105-feerate) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21848
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #21840: test: Misc refactor to get rid of &foo[0] raw pointers (master...2105-testRefactor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21840
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9424 | Change LogAcceptCategory to use uint32_t rather than sets of strings. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9424 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] rebroad opened pull request #21841: Send fewer feefilter messages (avoid the wobbling number issue) (master...SteadierFeefilter) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21841
< bitcoin-git>
[gui] hebasto opened pull request #313: qt, build: Optimize string concatenation by default (master...210503-builder) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/313
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #21840: test: Misc refactor to get rid of &foo[0] raw byte pointers (master...2105-testRefactor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21840
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #20867: Support up to 20 keys for multisig under Segwit context (master...descriptor_multi_wsh) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20867
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master ae0429d Antoine Poinsot: script: allow up to 20 keys in wsh() descriptors
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 063df9e Antoine Poinsot: test/functional: standardness sanity checks for P2(W)SH multisig
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 9fc68fa Antoine Poinsot: script: match multisigs with up to MAX_PUBKEYS_PER_MULTISIG keys
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto closed pull request #21463: doc: Address feedback from Transifex translator community (master...210317-transifex) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21463
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #21836: scripted-diff: Replace three dots with ellipsis in the UI strings (master...210502-ellipsis) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21836
< gmaxwell>
https://bitcoin-takeover.com/why-the-taproot-activation-proves-bitcoins-decentralization/ "However, the beginning appears to be pretty rocky: at block height 681487, only one block (mined by Slush Pool) out of 80 has signalled the activation. If 201 blocks don’t include the Taproot activation data, then the miner activation gets suspended and the community is going to look for another way to
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] Rspigler opened pull request #21828: doc: Add historical release notes for 0.21.1 (master...0.21.1-release_notes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21828
2021-05-01
< gmaxwell>
rebroad: bitcoin-dev channel was essentially abandoned long ago. I don't think it's for anything, I had heard it was going to get closed down.
< rebroad>
what is #bitcoin-dev channel for now?
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] rebroad opened pull request #21827: Display progress of LoadBlockDB() on splash screen (master...SplashLoadBlockProgress) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21827
< jarthur>
* #bitcoin-mining
< jarthur>
I sent out a notice to #bitcoin-miners. Is there a guide to constructing a signaling block for operators who don't use Core's getblocktemplate or use an older version than today's?
< bitcoin-git>
[gui] rebroad closed pull request #308: Display progress of LoadBlockDB() on splash screen (master...SplashLoadBlockProgress) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/308
< robert_spigler>
hopefully making a full release announcement - bitcoin-core-dev, website, etc, will help. Maybe they just aren't fake signalling/running the RC1