<hacker4web3bitco>
Hi folks, I'm new to learn bitcoin core, ask a question, is there any doc about the cluster mempool implementation? I'm reading the code but struggles with the data structures relationship (bwtween like TxGraph, Cluster, DepGraph etc)
<darosior>
FYI i started drafting something this weekend regarding the "Bitcoin Core on relay policy" letter or however we'd want to call it. I haven't come up with something i consider satisfactory: i feel what i have addresses current drama too directly. I think this would be counterproductive to do. An alternative approach would be to make a more detailed
<bitcoin-git>
[gui] hebasto merged pull request #875: Use WitnessV0KeyHash in TestAddAddressesToSendBook (master...2505-qt-addr-test) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/875
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 879a17b laanwj: rpc: Store all credentials hashed in memory
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 98ff38a laanwj: rpc: Perform HTTP user:pass split once in `RPCAuthorized`
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto closed pull request #32537: Set minimum supported Windows version to 1903 (May 2019 Update) (master...250516-win-min-ver) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32537
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #32566: Use subprocess library for notifications (master...2025-05-subprocess-system) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32566
<d33tah>
hi! is there the right channel to ask about setting up a Bitcoin node? a friend of mine is trying to diagnose why nobody is connecting to him via tor and asked me for help. i'm looking for someone who could help me diagnose the issue. according to https://bitnodes.io/, both the IP and onion address are reachable correctly
<bitcoin-git>
[gui] maflcko opened pull request #875: Use WitnessV0KeyHash in TestAddAddressesToSendBook (master...2505-qt-addr-test) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/875
<corebot>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30039 | dbwrapper: Bump LevelDB max file size to 32 MiB to avoid system slowdown from high disk cache flush rate by maciejsszmigiero · Pull Request #30039 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<PaperSword>
10:01:36 AM - sipa: bitcoin core can very aggressively cache the UTXO data cache in its application-level cache though […]
<sipa>
bitcoin core can very aggressively cache the UTXO data cache in its application-level cache though, which may or may not impact what gains are possible at all due to the database layer
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #32544: scripted-diff: test: remove 'descriptors=True' argument for `createwallet` calls (master...202505-scripted-diff-remove_descriptors_false_args) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32544
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] TheCharlatan opened pull request #32543: kernel: Remove dependency on clientversion (master...kernelRmClientversion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32543
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin-detached-sigs/28.x 4902836 Matthew Zipkin: 28.2: osx signature for rc1
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] pinheadmz opened pull request #32539: init: Configure reachable networks before we start the RPC server (master...rpcallowip-rfc4193) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32539
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] furszy closed pull request #32538: restrict std::cerr to errors; use std::cout for warnings and info (master...2025_init_warning_msgs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32538
<bitcoin-git>
qa-assets/main b2fc82e Murch: Add Murch’s inputs May 2025
<bitcoin-git>
qa-assets/main 4e64c5b maflcko: Merge pull request #225 from murchandamus/2025-05-murch-inputs
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] furszy opened pull request #32538: restrict std::cerr to errors; use std::cout for warnings and info (master...2025_init_warning_msgs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32538
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #32533: test: properly check for per-tx sigops limit (master...202505-test-exact_per_tx_sigopcost_check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32533
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] l0rinc opened pull request #32532: RFC: script: short-circuit `GetLegacySigOpCount` for known scripts (master...l0rinc/short-circuit-known-script-types) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32532
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] darosior opened pull request #32530: node: cap `-maxmempool` and `-dbcache` values for 32-bit (master...2505_limit_mempool_32bit) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32530
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #32529: [DONOTMERGE] subprocess: replace `fs::directory_iterator` with `readdir` (master...2025-05-fdclose-debug-ci-hang) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32529
<gmaxwell>
One of the reasons, I fear, is that the root 'concern' material is just not actually that sincere or authentic. I've found that opponents of the change *reliably* disingage in discussions as soon as I join them, in a most unusual way. plus the flood of "I just switched to knots" posts from accounts that have never before made a comment related to bitcoin. I think it's likely that someone
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] darosior opened pull request #32521: policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard (master...2503_nonstd_tx_sigops) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521
<Earnestly>
Is there a ml post (I can't subscribe, it probably just sits in mod queue forever) which goes over the rationale/reason (from bitcoin core's view) for why op_return is to be changed (and the option to configure it potentially removed in the future)?
<darosior>
glozow: I don't think an executive of a Bitcoin company will go read my thousand line detailed technical refutation of mostly tin foil hat stuff and made-up objections. They will read two paragraphs published officially on the Bitcoin Core website.
<Murch[m]>
Given that we are such a small group compared to the Bitcoin user base, more simply resources served highly visibly might significantly reduce our effort
<Murch[m]>
There also generally have been a few things that the community has felt very strongly about that Bitcoin Core has not addressed, so it’s just been piling up
<darosior>
Murch[m]: this is more than 3 weeks of time that is at stake. It should not be overstated but i think it shook the trust in Bitcoin Core to some extent.
<Murch[m]>
Someone actually recently approached me that they want to make some educational videos about Bitcoin Core
<Murch[m]>
I’ve been told by several people in the past couple months that they wish there were a way to contact Bitcoin Core if one had questions or support issues, and others have recommended that we might find a couple contributors that do public relations or developer advocacy in some form.
<Murch[m]>
Aye, I think we should generally think a bit more about public communication, and even how we support users of Bitcoin Core
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32519: ci: Enable feature_init and wallet_reorgsrestore in valgrind task (master...2505-ci-valgrind) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32519
<fanquake>
sipa: yea I think I'm missing the difference between "We believe many contributors feel" & "Bitcoin Core believes X",
<sipa>
It's a bit of a challenge I think to do this, as Bitcoin Core contributors are an ill-defined group and I think few people are comfortable speaking for others. But I can imagine a statement from some maintainers/regular contributors of the form "We believe many contributors feel the goal of relay/mempool/... should be", so rather than "Bitcoin Core believes X should happen", it is an observation
<darosior>
in the past weeks i think we should hold off the change for some time (if it's gonna be merged doesn't matter if it is now or in 2 weeks) and work on our communication. To this end i suggest we post on the website a broad view of how Bitcoin Core approaches relay policy, to be signed off by people working in this area of the codebase. It should be
<darosior>
Hi everyone. My proposal for the OP_RETURN standardness rule change has been severely mischaracterized online. This has led to genuine concerns from Bitcoin enthusiasts about the change itself, but also about Bitcoin Core. I do not think there is any ground for these concerns, but what is done is done. From my experience engaging with the community
<pinheadmz>
I think ideally qmlgui ends up with bitcoin/bitcoin as a git sub module
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32514: scripted-diff: Remove unused leading newline in RPC docs (master...2505-rpc-newline) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32514
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] m3dwards opened pull request #32513: ci: remove 3rd party js from windows dll gha job (master...250515-remove-js-ci) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32513
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] darosior closed pull request #32117: qa: make feature_assumeutxo.py test more robust (master...2503_more_assumeutxo_test_unbrittling) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32117
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32507: ci: Exclude failing wallet_reorgsrestore.py from valgrind task for now (master...2505-ci-valgrind) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32507