< roconnor>
hopefully the build of Bitcoin is independent of which version of guix you are using? Or maybe the specific bootstrap data is tied to guix versions, and that is what you are worried about?
< sipa>
so it's not very appealing to see them diverge further if more feature are added to miniscript, independently of bitcoin core's script code
< sipa>
and testing it is effectively dependent on being able to use bitcoin core's scripting engine
< sipa>
the miniscript c++ repository is currently somewhat in limbo; it works, but it heavily depends on code copied from bitcoin core
< michaelfolkson>
"I'd very much want to see it further along in integrating into Bitcoin Core" <- That sounded to me like you'd rather Miniscript was merged into Core before it supported Taproot
< sipa>
if integrated into bitcoin core, it'd be also easy to e.g. produce test sets using fuzzing, which could be tested in other implementations
< sipa>
and the Bitcoin Core wallet does support taproot scripts by the way, just only very limited ones (effectively just "<pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG")
< MarcoFalke>
> [09:43] <vasild> MarcoFalke: do you think that the fuzzer inputs from #22450 should be collected and added to bitcoin-core/qa-assets ?
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] vasild opened pull request #22468: addrman: don't overwrite addr_info when resetting I2P ports (master...reset_i2p_ports_no_overwrite_pos) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22468
< vasild>
jnewbery: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22450#issuecomment-880602891 is a 3rd issue, I have not confirmed it yet, but read the comment: yes, it looks like it can cause a corruption, but again that is a 3rd distinct problem. I suspect it may be resolved by just removing "addr_info.GetPort() == I2P_SAM31_PORT"
< fanquake>
Guix is also a much more likely pathway to fully bootstrapable Bitcoin Core builds that what gitian could ever provide.
< fanquake>
These are just two very practical benefits that using Guix provides (there are more), which ultimately all boil down to us being in much greater control of our release build environment. Something I am very happy about, and I think makes a lot of sense for a project like Bitcoin Core.
<@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
< fanquake>
This means that as you use newer versions of glibc, the number of "workarounds" you need to maintain backwards compatibility pile up, get continually more complicated, and even start to leak out of Bitcoin Core code, and into our dependency system. See all the PRs linked in this comment: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22418#issuecomment-876379846.
<@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] hebasto closed pull request #22456: [WIP] build: Use specific cross-compilers instead of multilib one (master...210715-multilib) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22456
< BlueMatt>
jonatack: I mean have y'all bothered to ask if people *are* vaccinated? In my experience among bitcoin *developers* its like 100%. among bitcoin twitter users its much different.
< laanwj>
we're getting even closer, the last PRs are nearly ready for merge https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/47 , after which we should tag rc1 imo, but some last-minute issue came up while fuzzing addrman serialization (#22450)
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #22456: [WIP] build: Use specific cross-compilers instead of multilib one (master...210715-multilib) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22456
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] vasild opened pull request #22455: addrman: detect on-disk corrupted nNew and nTried during unserialization (master...addrman_detect_negative) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22455
< sipa>
and it's unrelated to the development of the bitcoin core software
< Bilnon>
what gets to me the most with acronyms like "uPoW" is how much these people take for granted the proof-of-work scheme used in bitcoin, like that useful proofs of work could be integrated at all without converting the entire system to a PoS system,
< Bilnon>
I dont know how these idiot get their papers published, this is a terrible idea written by morons who clearly cant grasp even the basic concepts of bitcoin
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #22447: test: whitelist rpc_rawtransaction peers to speed up tests (master...speed-up-rpc_rawtransaction-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22447
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #22446: test: Fix wallet_listdescriptors.py if bdb is not compiled (master...210714-desc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22446
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] sriramdvt opened pull request #22445: fuzz: Move implementations of non-template fuzz helpers from util.h to util.cpp (master...fuzz_move) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22445
< roconnor>
[Monday, June 28, 2021] [10:07:08 AM EDT] <real_or_random> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/959 :O this had a red cirrus run (due to failed randomness tests), which scared me of for a second...
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #22436: build: use aarch64 Clang if cross-compiling for darwin on aarch64 (master...arm64_macos_cross_clang) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22436
< laanwj>
if you want to fork bitcoin core, go ahead, i don't think it would be bad to have more projects at all, you'll also discover soon enough that maintaining a project like this is difficult
<@gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21851 | [WIP] build: support cross-compiling for arm64-apple-darwin20 (Apple M1) in depends by fanquake · Pull Request #21851 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2021-07-12
< prayank>
And I didn't use bitcoin because of number go up FYI
< sipa>
prayank: i would encourage you to find other things in life to do too; making everything about bitcoin (or any single thing) is going to drive you nuts
< prayank>
married lots of other things. I just want to focus on learning and doing better. I have issues idk. Lets see. If not Core. Fork. But Bitcoin.
< prayank>
sipa I dont know much about you to be honest but I started using bitcoin in 2015 because of some reasons and have some background. I am not as goood as you in programming. But maybe I was never good in anything thats why chatting here today, or I care too much about Bitcoin. I think I have decided that I can do anything for Bitcoin. Younger bro
< sipa>
okay - as long as you don't have an expectation that these tests will be integrated into the bitcoin core repository or test infrastructure
< prayank>
Goal: 1. Internship project 2. Nice GUI for script kiddies to play and think Bitcoin is not Digital Gold mem they can play with it and pentest. 3. Reference in Infosec Conf: I dont need followers. Bitcoin needs software devs. 4. Experiment and lets see see if we if find something new
< prayank>
Idk. I am true to myself and others. I tried everything. Its not helping. I will look for funding or do something to start a better fork (better than Luke Dash Jr). I don't care about anyone to be honest but Bitcoin. Only person I liked during conversations was Pieter Wuille, Greg Maxwell and Sometimes Drunk conversations with others. But I always
< sipa>
and wrote the tor hidden service support in bitcoin core
< prayank>
achow101: please do not take anything for you. Because its not. Maintainers suck, And its for them. Or maybe compromised by now. However, I couldnt find a vulnerability that they introduced so they can enjoy. You need examples: Ex1: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22432 (how to merge quickly) with less ACKs. No merge after few ACKs:
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] prayank23 closed pull request #21755: Add more info about prefix in error message for invalid address (master...error-address) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21755
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] prayank23 closed pull request #22430: Fix syntax for `getindexinfo` params in help examples (master...getindexinfo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22430
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] prayank23 closed pull request #22317: doc: Highlight DNS requests part in tor.md (master...highlight-dns-request) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22317
< prayank>
How many ACKs are required for a PR to get merged if the author is not from chaincode labs or blockstream or OG dev for a simple change that doesn't affect functionality in Bitcoin Core?
< vasild>
sipa: in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22387#issuecomment-878417152, do you mean that if a node is connected to e.g. only 3 others and I am one of those 3, then every time that node chooses 2 random peers to relay to, then I am very likely to be the chosen one?
< sipa>
is your question about whether there is a benefit to *using* an old bitcoin core version to spy with (no, spy nodes aren't bitcoin core at all, or heavily modified ones at least), or whether there is a benefit to *claiming* you're an old bitcoin core version when spying (not really, you can claim whatever you want, the data isn't used for anything except statistics etc)
< 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