<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] josibake opened pull request #30047: refactor: Model the bech32 charlimit as an Enum (master...model-bech32-limit-as-enum) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30047
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #30043: net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP implementation (master...2024-05-pcp) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043
2024-05-04
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #30040: util, refactor: Switch to value-initialization (master...240504-initialization) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30040
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] maciejsszmigiero opened pull request #30039: dbwrapper: Bump LevelDB max file size to 128 MiB to avoid system slowdown from high disk cache flush rate (master...dbwrapper-bump-max-file-size) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30039
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] paplorinc opened pull request #30035: test: Add a few more corner cases to the base58 test suite (master...paplorinc/base58-tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30035
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #30024: doc: replace remaining "520" magic nums with MAX_SCRIPT_ELEMENT_SIZE (master...2024-05-MAX_SCRIPT_ELEMENT_SIZE) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30024
<laanwj>
how so? if i, or hebasto, were to make a bitcoin fork and used my remaining access to add it to the existing project resources, it'd be exactly the same situation...
<sdaftuar>
achow101: ryanofsky: more than that, though, there is an issue of associating with the Bitcoin Core project to lend legitimacy to other projects.
<sr_gi[m]>
The no reason: Knots being single a dev project, having no review process and a completely different set of guarantees, yet you keep pretending it the same project as Bitcoin Core "but another release"
<luke-jr>
[10:22] <hebasto> The history of recent events is as follow: [10:22] <hebasto> 2024-03-24 -- a new file 'knots-translation-26x' was added to the project bitcoin <-- btw, this isn't the actual start; first was I was asked to make it available by a translator
<Earnestly>
(My rather meaningless position here is to have a transifex project for just bitcoin core, explicitly so.)
<luke-jr>
achow101: iirc it used to also have bitcoin.org translations
<achow101>
yes. afaict since the transifex project was created, it has only hosted resource from Bitcoin Core
<sipa>
luke-jr: clearly several Bitcoin Core contributors do not want to see it associated with Knots, myself included
<sipa>
luke-jr: yes, you insisting that the bitcoin project on transifex ought to include Knots is ridiculous
* Earnestly
still thinks an explicitly bitcoin core project would be crystal clear than this strange "bitcoin umbrella" project
<sipa>
luke-jr: it's not about the descriptions; it's that everyone, since forever, has considered the "bitcoin" project on Transifex to be Bitcoin Core's.
<achow101>
_aj_: now it says "Bitcoin Core & Knots"
<Earnestly>
luke-jr: I'm surprised that different transifex projects can't share translations, so to have a bitcoin core and a bitcoin knots as separate projects but still able to share a set difference of the translations
<Earnestly>
luke-jr: What is the scope of bitcoin transifex if it can include both core and knots? Seems a bit odd
<lightlike>
luke-jr: yes, there is. knots is a one-person project without a community, and, as a result zero public code review. In my opinion, it is a security disaster waiting to happen and no one should ever use it for anything involving actual funds. Of course people should use whatever they want, but bitcoin core should be in no associate itself with it or help it.
<Earnestly>
luke-jr: I mean, would it be fair for any one of the bitcoin core maintainers to host their forks on it as well?
<Earnestly>
luke-jr: I can see why they would disagree though, a lot of the old infrastructure was merged into what is now "bitcoin core", this seems like a loose end in the process
<Earnestly>
Making a bitcoin core specific transifex project would solve all of these issues (surely you can migrate all of bitcoin to it as well?)
<glozow>
There are 10ks of forks of bitcoin core, and many of them release software with similar code and probably similar strings to translate. That doesn't mean they should all be translated on the bitcoin core transifex...
<luke-jr>
vasild: no, it cannot be. Bitcoin Core is welcome to continue using it.
<vasild>
luke-jr: "sdaftuar: you are now attempting a hostile takeover of the Transifex project" -- when people cannot reach an agreement, what other options are there? The current situation can be viewed as a hostile hijack of the bitcoin core's translation by bitcoin knots
<josie>
Earnestly: knots aside, are you advocating that the transifex project is a catch all for *any* bitcoin software (e.g. btcd)
<Earnestly>
vasild: Sure, but it's called bitcoin core now, that was its historical name. It appears the transifex project similarly has a longer history than bitcoin core as it has come to be
<sipa>
Earnestly: for historic reasons, that is the URL for the Bitcoin Core github project, and the same holds for Transfix
<vasild>
Earnestly: github's repo is also only "bitcoin": github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
<achow101>
Earnestly: other than luke's assertions, there's no indication that this transifex project is not Bitcoin Core's exclusively
<Earnestly>
sipa: It's just called "bitcoin", I was suggesting creating a "bitcoin core" project
<Earnestly>
Or create a new transifex project for bitcoin core specifically
<achow101>
also, in hebasto's opening statement "People - Bitcoin Core translators - on Transifex started to complain"
<achow101>
luke-jr: when I go to the project, the description says "Bitcoin Core". The homepage link goes to bitcoincore.org. I don't see how that is not indicative that it is exclusively for Bitcoin Core
<sdaftuar>
i don't think the legitimacy of our project should be used to lend credibility to Bitcoin Knots
<luke-jr>
and Transifex/bitcoin is not Bitcoin Core's exclusively
<sipa>
Bitcoin Knots is clearly a different project, with different maintainer(s), different focus, different code; it's not Bitcoin Core's contributors/translators job to assist with that.
<sipa>
luke-jr: fair enough, that's a tiny advantage; but it also means wasting translator's time on changes that don't end up in Bitcoin Core in the same form, or never at all
<pinheadmz>
what do the bitcoin forks use ?
<sipa>
And I don't see the benefit to Bitcoin Core of having the Knots translations be part of the same project.
<sipa>
I think it's been abundantly clear to anyone that the bitcoin project on transfex is bitcoin core's translation - it mentions that software in the description, and links to the bitcoincore.org website
<glozow>
+1, I don't think we should do translations for Bitcoin Knots within Bitcoin Core transifex
<luke-jr>
Bitcoin Knots is part of the Bitcoin Core project anyway
<stickies-v>
+1 for splitting off, our project should be just for Bitcoin Core, not forks
<luke-jr>
and the transifex project is not exclusively Bitcoin Core's to begin with
<sipa>
I don't see why the Bitcoin Core transifex project should cater to translations of other projects.
<achow101>
I agree that the knots translation should be separate from bitcoin core's
<hebasto>
The question is should we allow to use the Bitcoin Core on Transifex.com by any other project?
<hebasto>
People - Bitcoin Core translators - on Transifex started to complain: "If the bitcoin-knots ressources are supposed to belong the a forked project of bitcoin-core (bitcoin-knots), i would prefer a new project being setup here on Transifex, since its kinda hijacking the main bitcoin core project and binding translation effort from members who want to support the bitcoin core project from my impression."
<hebasto>
2024-04-26 The file 'Bitcoin Knots 26.x' in project 'bitcoin' was updated with new content.
<hebasto>
2024-03-24 -- a new file 'knots-translation-26x' was added to the project bitcoin
<achow101>
#topic Knots use of the Bitcoin Core project on Transifex.com (hebasto)
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #30010: lint: [doc] Clarify Windows line endings (CR LF) not to be used (master...2405-lint-win-crlf-) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30010
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master fa9be2f MarcoFalke: lint: [doc] Clarify Windows line endings (CR LF) not to be used
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 59b773f merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#30010: lint: [doc] Clarify Windows line endings (CR ...
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #29120: test: Add test case for spending bare multisig (master...spending-bare-multisig) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29120
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master e504b1f Brandon Odiwuor: test: Add test case for spending bare multisig
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master d73245a merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#29120: test: Add test case for spending bare multisig
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] kevkevinpal closed pull request #29994: doc: removed help text saying that peers may not connect automatically (master...docsRemoveNetNote) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29994
<Murch[m]>
If it’s a coordinated change in behavior, miners are undermining rules that keep the network safe. This tends to get some pretty strong reactions from the Bitcoin community.
<PennyEther>
Supposing I were reasonably confident I found a problem with Bitcoin Protocol, what would be a responsible way to disclose it? I'm nearly certain of a fundamental issue, related to timestamps.
<gmaxwell>
in modern bitcoin software it won't obtain the blocks at all unless it's first obtained the block headers and determined that the headers could constutite a best tip if their contained blocks were valid. In the early software, I believe the behavior, if it got a block where it didn't know the immediate ancestor of the block it would set the block aside and fetch the prior block from the same
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #30010: lint: [doc] Clarify Windows line endings (CR LF) not to be used (master...2405-lint-win-crlf-) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30010
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #28016: p2p: gives seednode priority over dnsseed if both are provided (master...dnsseed-priority) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28016
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 82f41d7 tdb3: Added seednode prioritization message to help output
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 326e563 Ava Chow: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#28016: p2p: gives seednode priority over dnsseed if ...
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #30008: seeds: Pull additional nodes from my seeder and update fixed seeds (master...my-seeder-fixed-seeds) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30008
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 2e266f3 laanwj: depends: Fix build of Qt for 32-bit platforms
2024-04-29
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] glozow opened pull request #30000: p2p: index TxOrphanage by wtxid, allow entries with same txid (master...2024-04-orphan-use-wtxid) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30000
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] Sjors opened pull request #29999: guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l (master...2024/04/guix-openssl) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #29998: functional test: ensure confirmed utxo being sourced for 2nd chain (master...2024-04-onemore_confirmed) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29998
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] alfonsoromanz opened pull request #29996: test: Assumeutxo: import snapshot in a node with a divergent chain (master...assumeutxo_tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29996
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] ryanofsky merged pull request #29277: RPC: access RPC arguments by name (master...2023-10/named-args-on-arg-helper) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29277
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 30a6c99 stickies-v: rpc: access some args by name
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 13525e0 stickies-v: rpc: add arg helper unit test
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master bbb3126 stickies-v: rpc: add named arg helper
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] kevkevinpal opened pull request #29994: doc: removed help text saying that peers may not connect automatically (master...docsRemoveNetNote) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29994