yes, on mainnet the most frequent contentions I see are the cs_vNodes ones, and many/most on them were replaced by only a handful of connman.cs_vNodes contention *per hour* instead...grep "connman.cs_vNodes" ~/.bitcoin/debug.log
paulo: if you have things in wishlist that improve privacy in bitcoin core but you don't feel like creating an issue in the repository, feel free to write them down in a gist and share the link here. Will be helpful.
instagibbs: 1. Not sure tbh how will things change if different mempool policies are used however it looks less likely in near future looking at the trend. Most users will run Bitcoin Core and they will use defaults. 2. Things are simple. There are blocks which get mined every few minutes. Blocks have limit based on vsize or weight. So everyone is bidding and competing to get their transactions confirmed. There is nothing to estimate or predict but
when I receive a tx in bitcoin core 22.0.0 the clock icon (before the date field) in the Transactions tab says I have 1 of 6 confirmations
but sure, agree it makes sense to prefix, all the bitcoin-core channels were prefixed with bitcoin-core when moving to libera
not sure who owns the #bitcoin namespace tho
yes, aware of that. I think it's that they prefer whoever owns the #bitcoin namespace should encourage/assist allocating bip reviews as ##bitcoin-bip-review-<name> or something going forward.
laanwj, not sure if you "own" the IRC, but as a general rule the #libera folk asked me to relay that they strongly prefer we not use channels like ##ctv-bip-review or ##taproot-bip-review in the future and instead namespace them in #bitcoin
[bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #23037: test: fix confusing off-by-one nValue in feature_coinstatsindex.py (master...202109-test-fix_namount_offbyone_in_coinstatsindex) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23037
[bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #23036: test: use test_framework.p2p `P2P_SERVICES` constant in functional tests (master...use-test_framework-P2P_SERVICES-in-functional-tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23036
[bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #23035: p2p, rpc, test: expose tried and refcount in getnodeaddresses, update/improve tests (master...getnodeaddresses-tried-and-reference_count) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23035
The signet faucet bitcoin core node is so slow that the faucet is experiencing time-outs now. It has quite a lot of keys. If someone wants to do some analysis to see where to speed tihngs up before I do some utxo consolidation, let mek now.
It's showing that on bitcoin-cli's output (and error code -8) upong requesting it getnewaddress of 'bech32m' type (in what seems an API feature unpromised by `help getnewaddress`, but somehow treated because the error message doesn't just tell 'Unknown address type'.)
shasum on linux has an option to ignore invalid input, which was used on the BitcoinCore.org instructions. For OSX, there's no such option, and I wonder if you could just insert a line in the SHASUMS file that said "bitcoin-22.0.blah.tar.gz SUCCESS" and make it look like it passed or something. For the Windows instructions, I think you had to do by-eye verification anyway.
IIUC at least some of these signers are not using dedicated bitcoin signing keys, and thus may use the same key for signing emails or whatnot.