1cf9b35c0dac5f685b7ae62ded16284803816570 doc: Add developer note on c_str() (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
Pull request description:
Add a note when to use and when not to use `c_str()`.
ACKs for top commit:
elichai:
ACK 1cf9b35c0dac5f685b7ae62ded16284803816570
MarcoFalke:
Looking nice ACK 1cf9b35c0dac5f685b7ae62ded16284803816570
Tree-SHA512: 38cb5e54695782c23a82d03db214a8999b5bb52553f4fbe5322281686f42616981a217ba987feb6d87f3e6b95919cadd8484efe69ecc364ba1731aaf173626c9
9075d13153ce06cd59a45644831ecc43126e1e82 [docs] Add release notes for removal of REJECT reasons (John Newbery)
04a2f326ec0f06fb4fce1c4f93500752f05dede8 [validation] Fix REJECT message comments (John Newbery)
e9d5a59e34ff2d538d8f5315efd9908bf24d0fdc [validation] Remove REJECT code from CValidationState (John Newbery)
0053e16714323c1694c834fdca74f064a1a33529 [logging] Don't log REJECT code when transaction is rejected (John Newbery)
a1a07cfe99fc8cee30ba5976dc36b47b1f6532ab [validation] Fix peer punishment for bad blocks (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
We no longer send BIP 61 REJECT messages, so there's no need to set
a REJECT code in the CValidationState object.
Note that there is a minor bug fix in p2p behaviour here. Because the
call to `MaybePunishNode()` in `PeerLogicValidation::BlockChecked()` only
previously happened if the REJECT code was > 0 and < `REJECT_INTERNAL`,
then there are cases were `MaybePunishNode()` can get called where it
wasn't previously:
- when `AcceptBlockHeader()` fails with `CACHED_INVALID`.
- when `AcceptBlockHeader()` fails with `BLOCK_MISSING_PREV`.
Note that `BlockChecked()` cannot fail with an 'internal' reject code. The
only internal reject code was `REJECT_HIGHFEE`, which was only set in
ATMP.
This reverts a minor bug introduced in 5d08c9c579ba8cc7b684105c6a08263992b08d52.
ACKs for top commit:
ariard:
ACK 9075d13, changes since last reviewed are splitting them in separate commits to ease understanding and fix nits
fjahr:
ACK 9075d13153ce06cd59a45644831ecc43126e1e82, confirmed diff to last review was fixing nits in docs/comments.
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 9075d13153ce06cd59a45644831ecc43126e1e82. Only changes since last review are splitting the main commit and updating comments
Tree-SHA512: 58e8a1a4d4e6f156da5d29fb6ad6a62fc9c594bbfc6432b3252e962d0e9e10149bf3035185dc5320c46c09f3e49662bc2973ec759679c0f3412232087cb8a3a7
The original osslsigncode project (https://sourceforge.net/projects/osslsigncode/) has been marked as abandonware,
"This is now - and has been for a long while - abandonware. Feel free to create your own forks etc.".
However, a fork at https://github.com/mtrojnar/osslsigncode has emerged that has incorporated
theuni's patches, updated the tool to work with OpenSSL 1.1 and made other improvements.
This commit switches the windows signer descriptor to use this new version of osslsigncode.
fa6ed82794f4aecbd71667b5491edbbc4eaeaaef doc: update bips.md with buried BIP9 deployments (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Also, remove the activation heights, as they can be retrieved from `./src/chainparams.cpp` (if needed)
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fa6ed82794f4aecbd71667b5491edbbc4eaeaaef, needs backport to 0.19 I guess.
Tree-SHA512: 9c069cc14589a3e2309d76f042677c024a9e14d16dbfccef54c4a2963ca7853d01f042b0237e346538c557591b7553deed9dd811ba64bbd0ced88883d562c59a
86b9f92da25f2768eb29eefd6526320135f39a2f doc: Add detailed info about Bitcoin Core files (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
This PR:
- provides detailed info about the Bitcoin Core files;
- does not mention temporary files, e.g., `mempool.dat.new` and `peers.????`
ACKs for top commit:
ch4ot1c:
ACK 86b9f92
laanwj:
ACK 86b9f92da25f2768eb29eefd6526320135f39a2f
MarcoFalke:
ACK 86b9f92da25f2768eb29eefd6526320135f39a2f
Tree-SHA512: 9352119b08e3f6aaab4ce3797afc6533f90852e461957acb2bc73962fd4881403fabeaa5a371bd1218309f36f9b0f90fb147b80698e2e30a016634a62a160a15
a54ab2104c82c41d17ca603999a9a03161eefc9e [doc] fix Makefile target in benchmarking.md (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
While the resulting binary is called `bench_bitcoin`, the Makefile target is
named `bitcoin_bench` (see `src/Makefile.bench.include`)
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK a54ab2104c82c41d17ca603999a9a03161eefc9e - Tested on macOS and Debian 9.9, as this only [seemed to work there](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16536#discussion_r310366868) when these docs were added.
Tree-SHA512: bcf8d48ccba488f0533111a3be57ddc6c948b3a38beed129635e1c7e0b4608bc9ddf625e8469606bb31d4cedf3341c443564a197d6b1ab5268a9ed44ed5018a3
fa25f43ac5692082dba3f90456c501eb08f1b75c p2p: Remove BIP61 reject messages (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Reject messages (BIP 61) appear in the following settings:
* Parsing of reject messages (in case `-debug=net` is set, off by default). This has only been used for a single `LogPrint` call for several releases now. Such logging is completely meaningless to us and should thus be removed.
* The sending of reject messages (in case `-enablebip61` is set, off by default). This can be used to debug a node that is under our control. Instead of hacking this debugging into the p2p protocol, it could be more easily achieved by parsing the debug log. (Use `-printtoconsole` to have it as stream, or read from the `debug.log` file like our python function `assert_debug_log` in the test framework does)
Having to maintain all of this logic and code to accommodate debugging, which can be achieved by other means a lot easier, is a burden. It makes review on net processing changes a lot harder, since the reject message logic has to be carried around without introducing any errors or DOS vectors.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
utACK fa25f43ac5692082dba3f90456c501eb08f1b75c
laanwj:
I'm still not 100% convinced that I like getting rid of BIP61 conceptually, but apparently everyone wants it, code review ACK fa25f43ac5692082dba3f90456c501eb08f1b75c.
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK fa25f43ac5692082dba3f90456c501eb08f1b75c
Tree-SHA512: daf55254202925e56be3d6cfb3c1c804e7a82cecb1dd1e5bd7b472bae989fd68ac4f21ec53fc46751353056fd645f7f877bebcb0b40920257991423a3d99e0be
faca1c24f9e1a3c03dbaea1753d54047846ae0a9 doc: move-only: Steps for "before major release branch-off" (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The chainparams are updated before branch-off, so that the master branch has the bumped values as well
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK faca1c24f9e1a3c03dbaea1753d54047846ae0a9
Tree-SHA512: ffc3ea49f0f6dc64dd9bea958e12ebc058496291c1c06d02994b3bf1751602e7c5000fd5eda166fcdbf9ba6d593e19731e93342dd8f2fe410f656a798bef459c
ea4cc3a7b36a9c77dbf0aff439da3ef0ea58e6e4 Truly decouple wallet from chainparams for -fallbackfee (Jorge Timón)
Pull request description:
Before it was 0 by default for main and 20000 for test and regtest.
Now it is 0 by default for all chains, thus there's no need to call Params().
Also now the default for main is properly documented.
Suggestion for release notes:
-fallbackfee was 0 (disabled) by default for the main chain, but 20000 by default for the test chains. Now it is 0 by default for all chains. Testnet and regtest users will have to add fallbackfee=20000 to their configuration if they weren't setting it and they want it to keep working like before.
Should I propose them to the wiki for the release notes or only after merge?
For more context, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16402#issuecomment-515701042
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK ea4cc3a7b36a9c77dbf0aff439da3ef0ea58e6e4
Tree-SHA512: fdfaba5d813da4221e405e0988bef44f3856d10f897a94f9614386d14b7716f4326ab8a6646e26d41ef3f4fa61b936191e216b1b605e9ab0520b0657fc162e6c
Before it was 0 by default for main and 20000 for test and regtest.
Now it is 0 by default for all chains, thus there's no need to call Params().
Also now the default for main is properly documented
fa3d98426b35c0ece2853ce9fe46acd46f678ba3 doc: Consolidate release notes before 0.19.0 (MarcoFalke)
fa02f2d607d66fd324a78fcfd4b6612742ee3ee2 doc: Add missing release notes for 16383 (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK fa3d98426b35c0ece2853ce9fe46acd46f678ba3 - these can get massaged / nitted to death in the wiki.
Tree-SHA512: a08f6e5990bf1f2d15939142e14887582899fb2f71962a52a4a2db13e0643c70486193cd1b28a18099dadbe87d045a192d2546793f30551b5151f410b03907fa
fa3a7331160d1a460b1c15fca1810e98070d629c chainparams: Bump assumed chain params (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
As every year, reviewers get extra point when their node is running:
* `assumevalid=0`
* `checkpoints=0`
* on non-x86_64 hardware
See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-process.md#before-every-major-and-minor-release for the process.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fa3a7331160d1a460b1c15fca1810e98070d629c
Sjors:
ACK fa3a7331160d1a460b1c15fca1810e98070d629c for mainnet on macOS 10.14.6.
jamesob:
ACK fa3a733116
fanquake:
ACK fa3a7331160d1a460b1c15fca1810e98070d629c - checked the mainnet values. I have notes on reviewing `assumevalid` updates in [core-review](https://github.com/fanquake/core-review/blob/master/update-assumevalid.md).
Tree-SHA512: fc545ba0a7056908040b47076b393d028c1c022967c25a2074752f76f0386ef099a64445da6125117a04418bd7eb0655121bfc94e6f60b7bc2666947491b5228
eb4c43e49f625895670866b89bb56ca641c4eeb7 doc: documents how to calculate m_assumed_blockchain_size and m_assumed_chain_state_size on the release process. (marcoagner)
Pull request description:
Regarding [this](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15183#issuecomment-463133734) on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15183.
Added an "Additional information" section for this which seems reasonable to me but may not be the best place for this. Also, let me know if anything else should be documented here (like more details).
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK eb4c43e49f625895670866b89bb56ca641c4eeb7
Tree-SHA512: 7e6fc46740daa01dd9be5a8da7846e7a9f7fa866bf31fdc2cb252f90c698cfd6ef954f9588f7abcebda2355ec2b2a380635e14a164e53e77d38abefa3e2cc698
Move qt translations to a separate make include file.
This makes it easier to auto-generate this list from tooling
(see bitcoin-core/bitcoin-maintainer-tools#36).
c0b5d9710322a614a50ab5da081558cf6a38ad2a Test that joinpsbts randomly shuffles the inputs (Andrew Chow)
6f405a1d3b38395e35571b68aae55cae50e0762a Shuffle inputs and outputs after joining psbts (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
`joinpsbts` currently just adds the inputs and outputs in the order of that the PSBTs were provided. This makes it extremely easy to identify which outputs belong to which inputs. This PR changes that so that all of the inputs and outputs are shuffled in the joined transaction.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
utACK c0b5d97103
jonatack:
ACK c0b5d9710322a614a50ab5da081558cf6a38ad2a modulo suggestions for later.
Tree-SHA512: 14a0b7aae07d92e6d2c76a3a3b228b481e1964cb7d34f97515bdda18e2ea05a9f97c5a22affc143b86ae8b95c3cb239849fb54219d65512bc2112264dca915c8
