mentioned in: bitcoin#35580
bitcoin#35580 (review)
"Approach ACK
A chunk whose sigop-adjusted weight exceeds the actual weight can be wrongly skipped even though the block sigop limit is enforced independently on the next line, and that could pass. Those chunks pay higher fees, so this could potentially cause miners to needlessly forfeit some fees revenue.
It seems that the sigop-adjusted weight was designed purely for ordering (fee-rate priority), not for limit checking. Block validity depends on real weight and real sigops
— two separate physical constraints. The fix checks each with the right metric:
- Weight limit → real weight ✓
- Sigops limit → real sigop count ✓
These were already independent checks, the bug was just feeding the wrong number into the first one.
Tested indirectly through CreateNewBlock, building a transaction that demonstrates the bug (excluded before fix, included after).
Issue 1 from bitcoin#35596 (>= → > in TestChunkBlockLimits) seems like a natural follow-up — same function, similar pattern for the test." - pablomartin4btc
mentioned in: bitcoin#35580
bitcoin#35580 (review)
"Approach ACK
It seems that the sigop-adjusted weight was designed purely for ordering (fee-rate priority), not for limit checking. Block validity depends on real weight and real sigops
— two separate physical constraints. The fix checks each with the right metric:
These were already independent checks, the bug was just feeding the wrong number into the first one.
Tested indirectly through
CreateNewBlock, building a transaction that demonstrates the bug (excluded before fix, included after).Issue 1 from bitcoin#35596 (
>=→>inTestChunkBlockLimits) seems like a natural follow-up — same function, similar pattern for the test." - pablomartin4btc