Skip to content

Newsletters: add 400 (2026-04-10)#2707

Open
bitschmidty wants to merge 5 commits intobitcoinops:masterfrom
bitschmidty:2026-03-10-newsletter
Open

Newsletters: add 400 (2026-04-10)#2707
bitschmidty wants to merge 5 commits intobitcoinops:masterfrom
bitschmidty:2026-03-10-newsletter

Conversation

@bitschmidty
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@bitschmidty bitschmidty commented Apr 3, 2026

@bitschmidty bitschmidty self-assigned this Apr 3, 2026
Comment on lines +76 to +77
store recovery hints, such as a birthday height to speed up
[silent payment][topic silent payments] scanning.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would suggest to rephrase: this will speed up any wallet’s scanning, not just ones that use silent payments, although it is especially relevant for silent payments because the scanning cost is much higher.

Comment on lines +84 to +85
[tapscript][topic tapscript] version that restores opcodes disabled in 2010
such as [OP_CAT][topic op_cat] (see [Newsletter #374][news374 tapscript]).
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perhaps the connection of the two BIPs could be clarified by adding something along the lines of:

Suggested change
[tapscript][topic tapscript] version that restores opcodes disabled in 2010
such as [OP_CAT][topic op_cat] (see [Newsletter #374][news374 tapscript]).
[tapscript][topic tapscript] version that restores opcodes disabled in 2010
such as [OP_CAT][topic op_cat] (see [Newsletter #374][news374 tapscript]) and limits script evaluation costs per the Varops budget introduced in BIP440.

Comment on lines +87 to +92
- [BIPs #2134][] updates [BIP352][] ([silent payments][topic silent payments]) to
warn wallet developers not to let policy filtering, such as for
[dust][topic uneconomical outputs], affect whether scanning continues after a
match is found. Treating a filtered-out output as if there were no match can
cause the wallet to prematurely stop scanning and miss later outputs from the
same sender.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don’t think this is newsworthy. It’s just a non-functional change that clarifies to implementers how to correctly scan in exceedingly rare circumstances.

@stickies-v
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

I think the file was accidentally named 2026-03-10-newsletter.md so I pushed a fixup to rename it to 2026-04-10-newsletter.md

@stickies-v
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Added a review club summary mirroring a previous edition: https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2024/09/13/

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants