dogecoin VS Bitcoin

imho you need to know the tx size and then calculate it: https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/blob/master/doc/fee-recommendation.md

This effects us right now see https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/discussions/2264 where the dogecoin devs are proposing 1.21 as a softfork upgrade. Not only do softforks in general have the risks I just mentioned, but the devs are intending to introduce segwit either in 1.21 or subsequently. Segwit can and will be gamed just like taproot has been. IMO we need to set dogecoin on a straightforward path of casting aside segwit and lightning and pursuing transaction throughput by reducing blocktime and increasing blocksize. Let the devs know how you feel about segwit and following bitcoin's (risky) development path in general, in the github link above.

Probably this depends on what you want to do. It is my understanding that the devs use regtest to check all functions after changing some of the core wallet's code (all local). This will create a new blockchain where you can do all the test from (https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/tree/master/src/test). But I am also not sure about this (;

Absolutely, because what we're doing is trying to catch up on 4 years of very intensive Bitcoin development. Recent Bitcoin Core versions (such as the base we use for 1.21) are really good software and per the small discussion we had on GitHub, we would ideally wish this to become a stable base for Dogecoin to build further upon in the future. This is good because once that is done, contributors will no longer see all their work deleted with every major release.

Anyway, to give a recent and practical example: when I was re-testing Victor's wallet compatibility fix that we merged last week, I found that the regtest network in 1.21 was much more incompatible with 1.14 than I expected based on comments made in previous PRs and we cannot automatically test for regressions cross-version until it is fixed.

Unfortunately I hadn't thought this through when we worked on 1.10 back in 2015 (I too am a dumb) so now we're having it custom for dogecoin... Many wallets however are suspected to NOT implement Dogecoin's prefixes and just use Bitcoin prefixes, which should work fine.

I think the last time I saw Comic Sans used in any software as a main font was when I compiled dogecoin[1]. Can't remember any before that.

[1] https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin

After that - anything. I promised before that as we get closer to a release, I will re-propose a softfork plan and I intend to keep that. It will NOT be the same plan that I posted 16 months ago because reality has changed quite a lot since then, but I will try to make it a good and open plan, that - in the tradition of the plans I've been putting out since a year or so now - furthers decentralization and operator freedom.

Also, I found the link to the actual github page that the code is from. Line 1528

Du kan læse hvordan mening fungerer her: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/rpc/mining.cpp

No, there are not different “standard transaction” rules between mempool policy and consensus. The Bitcoin Core source code defines a set of rules, which are applied to both transactions in the mempool and transactions included in blocks. These rules are designed to ensure that transactions are valid and properly formatted according to the Bitcoin protocol. The rules for txinput scripts (scriptSig) are the same for both mempool policy and consensus, and they apply to all versions of Bitcoin, including legacy, SegWit, and Taproot. The Bitcoin Core source code contains a set of tests, which are used to determine if a transaction is valid and properly formatted according to the Bitcoin protocol. The rules applied in the testnet are the same as those applied in mainnet. However, a testnet node can be configured to apply mainnet rules by setting the -testnet flag. The source code for the mempool policy isStandard tests can be found in the Bitcoin Core repository at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/src/policy. The source code for the consensus rules for rejecting non-standard transactions can be found in the Bitcoin Core repository at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/src/consensus.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin ?

This is very interesting. I hope this puts the fire under more hardware wallets to support arbitrary scripts. It would be nice if you could give an even quicker test descriptor to load. I'm not super familiar with miniscript, and trying one of the example descriptors on the bitcoin repo (eg pk(0279be667ef9dcbbac55a06295ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798)) doesn't seem to be valid miniscript. In messing with it for a bit, I wasn't able to find a descriptor that would load so I could play with the rest of the interface.

This is also heavily based on Michael Goldstein article and Bitcoin MacOS Build Guide