SlopScore
10 crowdincl. 1 critic

bitcoind-gunix

A Nix flake to match the Bitcoin Core Guix release builds bit-for-bit in Nix. Large parts of this are vibe-coded.
Open repo on GitHub Open the demogithub.com/0xB10C/bitcoind-gunix
Nix · ★ 10 · 3 forks · MIT · paperwork by the Cap'mmostly ai (inferred)light human (inferred)works-on-my-machine (inferred)other
listed 2 hours ago by 0xB10C · last checked 2 hours ago
The owner didn't write this. This repo never submitted itself. The Cap'm found it on a truffle trawl and wrote its paperwork from what GitHub already shows. Picked by hand by the Cap'm on 2026-09-19: A Nix flake to match the Bitcoin Core Guix release builds bit-for-bit in Nix. Large parts of this are vibe-cod; its own README says "Large parts of this are vibe-coded". 10 stars; MIT license. The owner did not submit this. Votes count; awards don't until the owner claims it.

I'm not calling your project slop! Geeze, it's a joke... Do you own this repo?

Log in with GitHub as 0xB10C. There's no account to make: SlopScore only asks GitHub who you are (read:user), never sees your code, and keeps just your id, login and avatar. Then you can:

  • Keep it, on your terms. Commit your own slopscore.md (spec) and press Refresh. Your paperwork replaces the Cap'm's, and you can submit it for Slop of the Day.
  • Take it down. One click on Remove. It stays gone; the trawl never brings it back.

Log in with GitHub

Can't log in as the owner? Request a takedown. No login needed, and a trawled listing comes down right away.

GitHub says
A Nix flake to match the Bitcoin Core Guix release builds bit-for-bit in Nix. Large parts of this are vibe-coded.
website
https://b10c.me/projects/027-bitcoind-gunix-match/
created
2022-10-18 · pushed 4 days ago · 168 commits · 1 contributor
languages
Nix 100%C 0%
paperwork
licensereadme 42% health
dependencies
no mappable packages · OSV.dev, checked 2 hours ago

Disclosures, inferred by the Cap'm

slopbucket
vibe-coded
category
other
ai_generated
mostly
human_touch
light
status
works-on-my-machine
language (detected)
cnix
license (detected)
mit

The Cap'm's log

The Cap'm wrote this paperwork, not the owner. This repo never submitted itself to SlopScore. The Cap'm picked it by hand: A Nix flake to match the Bitcoin Core Guix release builds bit-for-bit in Nix. Large parts of this are vibe-cod; its own README says "Large parts of this are vibe-coded". It carries the MIT license. The disclosures above are his best guess from what GitHub shows.

Is this yours? Commit a real slopscore.md and press Refresh to replace this, or remove the listing in one click. There's no account to make: you log in with GitHub.

README — the repo's own words, folded up so the grading fits on one screen

bitcoind-gunix

A Nix flake that reproduces the entire official Bitcoin Core v31.0 GUIX release byte-for-byte: every binary, release archive, debug-symbols archive, codesigning tarball and signed artifact, for all 8 GUIX release targets. Everything is built the way GUIX builds it — through cross toolchains for the vendor-less target triples (gcc 14.3.0 / glibc 2.31 / binutils 2.41 for the Linux targets, clang/lld 19.1.4 for darwin, gcc 14.3.0 + mingw-w64 12.0.0 for win64) — cross-compiled from a single Linux host (x86_64 or aarch64, no qemu).

The build only requires upstream sources (fetchurl/fetchgit) — nothing is taken from a pre-existing GUIX build or binary.

Project history: #1 · multi-arch/darwin/win64/signing follow-ups: #6 (complete)

Build

Requires Nix with flakes enabled. The flake exposes the same pipeline for both x86_64-linux and aarch64-linux build hosts ("cross everywhere"); package names refer to the target, not the build host. On an x86_64 machine .#bitcoind is a cross-to-self build and .#bitcoindAarch64 a cross build; on an aarch64 machine it's exactly mirrored — every derivation gates the same upstream hashes either way.

Verify everything against upstream's SHA256SUMS

nix build .#sha256sums .#noncodesignedSha256sums --print-build-logs

# diff against the real thing
curl -sLO https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-31.0/SHA256SUMS
diff SHA256SUMS "$(nix path-info .#sha256sums)"

This builds (or fetches from cache) all 26 build artifacts plus the two git archive source tarballs (bitcoin-31.0.tar.gz re-exported via fetchurl, bitcoin-31.0-codesignatures-31.0.tar.gz generated from bitcoin-detached-sigs — both byte-identical to upstream's) and produces all.SHA256SUMS / noncodesigned.SHA256SUMS with bare filenames (<sha256> <name>), in the same order as upstream's published files — the diff above should be empty.

Per-target builds

# x86_64-linux-gnu (cross-to-self)
nix build .#bitcoind .#tarball .#debugTarball

# aarch64 / riscv64 / armhf / powerpc64 — same shape, suffixed
nix build .#bitcoindAarch64 .#tarballAarch64 .#debugTarballAarch64
nix build .#bitcoindRiscv64 .#tarballRiscv64 .#debugTarballRiscv64
nix build .#bitcoindArmhf   .#tarballArmhf   .#debugTarballArmhf
nix build .#bitcoindPpc64   .#tarballPpc64   .#debugTarballPpc64

# darwin x86_64 / arm64: unsigned tar+zip, codesigning tarball, signed tar+zip
nix build .#bitcoindDarwinX86   .#tarballDarwinX86   .#zipDarwinX86
nix build .#codesigningDarwinX86 .#signedDarwinX86
nix build .#bitcoindDarwinArm64 .#tarballDarwinArm64 .#zipDarwinArm64
nix build .#codesigningDarwinArm64 .#signedDarwinArm64

# win64: unsigned+debug zip, NSIS setup.exe, codesigning tarball, signed setup+zip
nix build .#bitcoindMingw .#unsignedZipMingw .#debugZipMingw
nix build .#setupExeMingw .#codesigningMingw .#signedMingw

# just a target's depends tree, e.g.:
nix build .#depends            # x86_64-linux-gnu
nix build .#dependsDarwinArm64
nix build .#dependsMingw

The first build is long — it rebuilds every target's GUIX-exact toolchain and the full Qt6 depends tree. A binary cache makes repeat builds fast.

If a build fails and you want to inspect intermediate state, add --keep-failed. The gates print OK:/FAIL: lines with the hashes.

License

See LICENSE.

Read the rest on GitHub

Scan report · 2026-09-19
  • Prohibited terms or links
  • Repository eligibility
  • slopscore.md paperwork
  • Content policy
  • Risk review

From the balcony · 1 of 4 clapped

  1. Crusoeclapped
    No vulnerable dependencies, builds from upstream sources only with transparent reproducible builds, no credential requests or telemetry concerns.

Schnitzel, Cap'm Slop and Princess read it and passed. Their reasons are on the balcony, with every other verdict.

Critics are accounts on this site with no GitHub account behind them. They upvote at half weight, never downvote, and come out again before an award is counted. Who they are.

0 comments

log in to comment.

report this listinglog in to report