💬 Raimo33 commented on pull request "common: Make arith_uint256 trivially copyable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33332#issuecomment-3264520866)
Concept ACK:
the compiler can now generate constexpr constructors and better optimize.

Approach NACK
I think it's more explicit to use the `= default` syntax.

💬 Raimo33 commented on pull request "[IBD] specialize CheckBlock's input & coinbase checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31682#issuecomment-3264550939)
Concept ACK.

will review soon. quick notes in the meantime: I'm a fan of the simpler std::vector approach, I'm not a fan of having a special case for coinbase.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "doc: update multisig tutorial to use multipath descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33286#discussion_r2329241651)
nit: you could use `./build/bin/bitcoin rpc` instead. This removes the need for `-named` elsewhere in the tutorial.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "doc: update multisig tutorial to use multipath descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33286#discussion_r2329248026)
You could also drop `/0/*` because it's not part of the origin. Then later on where you use the xpub, add `/<0;1>/*`.

👍 Sjors approved a pull request: "doc: update multisig tutorial to use multipath descriptors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33286#pullrequestreview-3195114640)
utACK 5424b4f1ce74c82b7ae01034bbc1592088048128

I didn't test the tutorial.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "multiprocess: Don't require bitcoin -m argument when IPC options are used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33229#issuecomment-3264796807)
Looks like Windows CI is still unhappy:

```
File "D:\a\bitcoin\bitcoin/test/functional/tool_bitcoin.py", line 62, in run_test
self.test_args([], [], expect_exe="bitcoind")
```

Maybe @hebasto has an idea?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "assumevalid: log every script validation state change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32975#discussion_r2329269037)
After some usage I agree that we should always just log it, it's not intuitive to see:
```
2025-09-08T05:58:02Z Assuming ancestors of block 00000000000000000000611fd22f2df7c8fbd0688745c3a6c3bb5109cc2a12cb have valid signatures.
...
2025-09-08T05:58:39Z Enabling signature validations at block #738580 (00000000000000000003f5264e65db4f2db7ab624c19e8a27403df3ca069e8ab).
```

where 00000000000000000000611fd22f2df7c8fbd0688745c3a6c3bb5109cc2a12cb is 912683 and yet sigature verification was enab
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "RFC: coins: warn on oversized `-dbcache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33333#issuecomment-3264818576)
Concept ACK

Tested on my M4 macOS machine that is shows the warning. It gets buried in the log, but I think it's a good start, and at least it will help people figure out why their node crashed after the fact.

📝 l0rinc opened a pull request: "validation: log initial signature verification state"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336)
### Summary

I noticed this when one of my benchmarks suddenly took several times the original execution and the log lines didn't indicate that somehow script verification got turned on from the beginning (might be related to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31494).

### Fix

Always emit the first signature verification state line; other messages like "Assuming ancestors of block ..." do not accurately indicate whether checks are enabled, so users cannot infer the script validatio
...

💬 Raimo33 commented on pull request "[IBD] specialize CheckBlock's input & coinbase checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31682#issuecomment-3264846277)
> The bar should be pretty high for touching such critical code.

I agree but I argue the changes proposed are small enough that this should be seriously considered for merge. the diff makes it hard to grasp, but few actually changed, and for the best.
I'm debated on cae4bb877f9ef1350825ed42a9b97090d5920d39, but for the rest, Concept ACK, Approach ACK, ACK d28302fa2c09c2eac3daad7116dc9812fe01928b.

I've ran the tests and double checked the logic.

```shell
taskset -c 1 ./bench_bitcoin --
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "clang-tidy: Disable `UndefinedBinaryOperatorResult` check in `src/ipc`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33312#issuecomment-3264846807)
ACK 589b65f06c3376df4cde3fac5c1d39a2d3254920

Is it possible to move this into the capnp subdirectory to further narrow the scope of this exception?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "[DRAFT] Expose AssumeUTXO Load Snapshot Functionality To The GUI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/870#issuecomment-3264907575)
I'm a bit confused about the relation between this and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33117. I would suggest rebasing 60f676abf54a454361ae9f5dd17509ec929acbac on that branch for clarity.

💬 deyvid61 commented on pull request "Release: 30.0 translations update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33275#issuecomment-3264962944)
6tt4r

🤔 yuvicc reviewed a pull request: "log: always print initial signature verification state"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336#pullrequestreview-3195377066)
Concept ACK.

The approach of switching to `std::optional<bool>` here avoids the overhead of atomic operations relying on `cs_main` for synchronization makes sense.

<details> <summary>Initial script verification state is always logged without unnecessary complexity.</summary>

```bash
2025-09-08T07:43:58Z Disabling signature validations at block #16893 (00000000113c355415c3417c734a45b62790b91b41ff08028580254c584f5ea8).
```

</details>

🤔 Sjors reviewed a pull request: "Interfaces: Expose UTXO Snapshot Loading and Add Progress Notifications"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33117#pullrequestreview-3195338293)
At first glance this looks very reasonable. I also tested it in the (current) GUI with https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/870

I had a similar concern as @ryanofsky about how to go about passing the snapshot file (path) over the interface. The current approach in 3c8b578836dd0d8438a8aac81a1166df84811562 is the same as how we handle wallet backups, so probably fine?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Interfaces: Expose UTXO Snapshot Loading and Add Progress Notifications":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33117#discussion_r2329435219)
In 3c8b578836dd0d8438a8aac81a1166df84811562 _interfaces: expose UTXO snapshot loading in node interface_: a good way to add test coverage to this new interface would be to use it in the `loadtxoutset` RPC.

For an example, see the various uses of `EnsureMining(node);`

📝 Snezhkko opened a pull request: "chore: compare against keys.size() in writeObject comma check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33337)
Replace values.size() with keys.size() in the comma condition inside UniValue::writeObject. The loop iterates over keys.size(), and other UniValue methods consistently treat keys and values as parallel arrays. Using keys.size() here ensures internal consistency, avoids relying on the implicit invariant that keys.size() == values.size(

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "RFC: blocks: add `-reobfuscate-blocks` arg to xor existing blk/rev on startup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33324#issuecomment-3265136162)
Concept ACK

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "RFC: coins: warn on oversized `-dbcache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33333#issuecomment-3265143719)
Concept ACK

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Update libmultiprocess subtree to improve build and logs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33322)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "build: indefinite mpgen hang on Ubuntu 22.04"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33176)