🤔 willcl-ark reviewed a pull request: "Mempool: persist mempoolminfee accross restarts"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27859#pullrequestreview-1477104823)
I like the approach here and think persisting mempool min fee is useful. I also agree that re-using fee_estimates.dat would make sense for it, as it likely doesn't need its own file.

Left a few nits and suggestions inline.

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Mempool: persist mempoolminfee accross restarts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27859#discussion_r1228086493)
An alternative could be to also set `rollingMinimumFeeRate`, and then also set`lastRollingFeeUpdate` to the timestamp of the min fee dump, and then just let `GetMinFee() run its exponential backoff algorithm as per normal?

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Mempool: persist mempoolminfee accross restarts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27859#discussion_r1228088807)
nit: same here re. comments (and a few more places).

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Mempool: persist mempoolminfee accross restarts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27859#discussion_r1228088500)
nit: I think the code is clear enough here that comments aren't really needed?

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Mempool: persist mempoolminfee accross restarts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27859#discussion_r1228094327)
I would agree that it makes sense to dump into fee_estimates.dat.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1228135411)
I don't understand what this scenario has to do with this case. A will be accepted, then B rejected, then B+C rejected, all for having package feerates lower than 10 sat/vbyte.

👍 MarcoFalke approved a pull request: "test: (refactor) Use datadir from options in chainstatemanager test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27876#pullrequestreview-1477197363)
lgtm ACK d54819d74e04e6105c1f0362755f5bcfa845eefd

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: (refactor) Use datadir from options in chainstatemanager test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27876#discussion_r1228144723)
review note, this creates a copy and is not a reference, thus safe

💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet: Give deprecation warning when loading a legacy wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27869#issuecomment-1589349516)
Concept ACK

💬 glozow commented on issue "Intermittent failures in interface_usdt_mempool.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27380#issuecomment-1589359272)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6053265947754496 ? 😢

💬 dimitaracev commented on pull request "build: suppress external warnings by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27872#discussion_r1228179276)
Did you mean `default is to suppress`?

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "build: make sure we can overwrite config.{guess,sub} before doing so":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27875#issuecomment-1589385892)
Concept ACK

I've been having this issue on my machine, will test.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "test: Add unit & functional test coverage for blockstore":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27850#discussion_r1228189310)
The actual error ends up being generic:

```
Error: A fatal internal error occurred, see debug.log for details
```

and actually before #27708 was merged yesterday, this code was even more messy!


The problem I'm having now is with CI: on only a few of the test platforms bitcoind does not crash as expected. This means that either the python line `os.chmod(...)` is not working to change the permissions of the `.blk` file OR for whatever reason the OS is happy to `open()` files with `rb
...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838#discussion_r1211719573)
nit: spurious?

💬 darosior commented on pull request "descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838#discussion_r1211693431)
nit (here and below): redundant to check for emptiness before asserting the size is 1

💬 darosior commented on pull request "descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838#discussion_r1211675298)
Looks spurious?

💬 darosior commented on pull request "descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838#discussion_r1226847502)
Let's also cover Miniscript (along with `wsh`)?
```diff
diff --git a/src/test/descriptor_tests.cpp b/src/test/descriptor_tests.cpp
index 3ea8d63ab3..adbaf48e77 100644
--- a/src/test/descriptor_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/descriptor_tests.cpp
@@ -710,6 +710,31 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(descriptor_test)
{{6, 0}, {6, 1}, {6, 2}, {3, 0, 0}, {3, 0, 1}, {3, 0, 2}, {0, 0, 5, 0}, {0, 0, 5, 1}, {0, 0, 5, 2}},
}
);
+ CheckMultipath("wsh(or_d(pk([2557c640/48h/1h/0
...

🤔 darosior reviewed a pull request: "descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838#pullrequestreview-1444202031)
ACK on most of the core logic. Just found a small mistake in the parsing of the multipath step in the derivation path. I also have a couple questions on the modifications to the RPC interface. The rest is nits, feel free to ignore them. Nice set of unit tests!

One almost-nit but important for posterity IMO is that all your commit messages mention the previous iteration of the BIP that only allowed for 2 paths (change and receive) and should be adapted to mention "multiple" paths to avoid conf
...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838#discussion_r1226858466)
The error is specific to 2-paths multipaths. But it's removed in a following commit anyways.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838#discussion_r1226766049)
Maybe worth checking across the branches of a Miniscript too?

```diff
diff --git a/src/test/descriptor_tests.cpp b/src/test/descriptor_tests.cpp
index 3ea8d63ab3..e1864652d8 100644
--- a/src/test/descriptor_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/descriptor_tests.cpp
@@ -716,6 +731,7 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(descriptor_test)
CheckUnparsable("tr(xprv9s21ZrQH143K2Zu2kTVKcQi9nKhfgJUkYqG73wXsHuhATm1wkt6kcSZeTYEw2PL7krZtJopEYDvBdYWdAai3n3TWUTCVfHvPHqTYJv7smYe/<6;7;8;9>/*,{pk(xprvA1RpRA33e1JQ7ifknakTFpg
...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838#discussion_r1226687559)
nit: s/subscripts/derivation paths/

I guess "subscripts" is a copy pasta from the `tr()` error?