💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: enable `readability-container-contains` clang-tidy rule":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34095#issuecomment-3670692392)
Reverted the boost changes (already merged and new ones), clang-tidy should still pass.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "scripted-diff: [doc] Unify stale copyright headers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34084#issuecomment-3670703429)
ACK fa4cb13b52030c2e55c6bea170649ab69d75f758

⚠️ fanquake opened an issue: "p2p: `seed.bitcoin.sipa.be` is down"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/34104)
```bash
./check-dnsseeds.py
* mainnet
FAIL seed.bitcoin.sipa.be
OK dnsseed.bluematt.me (31 results)
OK dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes.us (35 results)
OK seed.bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch (24 results)
<snip>
```

💬 fanquake commented on issue "p2p: `seed.bitcoin.sipa.be` is down":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/34104#issuecomment-3670729702)
cc @sipa

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "refactor: enable `readability-container-contains` clang-tidy rule"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34095)

📝 l0rinc opened a pull request: "kernel: revert accidentally removed copyright header"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34105)
See:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/7990463b1059ba5fc4ebe37fd1105a9e168ae20d?diff=split#diff-04e685224f1ac5bfd91d47d8d7528a2e44f94fab5535d4b6b5af79b5a13aeb93L1-L12

The author mentioned it was likely a bad rebase.

Found while reviewing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34084#issuecomment-3670396535

💬 theuni commented on pull request "net: Waste less time in socket handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34025#issuecomment-3670774799)
Post-merge ACK 5f5c1ea01955d277581f6c2acbeb982949088960. Nits aside, both of these are nice cleanups.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "kernel: revert accidentally removed copyright header":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34105#issuecomment-3670801358)
ACK 85314dc0bf871226c0e43446bb79f49630d15f4a

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "kernel: revert accidentally removed copyright header"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34105)

💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "fuzz: Add fuzz target for block index tree and related validation events":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31533#discussion_r2631512181)
I was assuming that directly calling `ActivateBestChain` wouldn't work in a fuzz test due to certain things not being mocked out, but I wonder if it's possible to instead call it and not have to re-implement it here?

💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "fuzz: Add fuzz target for block index tree and related validation events":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31533#issuecomment-3670814276)
reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/db2d39f642979f929261e5f1cd67f0c2f2ca045f

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add initial vectorized chacha20 implementation for 2-3x speedup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34083#discussion_r2631524729)
@l0rinc As the code is written at the moment, all platforms must opt-in to vectorization as opposed to opting out. I'm not sure that's the best approach, but I figured that was a reasonable starting point.

My reasoning for that was: consider non-x86, non-arm+neon platforms. For the most part, I'm assuming they're under-powered. Enabling (for example) 4x blocks/sec for mipsel would probably cause a drastic slowdown. Obviously there are lots of other powerful platforms, but I figured those woul
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: Add fuzz target for block index tree and related validation events"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31533)

💬 sipa commented on issue "p2p: `seed.bitcoin.sipa.be` is down":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/34104#issuecomment-3670853633)
I don't see anything wrong with it, and `check-dnsseeds.py` works for me.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "p2p: `seed.bitcoin.sipa.be` is down"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/34104)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "p2p: `seed.bitcoin.sipa.be` is down":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/34104#issuecomment-3670863688)
Could be a local issue.

💬 joshdoman commented on pull request "kernel: Expose reusable `PrecomputedTransactionData` in script validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33891#discussion_r2631558465)
Hmm, I'm open to removing the word "efficient." I included it because `PrecomputedTransactionData` is strictly unnecessary for non-taproot input verification, but it does make verification faster over multiple inputs.

That may be self-explanatory. If so, we can definitely change the description to `Create precomputed transaction data for script verification.`

👍 ismaelsadeeq approved a pull request: "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#pullrequestreview-3593444540)
Code review ACK 2de0ce5cd85e1b99e318883964df318ffb615fe4 👾

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#discussion_r2631432438)


In "util: introduce general purpose thread pool”
258518d880e81938fcd9672b37bc640e8a06c930

This comment is incorrect because this check alone is not sufficient to guarantee that `Stop()` is never called from a worker thread.

Consider the following scenario: `Stop()` is called both from a worker thread and from a non-worker thread sequentially. The call from outside the pool may execute first (unless the caller explicitly waits on the future from the thread pool `Stop()`). The non thread pool
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "netif: fix compilation warning in QueryDefaultGatewayImpl()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34093#issuecomment-3670881044)
> I am not sure why there is no "comparison of integers of different signs" on Linux:
>
> ```c++
> #define NLMSG_OK(nlh,len) ((len) >= (int)sizeof(struct nlmsghdr) && \
> (nlh)->nlmsg_len >= sizeof(struct nlmsghdr) && \
> (nlh)->nlmsg_len <= (len))
> ```
>
> We pass `int64_t` for `len`. The first comparison checks it against `(int)sizeof(...`, but the 3rd comparison checks it against `nlmsg_len` which is `__u32`, so no matter what t
...

💬 Bicaru20 commented on pull request "test: address self-announcement":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34039#issuecomment-3670886818)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/1841bf9cb67bca99273b3efa38633113422f5882