💬 maflcko commented on pull request "depends: Bump to capnproto-c++-1.0.1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28735#issuecomment-1792658631)
Given that their CI uses cmake (and passes), maybe an alternative could be to try that?

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Simplify CTxMempool/BlockAssembler fields, remove some external mapTx access":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28391#issuecomment-1792665279)
Rebased 65839d6267af1f5e0e04aded72cbfa23b56a1237 -> fc5e4dea6ffa21191e852a79103a2dfc9c241df1 ([simplifyMemPoolInteractions_5](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/simplifyMemPoolInteractions_5) -> [simplifyMemPoolInteractions_6](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/simplifyMemPoolInteractions_6), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/simplifyMemPoolInteractions_5..simplifyMemPoolInteractions_6))

* Dropped the commit that was integrated in #28762 e3b2e630b2
...

💬 romanz commented on pull request "rpc: keep .cookie if it was not generated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28784#issuecomment-1792671356)
The bug can be reproduced manually by starting `bitcoind` twice, resulting in a missing `.cookie` file:
```
$ bitcoind -signet &
...
2023-11-03T15:38:09Z Using random cookie authentication.
2023-11-03T15:38:09Z Generated RPC authentication cookie /home/user/.bitcoin/signet/.cookie
...

$ ls ~/.bitcoin/signet/.cookie
/home/user/.bitcoin/signet/.cookie

$ bitcoind -signet
Error: Cannot obtain a lock on data directory /home/user/.bitcoin/signet. Bitcoin Core is probably already running
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: Bump to capnproto-c++-1.0.1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28735#issuecomment-1792674010)
> maybe an alternative could be to try that?

I don't think so? What they are doing only (genearting MinGW Makefiles) only works if you're running on Windows, as far as I can tell. That CI job is running on `Microsoft Windows Server 2022`, from what I can see.

🤔 murchandamus reviewed a pull request: "MiniMiner changes for package linearization"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#pullrequestreview-1712833868)
I guess now post-merge ACK d9cc99d04e813caed51c5f7b6ebdc4c39c8823c9

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "MiniMiner changes for package linearization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#discussion_r1381775670)
Would it be possible for these parameters to be in the same order as the assignments below?

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "MiniMiner changes for package linearization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#discussion_r1381839339)
It took me until the commit `[MiniMiner] track inclusion order and add Linearize() function` until I understood what this PR was aiming to achieve. Perhaps you could add another sentence to the PR description about the goal of this PR.

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "MiniMiner changes for package linearization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#discussion_r1381902909)
Isn’t it the parent that is fee-bumping?

```suggestion
// 3 pairs of grandparent + fee-bumping parent, plus 1 low-feerate child.
```

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "MiniMiner changes for package linearization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#discussion_r1381893848)
Do we not know any outpoints or do we just not know whether the ancestor transactions of the submitted set are confirmed?

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "MiniMiner changes for package linearization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#discussion_r1381826714)
I also found `manual_entries` vs `m_entries` make me check back a couple times. My understanding is that the `manual_entries` are just fully specified rather than read from the mempool. Would maybe `manually_submitted_entries` fit the bill?

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "MiniMiner changes for package linearization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#discussion_r1381819567)
Is it important that these descendants are cached? Could they maybe just be `descendants`? The `cached_descendants` vs `descendant_caches` is a bit confusing.

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#pullrequestreview-1713009811)
Code review ACK dfb58e4

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1381905163)
In 97de2a4af:
A note explaining why this is not needed would be nice.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1381885030)
nit:
Could also check that all active descriptors have this new xprv.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "build: remove `-bind_at_load` usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28783#issuecomment-1792745633)
Yuck. The only thing I can think of is a sledgehammer hack similar to this ancient one:
a98356fee8a44d7d1cb37f22c876fff8f244365e

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1381951356)
I don't think this is a substantially useful optimization, and it still results in mixing upgrading code with the loading which I would rather not do.

📝 glozow opened a pull request: "validation: return more helpful results for reconsiderable fee failures and skipped transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28785)
Split off from #26711 (suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#issuecomment-1786392253). This is part of #27463.

- Add 2 new TxValidationResults
- `TX_SINGLE_FAILURE` helps us encode transactions who have failed fee checks that can be bypassed using package validation. This is distinguished from `TX_MEMPOOL_POLICY` so that we re-validate a transaction if and only if it is eligible for package CPFP.
- `TX_UNKNOWN` helps us communicate that we aborted package validation
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#issuecomment-1792767373)
> add TX_SINGLE_FAILURE / TX_UNKNOWN + tests (+ package-fee-too-low?)

This has been split off in #28785

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1381955563)
Changed to "must"

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1381956847)
Changed to `MarkAsInMempool` to also include the case where it has been found as well as the case where we have submitted it.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1381957028)
Taken