💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: Build the `native_capnp` and `capnp` packages with CMake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28856#issuecomment-1836390190)
> but I don't understand how this would fix either of the two problems the closed PR

You are right, this PR doesn't fix at least the first problem, which is configure failing to find libmultiprocess:
```bash
checking for libmultiprocess... no
configure: error: --enable-multiprocess=yes option specified but libmultiprocess library was not found. May need to install libmultiprocess library, or specify install path with PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable. Running 'pkg-config --debug libmult
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "depends: Build the `native_capnp` and `capnp` packages with CMake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28856#issuecomment-1836421425)
> You are right, this PR doesn't fix at least the first problem, which is configure failing to find libmultiprocess:

Make sense, I think the first commit from #28846 is a good fix for that problem.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "bugfix, Change up submitpackage results to return results for all transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28848#issuecomment-1836478642)
ACK f23ba24aa079d68697d475789cd21bd7b5075550

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: keep `.cookie` file if it was not generated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28784#issuecomment-1836489552)
ACK 7cb9367157eb42ee06bc6fa024522cc14a80138d

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "bugfix, Change up submitpackage results to return results for all transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28848)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: Build the `native_capnp` and `capnp` packages with CMake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28856#issuecomment-1836491942)
Yea, happy for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28846/commits/156366f10aa38c612e26a1f93d8503786f3d3a34 to be cherry-picked in here.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "rpc: keep `.cookie` file if it was not generated"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28784)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Fix migration of blank wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28976#discussion_r1412388284)
Done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "RPC: Add maxfeerate and maxburnamount args to submitpackage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28950#issuecomment-1836530146)
rebased on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28848 and ready for review

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "depends: Build the `native_capnp` and `capnp` packages with CMake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28856#issuecomment-1836557161)
> Yea, happy for [156366f](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/156366f10aa38c612e26a1f93d8503786f3d3a34) to be cherry-picked in here.

In case you do cherry pick it, I suggested a comment to go along with the code here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28846#discussion_r1399057303. I think it would also be good link to https://github.com/chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess/pull/79 in the commit message or pull request description since that what the triggered the problem.

Also seems
...

💬 romanz commented on pull request "rpc: keep `.cookie` file if it was not generated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28784#issuecomment-1836591659)
Thanks :)

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: log which peer sent us a header":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27826#discussion_r1412484600)
I like the first commit, but the second/third commit are not ideal, because there is a difference between a new block and a new header:
I started up this branch on mainnet while being a few blocks behind (but not that far such that I'd be in IBD so that the log messages would go to `BCLog::VALIDATION`).
Then, the log entries I'd get for each downloaded block ("Saw new header via unsolicited block") are wrong in two ways:
The header is not new (only the block), plus the blocks is not unsolicit
...

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: log which peer sent us a header":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27826#discussion_r1412496288)
I looked at this independently (tracing the call chains before reading this thread), and I came to the same conclusion as Sjors, except for the case of a direct BLOCK, which has an issue that I mentioned below.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "validation: log which peer sent us a header":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27826#discussion_r1412504952)
That indeed sounds like two bugs, will try to reproduce.

💬 kristapsk commented on pull request "rpc: distinguish between vsize and sigop-adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27591#issuecomment-1836676257)
Concept ACK

💬 murchandamus commented on issue "fuzz, coinselection: Assertion 'result_bnb->GetChange(coin_params.m_cost_of_change, CAmount{0}) == 0' failed":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28918#issuecomment-1836695533)
Yeah, a bunch of coin selection tests break when you stop running BnB while SFFO is active, since a lot of tests made use of SFFO as a crutch to avoid needing to consider the fee of inputs compared to the target. Since there are exist some [other issues](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27754) with the `coinselector_tests` anyway, I decided to clean up the `coinselector_tests` in combination with implementing the avoidance of changeless solutions when SFFO is being used.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Fee Estimator updates from Validation Interface/CScheduler thread":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28368#issuecomment-1836699939)
ACK 91504cbe0de2b74ef1aa2709761aaf0597ec66a2

👍 pablomartin4btc approved a pull request: "rpc: encryptwallet help, mention HD seed rotation and backup requirement"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28980#pullrequestreview-1760481839)
ACK 40a5117c020e6ecfc5b57909900eb7afb8a486d9

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "rpc: encryptwallet help, mention HD seed rotation and backup requirement":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28980#discussion_r1412519649)
optional nit
```suggestion
"For security reasons, the encryption process will generate a new HD seed, resulting in the creation of a fresh set of active descriptors. "
```

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "Fee Estimator updates from Validation Interface/CScheduler thread"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28368)

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "Intermittent CI failure "fee too high" in wallet_send.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25164#issuecomment-1836719951)
It still happens:
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6418676576944128

```
node0 2023-11-29T05:48:26.130808Z [httpworker.3] [txmempool.cpp:678] [check] [mempool] Checking mempool with 0 transactions and 0 inputs
test 2023-11-29T05:48:26.131000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/test/functional/test_framework/tes
...