💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1365833858)
No reason to delete the commas

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1440760716)
Passing options individually like this is ugly - worse than just passing `const ArgsManager&` IMO. If you really want to cache it as a bool, maybe make a struct for connection permission options or something to pass instead.

Another possibility is to just cache a single `NetPermissionFlags` for these.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Nuke adjusted time (attempt 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28956#discussion_r1440772571)
I think this comment should stay, because `NodeClock` isn't guaranteed to be monotonic?

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "test: adds outbound eviction functional tests, updates comment in ConsiderEviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29122#discussion_r1440804107)
Rebased and updated the comment. I also extended the test slightly to cover all possible cases

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: `FundTransaction` refactor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28560#discussion_r1440702286)
In a9d67ad96e5f4d6dca64df4ac85f0434e17248ab "test: add tests for fundrawtx and sendmany rpcs"

There are existing tests for `sendmany` in wallet_basic.py. I think these tests could be moved there as well.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: `FundTransaction` refactor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28560#discussion_r1440697948)
In a9d67ad96e5f4d6dca64df4ac85f0434e17248ab "test: add tests for fundrawtx and sendmany rpcs"

nit: More pythonic to write:

```suggestion
tx.vout = [CTxOut(1 * COIN, bytearray(address_to_scriptpubkey(address)))] * 2
```

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: Migrate entire address book entries to watchonly and solvables too":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28610#discussion_r1440800458)
Would be good to unload the wallets at the end of the test case.

👍 furszy approved a pull request: "wallet: Migrate entire address book entries to watchonly and solvables too"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28610#pullrequestreview-1802823938)
Code review ACK 406b71ab


With two non-blocking points:

Firstly, made a test to verify that the transaction's extra information is preserved during migration: c1aabd1b2a. This includes the preservation of bump fee info ('replaces_txid' and 'replaced_by_txid') and the user's custom comments ('comment' and 'comment_to'). Feel free to cherry-pick it, or I can push it in a follow-up. Either way is fine for me.

Secondly, shilling mode; with #26836, which now is part of #28574, this could ha
...

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: Migrate entire address book entries to watchonly and solvables too":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28610#discussion_r1440735716)
tiny nit: could provide the `avoid_reuse` flag to `createwallet()` instead of calling `setwalletflag` separately.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: a target for the block index database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28209#discussion_r1440838577)
Couldn't we fuzz ReadFlag with a name we didn't previously write?

💬 hebasto commented on issue "`-min` does not minimize wallet loading dialog":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/748#issuecomment-1875894079)
Confirming that the issue still exists for the release/Guix built `bitcoin-qt`.

> I guess something in the way we build qt is causing this?

The static Qt in depends misses GTK+ support. However, I'm not sure if it is the cause of the issue.

---

Other issues with different behavior for release binaries:
- https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/33
- https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/639

👍 jonasnick approved a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree for 0.4.1 release"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29169#pullrequestreview-1802996733)
ACK c13a17c6996442f04635bdf70ee8f06bf6854ff6 no difference to my locally checked out version.

📝 Christewart opened a pull request: "64bit arith"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29171)

✅ Christewart closed a pull request: "64bit arith"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29171)

📝 brunoerg opened a pull request: "fuzz: set `nMaxOutboundLimit` in connman target"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29172)
Setting `nMaxOutboundLimit` (`-maxuploadtarget`) will make fuzz to reach more coverage in connman target. This value is used in `GetMaxOutboundTimeLeftInCycle`, `OutboundTargetReached` and `GetOutboundTargetBytesLeft`.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: attempt to fill full outbound connection slots with peers that support tx relay":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28538#discussion_r1440903038)
Hmm, I think the main reason was to avoid interaction with the existing extra-full-outbound eviction.
Which raises the question whether there should be any interaction?
Should nodes that are protected from that (either because `m_protect` is true or because they are the only ones for their network) also be made exempt from this new disconnection due to not supporting tx relay?
I'm not really sure about that: It would be unfortunate if the non-tx-relaying outbound peer would be the only one wi
...

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: set `nMaxOutboundLimit` in connman target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29172#issuecomment-1875944651)
CI failure is unrelated to this PR.

👍 real-or-random approved a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree for 0.4.1 release"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29169#pullrequestreview-1803091821)
utACK c13a17c6996442f04635bdf70ee8f06bf6854ff6 I haven't checked that the subtree is correct but no objections to update to this commit

> However, the PR title and description are a bit misleading as they mention "0.4.1 release", which implies (at least for me) syncing to the `v0.4.1` tag.

True, this updates to the merge commit of the "cleanup" PR after the release. But yeah, it really doesn't matter in the end, and I think there's no need to invalidate the ACKs here.

💬 07510480632 commented on issue "[Feature] Allow gettxout to return information for spent outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9641#issuecomment-1876001023)
M

💬 07510480632 commented on issue "[Feature] Allow gettxout to return information for spent outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9641#issuecomment-1876001121)
+ std::atomic<int> par_sum{0};
+ for (int i = 0; i < num_tasks; i++) {
+ threadPool.Submit([&par_sum,i]() {
+ par_sum += i;
});
}
+ int sync_sum{0};
+ for (int i = 0; i < num_tasks; i++) {
+ sync_sum += i;
+ }

💬 07510480632 commented on issue "[Feature] Allow gettxout to return information for spent outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9641#issuecomment-1876001414)
heloelo289@gmail.com