💬 fanquake commented on issue "Guix build script incorrectly reporting there is no Mac SDK":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29449#issuecomment-1959592450)
> Building main branch.

> checking for openssl/crypto.h... no
configure: error: libcrypto headers missing

This is impossible given the output you are showing here. Where did you get the source from. What is the commit hash? etc.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: Don't process mutated blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29412#discussion_r1499355541)
have you thought about having this function return an optional error string so unit tests can check expected failure reason?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: Don't process mutated blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29412#discussion_r1499351311)
Asserting the stripped serialized size right after is nice for self-documentation/correctness of test, and maybe another case of a witness tx which witness size is not 64?

💬 gdiscord commented on issue "Guix build script incorrectly reporting there is no Mac SDK":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29449#issuecomment-1959597424)
fyi: I've also tried doing a gitian build, and though the build was not successful( expected that because I have not taken the time to properly configure gitian descriptors) , this particular error did not occur.
Will revisit gitian build at some point.

Now my main goal is to achieve a successful guix build.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "[WIP] p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#issuecomment-1959598347)
ready for un-draft?

💬 gdiscord commented on issue "Guix build script incorrectly reporting there is no Mac SDK":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29449#issuecomment-1959618269)
Pulled the main branch, but I've experimented a lot with the code.

I can do a clean bitcoin pull and build it untouched to see what happens.

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "policy: enable sibling eviction for v3 transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29306#issuecomment-1959678050)
ACK apart from @instagibbs' nit here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29306#discussion_r1498102589

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "rpc: getdescriptorinfo also returns normalized descriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29396#issuecomment-1959724149)
>For the case of hardened derivation path...

...it's documented herein as working :\

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Mempool util: Add RBF diagram checks for single chunks against clusters of size 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29242#discussion_r1499465556)
I think the slope of AB can be negative, because a user could use the `prioritisetransaction` to give a transaction a negative fee?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Mempool util: Add RBF diagram checks for single chunks against clusters of size 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29242#discussion_r1499472337)
one weird trick! will remove the comment

🤔 sipa reviewed a pull request: "Mempool util: Add RBF diagram checks for single chunks against clusters of size 2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29242#pullrequestreview-1893687911)
Partial review.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Mempool util: Add RBF diagram checks for single chunks against clusters of size 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29242#discussion_r1497886010)
We have `Shuffle()` in random.h, which is more efficient than `std::shuffle` (but only works with `FastRandomContext`).

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Mempool util: Add RBF diagram checks for single chunks against clusters of size 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29242#discussion_r1497917895)
Nit: no need to reimplement `FeeFrac` addition:

```
diagram.push_back(last + chunk);
```

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Mempool util: Add RBF diagram checks for single chunks against clusters of size 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29242#discussion_r1497874754)
The correctness of the result of `BuildDiagramFromUnsortedChunks` very much depends on the assumption that the chunks can be reordered w.r.t. one another, which seems to be the case in the current PR, but will very much not be the case going forward in a general cluster mempool world.

I would suggest either:
* Removing the sorting step in this function (moving it to the caller). The function can then take `Span<const FeeFrac>` as input too, and perhaps in a further iteration (in a later PR)
...

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "net: call `Select` with reachable networks in `ThreadOpenConnections`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29436#issuecomment-1959775549)
> the performance goes down by a factor of ~5 for me

If this is correct and can be reproduced by others, I think that something should be done about it. If this PR would increase performance for a rare and transient case (right after the users switched their onlynet parameters) but decrease performance for each `Select()` call in the typical scenario (addrman has mostly addrs from reachable networks), the overall impact on performance of this PR would be clearly negative.
One possibility mi
...

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Mempool util: Add RBF diagram checks for single chunks against clusters of size 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29242#discussion_r1499507266)
> The correctness of the result of `BuildDiagramFromUnsortedChunks` very much depends on the assumption that the chunks can be reordered w.r.t. one another, which seems to be the case in the current PR, but will very much not be the case going forward in a general cluster mempool world.

No objection to your suggested change here, but I don't follow this comment -- in a general cluster mempool world, unless we were to bound chunk sizes to something smaller than a cluster size (resulting in the
...

⚠️ RHavar opened an issue: "rpc method removeprunedfunds should take an array of txids"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29466)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

Currently removeprunedfunds only takes a single txid, however the underlying `CWallet::RemoveTxs` takes an array. I am trying to clean up some wallets, and each individual removeprunedfunds call is very slow. So it'd be a lot better to just be able to pass in all the transactions at once

### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.

_No response_

### Describe the solution you'd like

_No response_

### Describe a
...

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "lint: Check for missing bitcoin-config.h includes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29408#pullrequestreview-1896313003)
ACK fa58ae74ea67485495dbc2d003adfbca68d6869b, tested on Ubuntu 23.10 -- it catches bugs properly. I didn't review rust code changes.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "Choose earliest-activatable as tie breaker between equal-work chains":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29284#issuecomment-1959818137)
> I don't think that would happen. Since #6010 `nSequenceId` is only set if the block and all of its predecessors have transactions, see [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/2ac41ef15fa523aa381d2b866aaa233b874c42fe/src/validation.cpp#L3627-L3637). Since the attacker never sent us the transactions of block B, C wouldn't get a `nSequenceId` even though we received the full block. C would only receive an `nSequenceId` once the full block B is received, which would then be larger than the
...

🤔 maflcko reviewed a pull request: "assumeutxo: Get rid of faked nTx and nChainTx values"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29370#pullrequestreview-1895813376)
ACK 8afcd99435b693f69b8c3a918b0573ef12559b22 🤗

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: ACK 8afcd99435b693f69b8c3a918b
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Get rid of faked nTx and nChainTx values":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29370#discussion_r1499216412)
594336ae8aad026dacb5d536df63bd374e3a89c7: there there