💬 maflcko commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Get rid of faked nTx and nChainTx values":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29370#discussion_r1499266054)
Just to clarify, the `is_active` check is just a belt-and-suspender, since `pindex == snap_base` implies `is_active`?

An alternative may be to split the assumption out into a separate assert.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Get rid of faked nTx and nChainTx values":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29370#discussion_r1499519079)
Why would the *background* chainstate have the *snapshot* base? The comment seems wrong and the second branch of the if condition is never taken, no?

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "net: call `Select` with reachable networks in `ThreadOpenConnections`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29436#issuecomment-1959849246)
> 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 might be to track the percentage of non-reachable addrs whi
...

💬 hebasto 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#issuecomment-1959901619)
Concept ACK on introducing feerate diagram checks for a subset of RBF transactions.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Don't process mutated blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29412#discussion_r1499599724)
@dergoegge have you considered this?

💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "test: test_bitcoin: allow -testdatadir=<datadir>":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26564#issuecomment-1959915076)
> may be an issue with some tests when `testdatadir` is provided a relative path

I can't reproduce this problem. I tried both running the one test alone and running the entire test suite (not specifying `--run_test=`).

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: Don't process mutated blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29412#discussion_r1499592647)
nit c84db8d60e87eabc1e4f88ef05bf06fbf4db6f02

```suggestion
const bool has_witness_commitment{commitpos != NO_WITNESS_COMMITMENT};
```

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: Don't process mutated blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29412#discussion_r1499598937)
cb2437307e6861e0957899345b6e9b93716c383a
Maybe add comment explaining what the tristate return result means? e.g. "bool indicating the witness commitment is correct (state is populated if any error occurs), or std::nullopt if there is no witness commitment to be checked"

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: Don't process mutated blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29412#discussion_r1499595618)
nit c62eea853e5c5f390d58c5ad9c0ac9a688465abc
```suggestion
const auto valid_opt{CheckWitnessCommitment(block, state)};
```

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: Don't process mutated blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29412#discussion_r1499609287)
e2d1eb2e2001c31b43154df47ab5be215a26774f

this is the same thing as
```suggestion
tx = self.wallet.create_self_transfer()["tx"]
```

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: Don't process mutated blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29412#discussion_r1499613815)
in e2d1eb2e2001c31b43154df47ab5be215a26774f
does this need a `with p2p_lock`?

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "test: Use test framework utils in functional tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28528)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Use test framework utils in functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28528#issuecomment-1959945805)
Closing for now due to inactivity. I think it is pretty clear that a change like this won't be going in in one go.

If someone wants to try this again, I'd recommend to try a smaller portion and see if reviewers like it. If not, then maybe it isn't worth changing?

💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "test: test_bitcoin: allow -testdatadir=<datadir>":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26564#issuecomment-1959949768)
>This contradicts the PR summary:

Thanks for the review! You're right, good catch. I updated the PR description.

The behavior is correct, we don't want to remove the `.lock` file at the start of the run, because we've just _acquired_ the lock, and want to keep it while we delete the test's data directory that might be left over from a previous run. That's why there's a `datadir` at the same level as `.lock` (so we can delete `datadir` without also deleting `.lock`). This behavior was sugge
...

💬 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_r1499641315)
done

💬 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_r1499641781)
removed, since I stripped out the sorting function from `BuildDiagramFromUnsortedChunks`

🤔 ryanofsky reviewed a pull request: "assumeutxo: Get rid of faked nTx and nChainTx values"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29370#pullrequestreview-1896432015)
Thanks for the review. Tried to answer some questions below and I will work on the suggestions

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Get rid of faked nTx and nChainTx values":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29370#discussion_r1499608826)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29370#discussion_r1499266054

> Just to clarify, the `is_active` check is just a belt-and-suspender, since `pindex == snap_base` implies `is_active`?

It's meant to be a real check. I should probably add a comment about it. The idea is that on the snapshot chain, the snapshot block should be in `setBlockIndexCandidates` even though earlier transactions may not be downloaded.

I don't think `pindex == snap_base` implies anything about `is_active`,
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Get rid of faked nTx and nChainTx values":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29370#discussion_r1499641472)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29370#discussion_r1499519079

> Why would the _background_ chainstate have the _snapshot_ base? The comment seems wrong and the second branch of the if condition is never taken, no?

I think the comment is just saying that if pindex is an ancestor of the snapshot base, it should be in setBlockIndexCandidates. It's possible the snapshot base could be in there too, but the code is only checking for it to be there if the chain is active, or if all tra
...

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "assumeutxo, rpc: Add 'start' parameter to loadtxoutset"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28659)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "assumeutxo, rpc: Add 'start' parameter to loadtxoutset":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28659#issuecomment-1959967361)
Closing for now. This has been a placeholder for months now, with no code to review or merge, and the CI failing anyway. Feel free to open a new pull request once and if there is something to review. If you have questions, you can leave them in the existing thread: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28620