🤔 real-or-random reviewed a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to latest master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29803#pullrequestreview-1979282880)
Concept ACK -- there's nothing on our side that speaks against updating

🤔 real-or-random reviewed a pull request: "[WIP] ci: test secp256k1 MSAN asm annotations"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29742#pullrequestreview-1979289744)
Concept ACK on removing `--with-asm`

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2036659521)
I am happy to close this pull, if people don't want it.

However, I don't see why running the CI not at all is better than skipping just the bpfcc part.

👋 glozow's pull request is ready for review: "doc: update release-process.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29645)

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "contrib/signet/getcoins.py no longer useable"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29679)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "contrib/signet/getcoins.py no longer useable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29679#issuecomment-2036666539)
Thanks @kallewoof, I can confirm that the script is now working again as expected:


Hopefully "attack mode" is not needed again :)

Closing for now.

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#pullrequestreview-1979304780)
ACK fac012c7262f036e9b6f5800e57dcd63870a871c

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1549395161)
probably better to have it while loop making tx until this is true, rather than fail randomly

🤔 instagibbs reviewed a pull request: "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#pullrequestreview-1976216428)
reviewed through 81912ae6649fac5a0d671d2cabe344f787193997

LGTM so far

will review tests

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1549376386)
```Suggestion
// For each output, get all entries spending this prevout.
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1549404732)
quick test case that returns empty would be good too

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1549414682)
Good time to add documentation to this function

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1551287725)
I have to admit I'm struggling on these "skip" comments and cases. Every time I read this I have trouble re-deriving the logic.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2036759450)
I think merging this temporarily is fine. I think the relevant upstream issue is https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bpfcc/+bug/2052813 ? I'm assuming this is going to be resolved soon. Note that the installation issues only seem to be with `x86_64`? Running `apt update && apt install bpfcc-tools` on noble, on an aarch64 machine, currently works. I thought that might be because it doesn't seem to depend on `libbpfcc 0.29.1+ds-1ubuntu4`, but that is also currently available/installable:
``
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788)

💬 m3dwards commented on issue "IBD performance regression in 27.0rc1 on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29785#issuecomment-2036776591)
I was also going to block 120,000 but with public nodes. Re-read your initial post and see you are talking about syncing from a local node which then I assume makes the x axis of these charts in seconds, not minutes.

I'll re-run my test connecting to a local node.

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "ci: Enable bpfcc-tools"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29804)
Two recommended pull requests:

* Revert fac012c7262f036e9b6f5800e57dcd63870a871c
* Wait for 24.04 GHA image, Move the task over to that image

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2036788443)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29804

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1551410174)
add a case where:
1) CONSENSUS-invalid child is propagated to peer
2) low_fee parent is given
3) package evaluation is attempted
4) peer is disconnected

to ensure we're handling invalid tx properly

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#issuecomment-2036791219)
reviewed through c5e196b8e7b610cc9e6321b76fee4f0c45c1448e

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `max_tx_weight` to transaction funding options (take 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29523#discussion_r1551446237)
Fixed thanks