💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2088252118)
Concept ACK

Some of our DNS seeds are currently not performing [well](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29911), so adding a new/more reliable one seems logical to me.

I have also been running this seeder myself for some time (at seed.bitcoin.fish.foo) and the program seems to work well from the operator side too, not requiring any intervention in the few weeks i've been running it.

I ran a different test to @laanwj on mainnet IPV4 only, and did find seeds generally returning res
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "depends: sqlite 3.45.3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29991#issuecomment-2088396078)
Guix builds (aarch64)
```
95204b6b16c56371e935059face7a9775a20248823740257a96f302b30a1f766 guix-build-63678f7635b4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
a7e81be279d93a7a20b354f98183ac7247694a3a665d56ee05d24cf249d7f74e guix-build-63678f7635b4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-63678f7635b4-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
613d11f0e216160f050e3e752234d33ba63d7e8c7d27bebabbc4cb292d686624 guix-build-63678f7635b4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-63678f7635b4-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
5d1286410d
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1586254555)
> PCKG_POLICY doesn't populate m_tx_results so we wouldn't have results for those transactions

From my reading of the code, `package-mempool-limits` populates `m_tx_results`? We also allow those cases in our fuzz target(which I'm guessing is there because I hit it!).

We could probably be more aggressive about filling out results when possible and passing those results along, sounds like future work for now?

📝 glozow opened a pull request: "opportunistic 1p1c followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30012)
Followups from #28970:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1568781077
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1585554972
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1581019326
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1581036209

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1586256603)
Should all these failures be `PCKG_POLICY`? We have individual errors which are reported as well, and now with 1P1C relay, we probably want to act on failures at p2p layer?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1586256784)
Done in #30012

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1586256968)
Done in #30012

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1586257053)
Done in #30012

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#issuecomment-2088415179)
rebased to pick up 1P1C relay

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1586258730)
Then maybe we should just do this?

> Update the p2p logic here to continue when it's PCKG_POLICY and call ProcessInvalidTx for the MempoolAcceptResults we find.

(and remove the `Assume` that they always exist)

👋 glozow's pull request is ready for review: "p2p: index TxOrphanage by wtxid, allow entries with same txid"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30000)

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "lint: [doc] Clarify Windows line endings (CR LF) not to be used"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30010#pullrequestreview-2033554704)
ACK fa9be2f79520fff9cfe2ed35ace05cb322680af3

⚠️ tylerztl opened an issue: "How to get Signet test coins(sBTC)?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30013)
### Issues, reports or feature requests related to the GUI should be opened directly on the GUI repo

- [X] I still think this issue should be opened here

### Report

I am a developer. I want to get more test coins of the signet network. The faucet is too small. If I want to get more, I try to start the test node, but I cannot mint any sBTC.

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "How to get Signet test coins(sBTC)?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30013)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "How to get Signet test coins(sBTC)?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30013#issuecomment-2088439640)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base.

General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or one of the Bitcoin subreddits, or any other place that you feel is well suited.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "net: Favor peers from addrman over fetching seednodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29605#discussion_r1586275063)
Done inn [33ddd1b](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29605/commits/33ddd1b4c1cb1165b5068fbf7a9461e295f6cef1)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Use our own implementation of urlDecode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29904#issuecomment-2088465111)
Ported to the CMake-based build system in https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/181.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-2088480026)
`fd603b8f5c...42cb080600`: rebase and address suggestions

📝 shinghim opened a pull request: "doc: Remove outdated description for --port argument"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30014)
Removing an outdated sentence in the argument description for the --port argument. The note says to wait until #23542 have become widespread, which I think has happened since those changes were merged over two years ago on March 2, 2022

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1586316212)
Yes, but I did not like the behavior of the wallet "unexpectedly" stopping to broadcast its own transactions because `-privatebroadcast` is enabled.

> It's not the most user-friendly thing to introduce a new command arg that would only work if another arg was also changed from its default.

Yes, I agree. I do not like that either but somewhat prefer it over automatically switching off wallet broadcast. I can imagine GUI users who enable `-privatebroadcast` and still try to send transactions
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1586317728)
Updated.