💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: Make FuzzedSock fuzz friendlier":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30211#discussion_r1633234440)
These changes were very much necessary for `FuzzedSock` to be fuzzer friendly. Feel free to open a follow up, if you have suggestion how further improve things.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: Make FuzzedSock fuzz friendlier":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30211#discussion_r1633229348)
Feel free to open a follow up.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "depends: Fetch miniupnpc sources from an alternative website":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30151#issuecomment-2158358461)
backported to 26.x in #30260

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "util: add BitSet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30160#issuecomment-2158379951)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30160/commits/47f705b33fc1381d96c99038e2110e6fe2b2f883

swap coverage added, some of the nits taken, and a couple `Assume()`s added

reviewed via `git range-diff master c99063e 47f705b`

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "doc: add release note for 29091 and 29165"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30261)
GCC 11.x or Clang 15.x are now required to compile Bitcoin Core.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "indexes: Don't wipe indexes again when continuing a prior reindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30132#issuecomment-2158381286)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30132#issuecomment-2157745629

> No, and I'm not sure it should be given we don't support this. Maybe we can add a comment and assert that just wiping the block index db is not supported for now?

FWIW, my original draft of 804f09dfa116300914e2aeef05ed9710dd504e8c added this code to LoadChainstate:

```c++
// For now, don't allow wiping block tree db without also wiping chainstate
// db. There's no reason this could not work in theory, but in p
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Bump clang minimum supported version to 15":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29165#issuecomment-2158381917)
Release note added in #30261.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Bump g++ minimum supported version to 11":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29091#issuecomment-2158382309)
Release note in #30261.

👍 maflcko approved a pull request: "doc: add release note for 29091 and 29165"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30261#pullrequestreview-2107809990)
lgtm

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Anchors, take 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#issuecomment-2158409770)
@theStack the primary motivation is to cover cases where non-0 value is attached to handle cases where a smart contract may want to "throw away" a few sats to fees, but otherwise cannot because of the 0-fee requirement of this PR for transactions with ephemeral anchors. If the ephemeral anchor-having transaction had non-0-fee, that would allow endogenous incentives to get it mined on its own, leaving the dust in the utxo set. As an example from the LN spec, [trimmed outputs(https://github.com/li
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[26.x] backports and final changes for 26.2rc1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30260#issuecomment-2158414684)
@glozow

Feel free to pick up the https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/commit/a586d703dce4c6fba95696ae978d9711a355d7d6 commit from the https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/commits/pr30260/0610 branch to pull the recent translations from the Transifex website.

Unfortunately, more translations have been vandalized (

💬 vasild commented on pull request "fuzz: add I2P harness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30230#discussion_r1633234183)
Does this mean that the time will be frozen for the duration of the test?

From the OP:

> GetTime is called at points in i2p

Where is `GetTime()` called in i2p?

💬 vasild commented on pull request "fuzz: add I2P harness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30230#discussion_r1633272627)
Can be simplified:

```suggestion
CThreadInterrupt interrupt;

i2p::sam::Session session{private_key_path, Proxy{CService{}, false}, &interrupt};
```

👍 cbergqvist approved a pull request: "util: add BitSet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30160#pullrequestreview-2107852785)
re-ACK 47f705b33fc1381d96c99038e2110e6fe2b2f883

Used same range-diff as instagibbs.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "[26.x] backports and final changes for 26.2rc1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30260#issuecomment-2158437058)
> Feel free to pick up the [hebasto@a586d70](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/commit/a586d703dce4c6fba95696ae978d9711a355d7d6) commit from the https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/commits/pr30260/0610 branch to pull the recent translations from the Transifex website.

Thanks @hebasto! I've cherry-picked that with a minor change to the commit message

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Add dumptxoutset height param, remove shell scripts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29553#issuecomment-2158443019)
> I am still planning to do the rollback in a cleaner way but[...] It would become a refactoring follow-up that does not change the RPC interface again.

That makes sense.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "indexes: Don't wipe indexes again when continuing a prior reindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30132#issuecomment-2158458001)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30132#issuecomment-2158381286

> I think the PR is ready to merge, so you can let me know if you want to add an assert or just merge it in its current form.

I think this is rfm.

🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "indexes: Don't wipe indexes again when continuing a prior reindex"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30132)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[26.x] backports and final changes for 26.2rc1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30260#issuecomment-2158499569)
The native Windows CI fails due to a [broken Windows image](https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/10004).

✅ glozow closed a pull request: "chore: fix typos"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30259)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "chore: fix typos":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30259#issuecomment-2158502664)
Thanks for your interest in contributing! However, as we have hundreds of pull requests, I am closing this to focus review on the others. (See [contributing guidelines on refactoring](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#refactoring)).