💬 achow101 commented on issue "Double lock detected in `Warnings::GetMessages()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30400#issuecomment-2211502915)
cc @stickies-v as you were the last to touch the warnings code.

📝 tdb3 opened a pull request: "fix: increase consistency of rpcauth parsing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30401)
The current `rpcauth` parsing behavior is inconsistent and unintuitive (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29141#issuecomment-1972085251).
The current behavior inconsistently treats blank `rpcauth` as an error (or not) depending on the location within CLI/bitcoin.conf and the location of adjacent valid `rpcauth` params.

Empty `rpcauth` is now consistently treated as an error and prevents bitcoind from starting.
Continuation of the upforgrabs PR #29141.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "fix: increase consistency of rpcauth parsing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30401#issuecomment-2211569527)
## Behavior (master (bd5d1688b4311e21c0e0ff89a3ae02ef7d0543b8) vs PR):

### CLI:
1) one valid rpcauth
```
src/bitcoind -regtest -rpcauth=testuser1:798e64e1173b5fa3a5946fbd42ced60e\$8472c4ab034459f7c83f59d94f26c820179455946023fa77a38bc51c785573c4
```
current: bitcoind starts, rpcauth usable
new: no change

2) one empty rpcauth
```
src/bitcoind -regtest -rpcauth
src/bitcoind -regtest -rpcauth=
src/bitcoind -regtest -rpcauth=""
```
current: bitcoind starts
new: bitcoind fails, `Inv
...

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "fix: increase consistency of rpcauth parsing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30401#issuecomment-2211587071)
`test each commit` CI fails on f6d0df30a460db75a944ccea38dfb9fd0827042b to help show current behavior. I can swap the order of the commits to make it pass if need be.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29141#issuecomment-1972085251
> it would be a lot more obvious what current behavior is and how the bugfix changes it.

👋 tdb3's pull request is ready for review: "fix: increase consistency of rpcauth parsing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30401)

⚠️ achow101 opened an issue: "Illegal Instruction in `CoinStatsIndex::CustomAppend`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30402)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

While reindexing a signet node with all indexes enabled, SIGILL occurs and Bitcoin Core crashes.

### Expected behaviour

Not crash

### Steps to reproduce

Do `bitcoind -signet -coinstatsindex -reindex`.

Unsure if this would happen on a sync from scratch or if the index did not previously exist (I'd assume so though).

### Relevant log output

```
Thread 76 "b-scheduler" received sign
...

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "Illegal Instruction in `CoinStatsIndex::CustomAppend`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30402#issuecomment-2211650887)
At what height did it crash? If the height was 112516, this is probably a duplicate of #26362.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "random: add benchmarks and drop unnecessary Shuffle function":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30396#discussion_r1667364813)
Fixed.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "random: add benchmarks and drop unnecessary Shuffle function":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30396#discussion_r1667364824)
Fixed, here and elsewhere.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Bugfix: RPC: Check for blank rpcauth on a per-param basis"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29141)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Bugfix: RPC: Check for blank rpcauth on a per-param basis":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29141#issuecomment-2211772901)
See #30401.

💬 tdb3 commented on issue "Illegal Instruction in `CoinStatsIndex::CustomAppend`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30402#issuecomment-2211787029)
Performed an IBD on bd5d1688b4311e21c0e0ff89a3ae02ef7d0543b8 from scratch (no `signet` dir, so no initial index). Did not see the issue. Performing reindex now.

📝 luke-jr opened a pull request: "GUI/OptionsDialog: Allow Maximize of window"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/826)

👍 luke-jr approved a pull request: "Show maximum mempool size in information window"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/825#pullrequestreview-2161543405)
tACK 4a028cf54c0502bc9ba0804bf1ae413b20a007cb & in Knots

💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Check snapshot base block is not in invalid chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30267#issuecomment-2211804813)
Post-merge question: Shouldn't this TODO be deleted because of the new test introduced in this PR?

> - TODO: Valid snapshot file, but referencing a snapshot block that turns out to be
> invalid, or has an invalid parent

The `test_snapshot_block_invalidated` function seems to address this scenario by invalidating the snapshot base block and one of its parents, ensuring the snapshot cannot be loaded if the base block or its parent is invalid.

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Illegal Instruction in `CoinStatsIndex::CustomAppend`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30402)

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Illegal Instruction in `CoinStatsIndex::CustomAppend`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30402#issuecomment-2211805935)
> At what height did it crash? If the height was 112516, this is probably a duplicate of #26362.

Ah, indeed.

💬 achow101 commented on issue "signed overflow in coinstats index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26362#issuecomment-2211806088)
Just ran into this.

📝 luke-jr opened a pull request: "GUI/OptionsDialog: Prefer to stretch actual options area rather than waste space"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/827)

💬 fjahr commented on issue "signed overflow in coinstats index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26362#issuecomment-2211806760)
I will reopen my fix, I just got lost on the the upgrade mechanics for indices and then lost focus.

📝 fjahr opened a pull request: "test: Remove already resolved assumeutxo todo comment"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30403)
The case in the comment seems to be sufficiently addressed by #30267 but I forgot to remove the Todo. Thanks to alfonsoromanz for noticing this.