💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Disable RBF Rule 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30964#issuecomment-2374765971)
You're right that rule 2 is broken. The issue is that our replacement rules are broken in many ways, and if we simply remove rule 2, the result would also be broken. The motivation for rule 2 was the idea that by introducing a new unconfirmed parent, the effective feerate at which the replacement transaction being validated would be mined might be much lower than the transactions it is evicting (say, if the new unconfirmed parent had a very low feerate). So by simply removing the rule, I thin
...

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#pullrequestreview-2328851273)
Code review bf1b1b09ca4dd18b7848fb1807df8533cf930df7

This is a nice refactor, really improve the cluster linearize test a lot.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#discussion_r1775578705)
I believe this new behavior is correct, as it reduces `iteration_left` when work is being done. This aligns with the behavior in `SearchCandidateFinder`.

On a side note, I think "iterations" might be a misnomer here. A more accurate term could be "maximum optimization" or "optimizations left".

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#discussion_r1775638585)
This can be in the same loop above?

Why not just compare with the result of ancestor finder?

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#discussion_r1775677456)
Should we also assert that the transactions in the set are the same?

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#discussion_r1775651129)
We could wrap this in a helper to be dry, as same code is used above.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#discussion_r1775682420)
Maybe indicate that we only compare `SimpleCandidateFinder` with `ExhaustiveCandidateFinder` when we optimally found a subset and the cluster size is small.

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "init: Remove retry for loop"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30968#pullrequestreview-2329121486)
Nice Concept ACK

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster linearization: separate tests from tests-of-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30605#discussion_r1775732905)
could be in it's own commit?

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "validation: Disable CheckForkWarningConditions for background chainstate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30962#issuecomment-2374863380)
ACK c0a0c72b4d68a4f0c53c2c4b95f4d6e399f8e4ee

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "`invalidateblock` during background validation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30958)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "validation: Disable CheckForkWarningConditions for background chainstate"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30962)

💬 Oly6 commented on something "":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/39219fe145e5e6e6f079b591e3f4b5fea8e71804#commitcomment-147202742)
good

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "[28.x] backports and finalize (or rc3)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30959#issuecomment-2374879207)
Added #30962

I think it's trivial enough to not require rc3 as well.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "validation: Disable CheckForkWarningConditions for background chainstate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30962#issuecomment-2374879640)
Backport in #30959

💬 fjahr commented on issue "Embedded ASMap data Tracking Issue":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28794#issuecomment-2374881703)
> Is there no way to query AS Maps directly from the BGP tables?

Who's BGP table? Can you be a bit more specific what you are thinking of in terms of architecture and trust assumptions?

🤔 ryanofsky reviewed a pull request: "refactor: Implement missing error checking for ArgsManager flags"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16545#pullrequestreview-2329185957)
Updated 87b6d4cb5a5c04f6c8542c633c3bfa5f76901d43 -> 5a945600451037693a032e6df94f99a666dd581f ([`pr/argcheck.41`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/argcheck.41) -> [`pr/argcheck.42`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/argcheck.42), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/argcheck.41..pr/argcheck.42)) with suggested formatting & grammar tweaks.

re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16545#pullrequestreview-2325050760

Thanks for the review. To
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Implement missing error checking for ArgsManager flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16545#discussion_r1775793996)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16545#discussion_r1773221823

> nit: you're using both `can not` and `cannot` in the errors

Seems like cannot is better so switched to that, thanks!

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Implement missing error checking for ArgsManager flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16545#discussion_r1775792589)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16545#discussion_r1773293766

Happy to change, but I'm not really sure what to do here. I always just look at plaintext comments, not generated documentation, and I do think having breaks between list items makes the plaintext comment more readable since most of the items are paragraphs. I could get rid of the break before the first item while keeping the breaks before the other items, though, if that works and would be preferred.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Implement missing error checking for ArgsManager flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16545#discussion_r1775766244)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16545#discussion_r1773291395

Thanks, applied suggestion

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "init: Remove retry for loop"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30968#pullrequestreview-2329376198)
Code review ACK e9d60af9889c12b4d427adefa53fd234e417f8f6. Nice change to make AppInitMain shorter and more understandable.