✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Return block hash with wallet calls"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18567)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "rpc: Return block hash & height in getbalances, gettransaction and getwalletinfo"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26094)

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "refactor, kernel: Decouple ArgsManager from blockstorage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#issuecomment-1531714320)
re-ACK f59f0c91acb7a35b767bb0dc75ed8b10add81d9f

🤔 jarolrod reviewed a pull request: "Remove confusing "Dust" label from coincontrol dialog"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/719#pullrequestreview-1409413698)
Concept ACK, the changes to the UI file aside from removing the dust label are changing the positioning of the Titles relevant to the value. The screenshot below shows this with the "Bytes" and "Change" field. The fully visible text is master, and the slightly transparent text is the pr.

<img width="1112" alt="QA-change" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/23396902/235720786-50cf5c32-3d2f-46c7-ab06-0f4b6cf865ea.png">

💬 jarolrod commented on pull request "Switch RPCConsole wallet selection to the one most recently opened/restored/created":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/696#issuecomment-1531728458)
cc @john-moffett still working on this?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "contrib: add ELF OS ABI check to symbol-check.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26953#discussion_r1182751218)
Thanks, added a check

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: addrman, add coverage for `network` field in `Select()`, `Size()` and `GetAddr()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27549#issuecomment-1531731272)
Force-pushed addressing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27549#pullrequestreview-1408940288

Added coverage for `Size()` and `GetAddr()`, since I got code from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/8f91e5898b3571e0802f2197981c54dda9ee71fa, I added @mzumsande and @amitiuttarwar as co-authors. PR description has been updated.

💬 real-or-random commented on pull request "Add ASM optimizations for MuHash3072":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19181#issuecomment-1531736632)
> but I would also be curious if there is another way to tell GCC to do the same optimizations clang seems to be doing.


I played around with this a bit, and I don't see any obvious trick to make that work. If someone else wants to give it a try, https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/hhGfeEoKq could be a nice starting point.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "test: Treat `bitcoin-wallet` binary in the same way as others":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27554#discussion_r1182788522)
> What about making this a function to reduce code bloat while touching this?

Done.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "contrib: add ELF OS ABI check to symbol-check.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26953#issuecomment-1531794631)
Code review ACK 65ba8a79a2919a0bd89f2f2d981e072d4f2f549d

👍 MarcoFalke approved a pull request: "test: Treat `bitcoin-wallet` binary in the same way as others"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27554#pullrequestreview-1409478431)
lgtm

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: Treat `bitcoin-wallet` binary in the same way as others":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27554#discussion_r1182791775)
```suggestion
attribute_name, env_variable_name = binaries[binary]
```

nit

🤔 instagibbs reviewed a pull request: "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#pullrequestreview-1262442548)
test issue causing failure

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1182761583)
this should assert that package is non-empty

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1182797698)
ordering between `package[i]` and `packageified.Txns()[i]` doesn't seem to be stable? The above shuffle is only "undone" by sorting by number of in-package ancestors when constructing the `AncestorPackage`

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1182768590)
```suggestion
for (int parent_idx{0}; parent_idx < 99; ++parent_idx) {
```

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "blockstorage: do not flush block to disk if it is already there":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039#issuecomment-1531882383)
re-ACK 46cca252e30f54b06df011d268ef1b8a48b076e7.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "test: Treat `bitcoin-wallet` binary in the same way as others":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27554#discussion_r1182883849)
Thanks! Updated.

📝 furszy opened a pull request: "wallet: fix deadlock in bdb read write operation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27556)
Decoupled from #26644 so it can closed in favor of #26715.

Basically, with bdb, we can't make a write operation while we are traversing the db, because these two operations are performed in different txn contexts. Causing a deadlock.

Added coverage by using `EraseRecords()` which is the simplest function that executes this process.

To replicate it, need bdb support and drop the first commit. The test will run forever.

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "fuzz: BIP 42, BIP 30, CVE-2018-17144":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17860#issuecomment-1531946556)
Concept ACK, will review this week

📝 pinheadmz opened a pull request: "net: call getaddrinfo() in detachable thread to prevent stalling"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27557)
Closes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16778
Replaces https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27505

The library call `getaddrinfo()` has no internal timeout and depending on the user's system may wait indefinitely for a response when looking up a hostname in the DNS. By making that call in a separate thread, we can abandon it completely after some timeout (currently in this PR, 2 seconds).

TODO:

- [ ] We could make the polling loop interruptible but I'm not sure the best appr
...