💬 realsetvin commented on issue "-usehd=1 no longer works":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31705#issuecomment-2605838856)
> > so that was a dash addition im falsely ascribing to bitcoin core? in that case why cant it be added to btc? Risk of being too convenient for end users?
>
> This was the reason for not adding support for it in the past: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/88237/is-there-a-reason-to-why-bitcoin-core-does-not-implement-bip39. The topic could, of course, be revisited by experts in the field.

Since many altcoins are based on dash they boast about being built from bitcoin,

it seems funn
...

💬 realsetvin commented on issue "-usehd=1 no longer works":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31705#issuecomment-2605842673)
Wouldnt it be great if the bitcoin core wallet had all of the features that bitcoin developed? Make them optional. not non existent

💬 jimhashhq commented on issue "cmake: Compiling for test coverage (low-priority workaround exists)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31638#issuecomment-2605870181)
Hi @hebasto, My cmake version was 3.28.3. I think(?) I generally followed the commands from the developer-notes.md link above:

I did got a little "off script" and instead used the following cmake "user" preset for the clang tool chain with coverage reporting which should be just the same:
{
"name": "my-coverage",
"displayName": "clang coverage mode build for testing",
"cacheVariables": {
"CMAKE_C_COMPILER": "clang",
"CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER": "clang++",

...

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "rpc: add gettarget , target getmininginfo field and show next block info"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31583#pullrequestreview-2565795711)
Code review ACK cb305da72df501991a6700cd20be79dde4591184

> The gettarget and getdifficulty methods are a bit useless in their current state, because what miners really want to know if the target / difficulty for the next block. So I added a boolean argument next to getdifficulty and gettarget. (These values are typically the same, except for the first block in a retarget period.

> Similarly I added a next object to getmininginfo which shows bit, difficulty and target for the next block.

...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "rpc: add gettarget , target getmininginfo field and show next block info":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31583#discussion_r1924428164)
nit:
```suggestion
retarget period, by producing blocks approximately 2 minutes apart.
```

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "rpc: add gettarget , target getmininginfo field and show next block info":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31583#discussion_r1924451286)
Should we also the difficulties before mining those blocks?

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "rpc: add gettarget , target getmininginfo field and show next block info":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31583#discussion_r1924430588)
Nice readme, I think other data files should also be explained like this!

💬 glozow commented on pull request "multi-peer orphan resolution followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31666#discussion_r1924467724)
thanks, edited

💬 glozow commented on pull request "multi-peer orphan resolution followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31666#discussion_r1924467780)
thanks, fixed

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "multi-peer orphan resolution followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31666#discussion_r1924468033)
Thanks for the update even though on second reading it was already ok :)

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "multi-peer orphan resolution followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31666#pullrequestreview-2565859444)
ACK 47f269b3375288c53a02bdb894de83cfa39c81c4

💬 glozow commented on pull request "multi-peer orphan resolution followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31666#discussion_r1924469867)
🫡 I am p easy-going

💬 darosior commented on pull request "fuzz: add targets for PCP and NAT-PMP port mapping requests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31676#discussion_r1924481478)
Yeah, looks like i just reinvented (a poor man's) `FuzzedSock` for my target. I'll look into just using `FuzzedSock` instead tomorrow. Just confirmed your theory, returning `data.size()` instead of `consumed_bytes` fixed the crash.

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "kernel: Move block tree db open to block manager"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30965#pullrequestreview-2565892952)
re-ACK 0cdddeb2240d1f33c8b2dd28bb0c9d84d9420e3d

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "-usehd=1 no longer works":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31705#issuecomment-2605978172)
I think this issue should be closed. Questions are better asked on stack exchange and this thread is getting off topic with complaints. Seems to me the original issue has been addressed and follow up questions have been answered.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "Use number of dirty cache entries in flush warnings/logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31703#discussion_r1924549339)
Hmm now we need to only declare `coins_mem_usage` if building trace points.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Use number of dirty cache entries in flush warnings/logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31703#discussion_r1924573720)
A `[[maybe_unused]]` on it should suffice. Will try that tomorrow.

👍 tdb3 approved a pull request: "test: Check that reindex with prune wipes blk files"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31696#pullrequestreview-2566096598)
ACK fab411ab37df97d93a23feb2a2714863687c8800

Left some non-block readability nits. Feel free to ignore.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: Check that reindex with prune wipes blk files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31696#discussion_r1924632548)
nit:
If retouching, could increase readability with a comment or log explaining that the check is for presence of non-00000/00001 files (blk00002.dat/rev00002.dat/blk00003.dat/rev00003.dat)

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: Check that reindex with prune wipes blk files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31696#discussion_r1924633013)
nit:
and for presence of blk00000.dat/rev00000.dat

💬 PRADACANDI18 commented on pull request "test: Check that reindex with prune wipes blk files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31696#issuecomment-2606242697)
fa9593efc2e19d9dfa9a62c8a3d796aad888baa0