💬 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

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "-usehd=1 no longer works"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31705)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "-usehd=1 no longer works":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31705#issuecomment-2606527601)
Closing for now. Looks like there have been many questions, all of them answered.

Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base. So in the future, general bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or one of the Bitcoin subreddits, or any other place that you feel is well suited.

If you want to file a feature reques
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "cmake: Compiling for test coverage (low-priority workaround exists)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31638#issuecomment-2606566692)
I am not sure if clang coverage works out of the box right now with ` "CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE": "Coverage",`.

You'll have to use the "normal" build type and manually pass all required flags to clang, or patch the cmakelists txt.

Duplicate of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31047?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Check that reindex with prune wipes blk files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31696#discussion_r1924889643)
thx, used an exact match here on the filenames

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "[RFC] Align debugging flags to `-O0`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29796#issuecomment-2606602410)
Could turn into draft while the CI is failing?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "tests: add functional test for miniscript decaying multisig":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29156#issuecomment-2606605540)
Could turn into draft while the CI is failing?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "wallet: fix crash during migration due to invalid multisig descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31378#issuecomment-2606608189)
Could turn into draft while the CI is failing?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: add a section in the fuzzing documentation about using MSan":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31704#issuecomment-2606618347)
Could also add a note that in most cases valgrind is the easier option, as it doesn't require a full build with a different config?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add multiprocess binaries to release build (except Windows, OpenBSD)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30975#issuecomment-2606681443)
Trivial rebase after #31701.