💬 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.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "rpc: add gettarget , target getmininginfo field and show next block info":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31583#discussion_r1924972609)
I'm not sure what you mean here.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "rpc: add gettarget , target getmininginfo field and show next block info":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31583#issuecomment-2606689957)
> Is there a reason we are introducing this redundancy of being able retrieve the same data in two ways (gettarget and getmininginfo)?

The redundancy was already there with `getdifficulty`. That said, I don't personally need `gettarget` so I could drop it if people prefer.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "rpc: add gettarget , target getmininginfo field and show next block info":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31583#discussion_r1924973251)
Will fix typo if I need to retouch.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "psbt: MuSig2 Fields":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31247#discussion_r1924976381)
Pfew. Separate from this PR I think it would be good if we had DSL that defines the PSBT spec and the constraints for every possible field. Maybe @ryanofsky has ideas?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#discussion_r1924990788)
It might make things easier to follow if those callers pass the right flag as well. If it can be done without making this PR too huge.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#discussion_r1924993691)
In other words: for all functions that take a sighash argument, you either pass the correct sighash or nothing.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "optimization: `CheckBlock` input duplicate detection":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31682#discussion_r1925006647)
Fixed, thanks