💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "net: Continuous ASMap health check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27581#discussion_r1186205062)
I think you need to declare `addr` as `const` (`tidy`CI test is failing due to that).
```suggestion
for (const auto &addr : clearnet_addrs) {
```

👍 MarcoFalke approved a pull request: "doc: Add post branch-off note about fuzz input pruning"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27574#pullrequestreview-1414977410)
lgtm

🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "test: Explicitly specify directory where to search tests for"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27561#pullrequestreview-1414950382)
Would it be possible to provide instructions on replicating how to make this fail without`sys.path.append(tests_dir)`? Often times, messing with `system.path` is treating the symptoms when actually the package structure needs to be improved. May not be true in this case, though.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "test: Explicitly specify directory where to search tests for":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27561#discussion_r1186191720)
Found two more instances in test_runner.py:

```diff
diff --git a/test/functional/test_runner.py b/test/functional/test_runner.py
index 0c9a7173c..d495615fc 100755
--- a/test/functional/test_runner.py
+++ b/test/functional/test_runner.py
@@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ def main():

# Read config generated by configure.
config = configparser.ConfigParser()
- configfile = os.path.abspath(os.path.dirname(__file__)) + "/../config.ini"
+ configfile = os.path.abspath(os.path.join(os.p
...

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Enable HW-accelerated implementations of SHA256 for MSVC builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24773#discussion_r1186221811)
Hmm, ok, we are talking around each-other. I'll ask some detailed questions in code and see if we can clear it up.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Enable HW-accelerated implementations of SHA256 for MSVC builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24773#discussion_r1186222219)
How does this not get defined twice? Does MSVC not define `__x86_64__` or `__amd64__` or `__i386__` ?

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Enable HW-accelerated implementations of SHA256 for MSVC builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24773#discussion_r1186223293)
Why does the existing asm function not work? What is the specific error? Does it not like the inline asm? Or does it just have a problem with the opcode?

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "rpc: add `descriptorprocesspsbt` rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25796#discussion_r1186226669)
Done

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "rpc: add `descriptorprocesspsbt` rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25796#discussion_r1186226878)
Done

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "rpc: add `descriptorprocesspsbt` rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25796#discussion_r1186227089)
Done

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "rpc: add `descriptorprocesspsbt` rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25796#discussion_r1186230858)
I've rewritten the test to reflect this. I've also added more comments.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1536428552)
> The notion of having to lobby a council, however qualified, to "accept a usecase" is also understandably unappealing at face value.

This is why *rdinals haven't been seriously curtailed(or even considered in this repo); taproot was designed with specific goals in mind to allow people to do whatever they want, as long as they aren't causing systemic issues with relay/validation/miners.

On the other hand, legacy script is full of DoS disasters(that we can't simply softfork out because lit
...

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "Intermittent failures in interface_usdt_mempool.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27380#issuecomment-1536429839)
> Maybe it will "fix itself" after #27360 ?

Unfortunately, it didn't (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/13206824577 from master after #27360 was merged)

👍 pablomartin4btc approved a pull request: "doc: Add post branch-off note about fuzz input pruning"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27574#pullrequestreview-1415015505)
ACK.
Btw, there's a typo on [line 29 on that readme](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/qa-assets/blame/main/README.md#L29) file: "corpora", since you are there also on line 32 perhaps should say "running" instead of "run".

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Treat `bitcoin-wallet` binary in the same way as others"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27554)

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: add `descriptorprocesspsbt` rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25796#discussion_r1186237537)
great, thanks!

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Intermittent failures in interface_usdt_mempool.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27380#issuecomment-1536434598)
Unrelated: The task name needs to change from `[jammy]` to `[lunar]`

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: add `descriptorprocesspsbt` rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25796#issuecomment-1536435297)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25796/commits/80f8bdfeb3d9301e0aec4b797689cbe569eff5a6

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: Add post branch-off note about fuzz input pruning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27574#issuecomment-1536436413)
> "corpora",

This isn't a typo. It's a commonly used term when talking about fuzzing.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: Add post branch-off note about fuzz input pruning"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27574)

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: when a block is disconnected, update transactions that are no longer conflicted":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#discussion_r1186241747)
Yes, the user would need to manually re-submit them or wait for the wallet to re-submit them automatically.