💬 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.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "doc: Add post branch-off note about fuzz input pruning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27574#issuecomment-1536439992)
@fanquake It is actually a typo, in the readme it is currently spelled "copora" not "corpora"

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: Add post branch-off note about fuzz input pruning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27574#issuecomment-1536441503)
Right. Confusion over posting the correct spelling and calling it a typo.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: Add post branch-off note about fuzz input pruning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27574#issuecomment-1536458503)
Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/qa-assets/pull/123.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "ci: fix asan task name"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27584)
Pointed out in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27380#issuecomment-1536434598.

💬 benthecarman commented on pull request "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1536480635)
Okay I'll admit defeat. I was unware of all the DoS vectors in pre-taproot non-std txs. I still believe there should be a way for users to opt into allowing any kinds of txs into their mempool that doesn't have to do with DoS (0 value outputs, number of op_returns, taproot annex, tx size, etc).

✅ benthecarman closed a pull request: "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "refactor: Remove need to pass chainparams to BlockManager methods":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27570#issuecomment-1536482035)
cc @jamesob, this is going to conflict with #15606.

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "refactor: Remove need to pass chainparams to BlockManager methods":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27570#issuecomment-1536490676)
Is this some kind of dependency for libbitcoinkernel or for something other than general tidy-up impulses? If so, feel free to merge - assumeutxo is fresh in my brain and handling the rebase won't be so painful as a result.

Otherwise, wouldn't mind this getting shelved for later. But really no big deal either way. I'd say if you're going to merge do it soon so that I can manage the rebase with fresh context.