💬 achow101 commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1978381703)
In 13f2815f4caca68a3ab0d0b865f370956308cad6 "[kernel] update assumed blockchain and chainstate sizes for v29"

700 seems a little high, although not too big of a deal I suppose.

One one node, I have 618 GiB, and on 2 others its 626, so I'd expect 680 or 690 here.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1978382840)
In 13f2815f4caca68a3ab0d0b865f370956308cad6 "[kernel] update assumed blockchain and chainstate sizes for v29"

This seems excessively high, I'd be surprised if testnet3's datadir size doubled in the past 6 months.

Across my 3 nodes, I see 111 GiB, 112 GiB, and 116 GiB, so I'd expect this to be 127.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1978386605)
In 92a6f7b238cd8ff015e242d6a515452c401133a7 "[kernel] update assumevalid and minimumChainWork for v29"

This block appears to have been reorged out. Perhaps we should choose a block with actual work for testnet4.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1978388187)
In 70e294c0930a412fb6945eb753d1a39ef52fb324 "[kernel] update chainTxData for v29"

```
$ bitcoin-cli -testnet4 getchaintxstats 4096 00000000798bd720800263b69bee01aae57ea376596415a04423da29f000c367
error code: -8
error message:
Block is not in main chain
```

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1978384335)
In 13f2815f4caca68a3ab0d0b865f370956308cad6 "[kernel] update assumed blockchain and chainstate sizes for v29"

I think this is a bit low.

Across my 3 nodes, I have 7.8 GiB, 6.2 GiB, and 9.2 GiB, so I'd expect this to be 11.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Add assumeutxo chainparams to release-process.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31940#discussion_r1978403077)
Can we explicitly list out which things to take from the output?

Also, perhaps it would be better to use `dumptxoutset` which gives all of the same data, and it can automatically roll back and forward.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1978415813)
I think the exact number was 694, but I'm happy to double check it if needed

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "init: Handle dropped UPnP support more gracefully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31916#issuecomment-2695877123)
ACK 44041ae0eca9d2034b7c2bdef24724809cc35e90

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Gracefully handle dropped UPnP support "
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/843)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "init: Handle dropped UPnP support more gracefully"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31916)

🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#pullrequestreview-2655396246)
Concept ACK for making `m_best_header` and `nStatus` more reliably correct, and the trade-offs seem reasonable. Even though the diff is small, I find reasoning about these changes fairly complex and require a lot of context, so I'll need to think through the implications more.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#discussion_r1978292997)
It's not clear to me why we would only want to mark blocks with large-enough PoW as invalid descendants. If this is not a bug, I think behaviour is inconsistent with the commit message and should probably be document in the code too?

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#discussion_r1978269926)
Is there a reason why we forcefully unset `BLOCK_FAILED_VALID`? Since both flags store orthogonal information in separate bits, intuitively I'd expect we could have both co-exist? If this breaks other assumptions, perhaps good to add to the documentation here?

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#discussion_r1978437444)
Since this map is a superset of `candidate_blocks_by_work `, I think we could just have one, and instead check for `IsValid(BLOCK_VALID_TRANSACTIONS) && HaveNumChainTxs()` further down when we update `setBlockIndexCandidates`? I suspect the memory impllications should be negligible either way, but I think it would clean up the code a bit?

E.g. something like:

<details>
<summary>git diff on 4ba2e480ff</summary>

```diff
diff --git a/src/validation.cpp b/src/validation.cpp
index f9c900e
...

💬 asklokesh commented on issue "Bug: Non-Ranged Descriptors with Range [0,0] Trigger Unexpected Wallet Errors in `AddWalletDescriptor`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31728#issuecomment-2696014125)
I've investigated this issue and have a fix for the uninitialized `subtype` variable in `LoadWalletFlags()`.

The bug occurs because `subtype` is being used for version compatibility checks but may remain uninitialized if the data stream doesn't contain subtype information.

**Fix approach:**
1. Initialize `subtype` with a safe default value (`DBWrapperSubType::UNKNOWN`) at declaration
2. Ensure all code paths properly set `subtype` with explicit handling for cases where:
- The stream contain
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Add mainnet assumeutxo param at height 880,000":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#issuecomment-2696072544)
ACK 14f16748557faf57cf4b0f4c91c162592557434c

> if you agree we should host it, can you add it to bitcoincore.org and give me the link? I'll add it as a binary seed.

That will require more discussion with the group.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Test cross-built Windows executables on Windows natively":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31176#issuecomment-2696652781)
Rebased to refresh the CI as all required actions are now enabled in this repo.

📝 eval-exec opened a pull request: "torcontrol: Limit reconnect timeout to max seconds and log delay in whole seconds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31979)
This PR introduces a maximum reconnect timeout of 600 seconds (10 minutes) to prevent excessive delays in reconnection attempts. It also updates the log message to display the retry delay in whole seconds for better readability.

💬 eval-exec commented on pull request "torcontrol: Limit reconnect timeout to max seconds and log delay in whole seconds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31979#issuecomment-2696734781)
I'm working on fixing the CI and would like to kindly invite @laanwj to review this PR. Thank you!

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Drop testnet3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31974#issuecomment-2696820588)
Will rebase after #31649 lands.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "Add assumeutxo chainparams to release-process.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31940#discussion_r1979023367)
> Can we explicitly list out which things to take from the output?

While testing #31969 and using `dumptxoutset` I didn't feel the need for documentation on individual fields as long as there are prior `m_assumeutxo_data`-entries. If we keep `gettxoutsetinfo` though, the output seems to map less directly, so in that case I agree listing them might be useful.