✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "[WIP] refactor: migrate unit tests to Google Test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31988)

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#issuecomment-2698367852)
ACK 72a97c0a07ea6e5a95ab37c8d95e1ea02cff8e92

With the weaker claims in the code re:PostLinearization, it works for me, and obviates the need for an additional harness test.

`git range-diff master d5abb86439e79d4adfbfbd46f833268bbca0bf6e 72a97c0a07ea6e5a95ab37c8d95e1ea02cff8e92`

💬 achow101 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_r1979899843)
Huh, it does say that. Perhaps I'm remembering an old draft where it was different.

Changed the test to check that it doesn't finalize, and added a commit to implement that behavior.

💬 achow101 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_r1979900773)
Nothing, it just helps to mutate one which we know is definitely good.

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "depends: Update libmultiprocess library to fix CI failures"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31945#pullrequestreview-2658407119)
Post-merge ACK 01f771576608403dbfc5dee4fcdd84ef262f9390.

💬 achow101 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_r1979937428)
Done

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Avoid plural forms in non-GUI translatable strings (lacks `%n` support)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31890#issuecomment-2698457477)
I'm not really sure what we can do here. We could try and change all the strings now, but then it's whack-a-mole with requirements that developers are not really aware off, nor are enforced by anything (similar thoughts for changes like #31987).

> Here is an example of such a string:
> "Not enough file descriptors available. %d available, %d required."

What would you change the string to in this case? How many strings are there that need changing?

💬 achow101 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_r1979940474)
That's orthogonal to this PR and can be done separately.

💬 achow101 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_r1979941576)
I don't think it makes sense to do that here since PSBTv2 is still entirely unparseable.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Add assumeutxo chainparams to release-process.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31940#issuecomment-2698466564)
ACK 02fae3363511e96a76ff64a4513c7a7e8d8d4403

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "doc: update fuzz instructions when on macOS"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31954#pullrequestreview-2658499705)
ACK 75486c8ed87a480b9f0c4dc7a10f3cd4eee87b12, tested on macOS 15.3.1 (Apple M1) + Clang 19.1.7.

💬 Christewart commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1979954361)
du -csh ~/.bitcoin/testnet3/blocks/ ~/.bitcoin/testnet3/chainstate/
167G /home/chris/.bitcoin/testnet3/blocks/
13G /home/chris/.bitcoin/testnet3/chainstate/
179G total

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1979954715)
In 570191a758bc326ae0f0a479b72759f962c0db12 "[kernel] update chainTxData for v29"

Comment needs to be updated for the block that these stats are for.

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "wallet: Replace "non-0" with "non-zero" in translatable error message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31987#issuecomment-2698490041)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31987/commits/18e83534ace7aa2d26bc7dfa521b1d591b66edfa

💬 Morinyo1907 commented on pull request "Add mainnet assumeutxo param at height 880,000":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#issuecomment-2698513148)
> #31940 her büyük sürümde bir anlık görüntü eklenmesini öneriyor.
>
> Bu anlık görüntü v29 için uygun olmalı. 10K blokların en son katlarını seçtim.
>
> Bu torrent'i şu şekilde indirebilirsiniz:
>
> ```
> magnet:?xt=urn:btih:559bd78170502971e15e97d7572e4c824f033492&dn=utxo-880000.dat&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.bitcoin.sprovoost.nl%3A6969
> ```
>
> Veya anlık görüntüyü kendiniz oluşturun:
>
> ```shell
> bitcoin-cli -rpcclienttimeout=0 -named dumptxoutset utxo-880000.dat rollback=88
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "wallet: Replace "non-0" with "non-zero" in translatable error message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31987#issuecomment-2698520197)
Concept ACK

> Since not all translations preserve "-0," this triggers a corresponding warning

How complicated would it be to align the other translations instead?

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "Add mainnet assumeutxo param at height 880,000":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#issuecomment-2698523411)
Concept ACK, shasum of the torrent file matches up and will test soon, currently am reindexing and seeing:

"Unable to load UTXO snapshot: assumeutxo block hash in snapshot metadata not recognized (hash: 000000000000000000010b17283c3c400507969a9c2afd1dcf2082ec5cca2880). The following snapshot heights are available: 840000. (utxo-880000.dat)"

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Avoid plural forms in non-GUI translatable strings (lacks `%n` support)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31890#issuecomment-2698532546)
> What would you change the string to in this case?

I've asked our translators.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "wallet: Replace "non-0" with "non-zero" in translatable error message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31987#issuecomment-2698536743)
> Concept ACK
>
> > Since not all translations preserve "-0," this triggers a corresponding warning
>
> How complicated would it be to align the other translations instead?

It depends on the language. I cannot say about all of them.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Ability to build the library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31964#issuecomment-2698546421)
I think what you want is #30595?

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#discussion_r1980008065)
There is some more discussion about this in #31835, where I wrote my opinion. Since `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD` has never been used for anything, it's hard to say what the intentions really were, but my impression is that the first invalid block should be marked as `BLOCK_FAILED_VALID` and all of its descendants as `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD` - so having both `BLOCK_FAILED_VALID` and `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD` at the same time doesn't make sense to me.