💬 glozow commented on issue "RPC: `getblockstats` might not return the *effective* percentile fee rate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31140#issuecomment-2762446017)
I hope this doesn't sound too dismissive, but who uses this and what are they using it for? Can we delete these fields or the whole RPC? To visualize stats, I think using `getblock` to obtain the fees and sizes for each transaction is much more flexible and appropriate (though tbf I don't think this was the case when #10757 was originally opened).

Separately, linearizing and chunking transactions (whether it's a block or something else) is pretty complicated and perhaps worth exposing it or off
...

🤔 TheCharlatan reviewed a pull request: "build: Switch to Qt 6"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#pullrequestreview-2726753659)
Guix builds:
```
aarch64
6ea4a76be3383337e57d6a12450bd589776ebb3fd0d9161347766ef845241e13 guix-build-c4861570e468/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
3eb7656483dfe47fa6b7cf40bceb3decda73474c813edb224d42840adb8b49d6 guix-build-c4861570e468/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-c4861570e468-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
0aa522010efd138d78eeac0a8ea15df469298c50afaa2451dece78c564546cac guix-build-c4861570e468/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-c4861570e468-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
5e1e833519
...

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019375703)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019376118)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019371904)
Added a comment.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019372075)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019372720)
No, it's being assigned to below.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019374546)
I've changed the code so that `Include()` and `Skip()` are no-ops once the end is reached.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019375780)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019374728)
Same here, made it have no effect in that case.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019375949)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019375612)
This has been rewritten.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019377271)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019379608)
That's strange, because the builder outliving the graph is definitely a problem (the observer counter in the graph, which has been destroyed, will be subtracted from). I don't see an easy way of allowing this (it'd need the graph to maintain a set of observers, which seems overkill).

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019379802)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019380171)
Done.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "test: create assert_not_equal util":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29500#discussion_r2019431503)
We're in Python here though. I spent a couple of hours with an LLM in mid-February to brute force this embryo:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...hodlinator:bitcoin:2025/02/assert_ergonomics

<details><summary>Output examples</summary>

Current `assert_equal()`-behavior:
```
2025-03-28T21:15:36.379000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/hodlinator/bitcoin/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 178, i
...

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "Fix legacy migration bug":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32161#discussion_r2019445025)
Was this generated with an LLM?

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "Fix legacy migration bug":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32161#discussion_r2019448985)
Could you please explain why you made these changes?

💬 arejula27 commented on pull request "miner: timelock the coinbase to the mined block's height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32155#discussion_r2019460884)
I was discussing with @hodlinator and @Prabhat1308 that a Coinbase UTXO cannot be spent until 100 blocks have been added after it. Wouldn't it be better to set this to static_cast<uint32_t>(nHeight +99 );? This could simplify the logic for the Coinbase spend condition and potentially make mempool and transaction validation more efficient

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "Fix legacy migration bug":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32161#discussion_r2019462360)
I'm not sure that this change preserves the intent of the error, could you explain why you came to the conclusion that this situation is not an internal bug in our handling of the wallet file?