✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Acccedence; Double Poisson Sum†; p 0.04999579029644097"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32165)

💬 warioishere commented on issue "assumeutxo: not syncing the snapshot chainstate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30971#issuecomment-2764480408)
> [@warioishere](https://github.com/warioishere) The `chainstate_snapshot` directory is automatically deleted at the next restart of your node. Have you done one already? If not, please restart your node and see if it was removed. Thanks you!

thanks pal I was better to read

[](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/design/assumeutxo.md?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
first hehe

Yes after restart `chainstate_snapshot` got cleaned up

💬 SatoshiFans888 commented on issue "Acccedence; Double Poisson Sum†; p 0.04999579029644097":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32165#issuecomment-2764493899)
@fanquake Thanks a lot

💬 laanwj commented on issue "(removed)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32165#issuecomment-2764496988)
This github ia intended for concrete issues related to functionality of the software or its development. Please do not post rambling (LLM-generated?) pseudo-mathemetical essays about what bitcoin ought to be here, it is a waste of time for all of us.

✅ jirijakes closed an issue: "test: No unit test covers BIP342 tapscript signatures"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32012)

💬 jirijakes commented on issue "test: No unit test covers BIP342 tapscript signatures":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32012#issuecomment-2764497762)
Thank everybody for checking.

Originally, I was running the test without `qa-assets`, only using `./build/bin/test_bitcoin --run_test=script_tests`. To my understanding, that uses only the attached `bip341_wallet_vectors.json`, which is the test vector from the BIP (it does not cover tapscript).

What I did not verify was running with `qa-assets`. As others have reported, using `qa-assets` correctly raises errors after the modification.

I believe the BIP's test vectors should also cover tapscr
...

💬 SatoshiFans888 commented on issue "(removed)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32165#issuecomment-2764500880)
@laanwj Either I understand or I'm wrong, the essence of the message is the determination of z and p values in the Double Poisson Sum, I always calculate the risk before calculating the reward, I also had a headache with how it was applied to Mathematics but I could only tell the numbers were 1.96 and 0.04999579029644097 and some other criteria, maybe Bitcoin is still the Bitcoin that Satoshi asked for at the beginning of his speech, so proud.

📝 eval-exec opened a pull request: "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as cosnt to improve readability) torcontrol: Define tor replay code as const to improve our maintainability"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166)
This PR want to replace tor repy code with const to improve out maintainability.

Friendly invite

💬 eval-exec commented on pull request "torcontrol: Add comment explaining Proxy credential randomization for Tor privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973#issuecomment-2764507260)
Friendly ping @fanquake , I think this PR is ready to be merged.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166#issuecomment-2764511611)
Could probably be cherry-picked into https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973, so that there is only a single pull with doc/refactor fixups of the same file?

✅ eval-exec closed a pull request: "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166)

💬 eval-exec commented on pull request "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166#issuecomment-2764512073)
> Could probably be cherry-picked into #31973, so that there is only a single pull with doc/refactor fixups of the same file?

Sure.

📝 eval-exec reopened a pull request: "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166)
This PR want to replace tor repy code with const to improve out maintainability.

Friendly invite @fanquake @laanwj @luke-jr to review this PR.

✅ eval-exec closed a pull request: "torcontrol: Add comment explaining Proxy credential randomization for Tor privacy"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973)

💬 eval-exec commented on pull request "torcontrol: Add comment explaining Proxy credential randomization for Tor privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31973#issuecomment-2764512464)
Has cherry-pick this commit into https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "oss-fuzz build fails"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32167)
https://oss-fuzz-build-logs.storage.googleapis.com/index.html#bitcoin-core

Passing: https://oss-fuzz-build-logs.storage.googleapis.com/log-412269f7-edf7-41df-bf45-c7c19e4a6518.txt

(commit f1d129d96340503ec5f6b347c2fdf6a6901b1f7e)

Failing: https://oss-fuzz-build-logs.storage.googleapis.com/log-55825031-7dd1-470e-a768-1dd6d1cc1d8a.txt

(commit 0a1e36effaa5aa27bc5f2c4955c1fa2eb2f0c8fa)

output:

```
Step #30 - "compile-libfuzzer-address-i386": copying packages: boost libevent sqlite
Step #30 - "
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: create assert_not_equal util":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29500#discussion_r2020141507)
No strong opinion, but I think we shouldn't spend too much time on the error message explaining the context because the traceback could contain too little context, or on the traceback containing too much (redundant) context by default. A full log of a test failure could be thousands of lines, so one additional line, even if could be redundant in a strict sense should be fine. Also, looking at the historic failures (in Python) at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20%20label%3
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Enforce readability-avoid-const-params-in-decls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31650#discussion_r2020144640)
The goal of this pull is to avoid `const` params in declarations, not to avoid `const` params in definitions.

I can understand the confusion, so I am happy to do any of the following:

* Close this pull
* Just take the first commit and drop the second one
* Add a commit to remove const in definitions as well, though, this at this point we may enter the territory where it isn't worth it to spend review time on this refactor

📝 katesalazar opened a pull request: "doc/descriptors.md: Update next halvening heights"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32168)
You are welcome to remix these changes in your own way.

💬 0xNegnin commented on issue "v29.0 Testing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32052#issuecomment-2764547856)
I also have upgraded to v29.0rc2 without any issue using the following stack:

- bitcoind
- electrs
- nginx (as reverse proxy for electrs)
- debian12

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "index: Check all necessary block data is available before starting to sync":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29770#discussion_r2020166642)
That would be nice but I'm not sure how to do it. The one candidate index we have for that is `txindex` but we wholly disable that in the context of pruning because what it is used for is incompatible with pruning.