⚠️ 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.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "index: Check all necessary block data is available before starting to sync":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29770#issuecomment-2764580300)
I am making one more effort to pick this up see if it can get the necessary support. Upon re-reading our conversation @furszy I have removed the `chain.h` dependency from the indices so that it's a bit closer to what #24230 is planning to do. I looked at it as well to see if there are commits available to pick to add a options object but that didn't seem to be the case and #24230 is also still in draft mode so unsure how valuable it would be if I pick some small piece of code out of it. The code
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "Use number of dirty cache entries in flush warnings/logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31703#discussion_r2020168731)
This could also be useful to avoid the needless DB_HEAD_BLOCKS erase and rewrite for empty batches.

📝 l0rinc converted_to_draft a pull request: "[IBD] flush UTXOs in bigger batches"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31645)
This change is part of [[IBD] - Tracking PR for speeding up Initial Block Download](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32043)

### Summary

The final UTXO set is [written to disk in batches](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/txdb.cpp#L130-L133) to avoid a gigantic spike at flush time.
There is already a [-dbbatchsize](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/init.cpp#L490) config option to change this value, this PR adjusts the default only.
By increasing th
...

💬 hebasto commented on issue "oss-fuzz build fails":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32167#issuecomment-2764589279)
Reverting https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31849 fixes the issue.

cc @fanquake

💬 bigspider commented on pull request "OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32080#issuecomment-2764601895)
I added a workaround to disable the two failing tests from the `script_assets_test`; those tests do indeed assume the `OP_SUCCESS` behaviour of the `0xBB` opcode.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] flush UTXOs in bigger batches":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31645#issuecomment-2764621216)
I've experimented a bit with changing the fixed write batch size to a dynamic value that scales with dbcache size, basically something like:
```C++
static int64_t GetDefaultDbBatchSize(int64_t dbcache_bytes) {
return std::min<int64_t>(
MAX_DB_CACHE_BATCH, // 512 MiB upper limit
std::max<int64_t>(
MIN_DB_CACHE, // 4 MiB lower limit
dbcache_bytes * DEFAULT_KERNEL_CACHE_BATCH_SIZE / DEFAULT_KERNEL_CACHE
)
);
}
```

Corresponding
...

🤔 fjahr reviewed a pull request: "wallet, migration: Fix empty wallet crash"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32149#pullrequestreview-2727937771)
Concept ACK

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet, migration: Fix empty wallet crash":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32149#discussion_r2020190503)
```suggestion
//! Returns true if there are any DBKeys::LEGACY_TYPES record in the wallet db
```

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet, migration: Fix empty wallet crash":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32149#discussion_r2020189978)
Seems like this can be simplified (with maybe an additional comment that an empty wallet means automatic success)

```suggestion
{
// Keep the batch alive only for this call
const auto& db_batch = local_wallet->GetDatabase().MakeBatch();
success = !HasLegacyRecords(local_wallet.get(), *db_batch);
}

// Do the migration of keys and scripts for non-blank wallets, and cleanup if it fails
```

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet, migration: Fix empty wallet crash":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32149#discussion_r2020190409)
nit: I find this comment a bit redundant, especially in the tests. If you rename `db_batch` to `temp_batch` IMO it could be removed.

💬 EthanHeilman commented on pull request "tests: improves tapscript unit tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31640#issuecomment-2764707199)
> could you squash commits?

@instagibbs
Squashed

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] batch block reads/writes during `AutoFile` serialization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31551#issuecomment-2764716714)
> It seems odd that using exact block sizes (this pull initially) passes, whereas using a 1<<20 approximation fails due to OOM

Yes, I thought of the same, but the other PR had the same issue. I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of `ASan + LSan + UBSan + integer, no depends, USDT` to have a good enough explanation - besides the instrumentation causing it to overflow.

> What is the memory usage of the CI before and after?

I have measured a valgrind/massif IBD until the be benchma
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: Enforce readability-avoid-const-params-in-decls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31650#discussion_r2020242074)
> I can understand the confusion

I saw [both were changed here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31650/commits/fa8e57951abc5c737ab68694b8f6aa77551faa6b#r2017450776), I think it's a good change, I like consistency and though a few other similar ones could be added here.

Not sure why you'd want to close the PR because of my comments, if they're not useful, you can explain it to me or wait on other reviewers.

Feel free to resolve my comments.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2020250395)
> A downside here is that the "linearization" for this fat singletons cluster would be O(n log n) to update on every operation involving a singleton, which may be substantial if there are 1000s of singletons?

I don't think that's true? You'd just store the linearisation as part of the special cluster implementation as a std::set by feerate order, for O(lg n) modification and O(n) reporting? I guess it would be better to call that class something other than "cluster", since you'd probably want
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "index: Fix coinstats overflow and introduce index versioning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30469#issuecomment-2764743201)
Picking this up again after this has gone a bit quiet for a while. After having a brief conversation about it with @mzumsande at CoreDev I took another look at his migration idea. Initially I was a bit undecided honestly but I now think that it's reasonable to try this and I would like to open this up for additional approach feedback from other reviewers. Aside from a rebase this has now cherry-picked @mzumsande 's draft commit with minor changes by me and I adapted the tests to check the new be
...