💬 rkrux commented on pull request "test: Add encodable PUSHDATA1 examples to feature_taproot":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32114#discussion_r2021183769)
Ty, the diff here seems good enough to me.

```
git range-diff 3dd29b1...f974359
```

💬 katesalazar commented on pull request "doc/descriptors.md: Update next halvening heights":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32168#discussion_r2021198043)
I'll get the corresponding checksum just in case.

📝 katesalazar converted_to_draft 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.

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "b-msghand invoked oom-killer: Master (v28.99) crashing during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31561#issuecomment-2766501010)
I was able to reproduce this issue again, it took about a week of IBD

This is a "basic" digital ocean droplet. General-purpose dedicated CPU, `4 vCPUs`
```
8 GB Memory / 160 GB Disk + 1000 GB / NYC1 - Ubuntu 24.10 x64
```

Bitcoin built from this commit in master: c12a2528ce665192af2ebb4ab4e03e229f1b73ca

Build options: `cmake -B build -DWITH_BDB=OFF -DWITH_ZMQ=ON -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug`

Runtime options: `bitcoind -txindex=1 -debug`

Last messages in debug log:
```
root@issue31561:~/bitcoin
...

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "validation: set BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD correctly"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31835#pullrequestreview-2729590096)
re-ACK 3c3548a70eedb8dcf6a4a8d605a4a12e814c7cac

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Use number of dirty cache entries in flush warnings/logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31703#issuecomment-2766548883)
@l0rinc I've lost track a bit of your comments/suggestions. Is the PR as-is broken when interacting with assumeutxo?

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "fuzz: Make partially_downloaded_block more deterministic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32158#discussion_r2021257793)
Off-by-one:
```suggestion
println!("[{}/{}]", i + 1, entries.len());
```

📝 pablomartin4btc opened a pull request: "test: Verify that a message is not in rpc errors raised (follow-up 31451)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32174)
This follow-up was proposed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31451#discussion_r1884067770.

Verify that an unwanted message is not among the errors raised by the rpc call, otherwise raise an exception with the details.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166#discussion_r2021268183)
Thanks! Happy I managed to prompt you to come up with those edge-cases.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: Make partially_downloaded_block more deterministic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32158#discussion_r2021302172)
thx, done

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: Make partially_downloaded_block more deterministic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32158#discussion_r2021302250)
thx, pushed something similar with emojis

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: Make partially_downloaded_block more deterministic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32158#discussion_r2021302350)
thx, pushed something similar

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "torcontrol: Define tor reply code as const to improve our maintainability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32166#discussion_r2021344127)
i considered commenting this, but didn't because it's a bit much for defining two response values. Seems the benefit of enum class would be to make sure they're grouped by name `TorReply::OK` `TorReply::UNRECOGNIZED`?

📝 brunoerg opened a pull request: "fuzz: doc: add info about `afl-system-config` for macOS"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32175)
`afl-system-config` adjusts the shared memory segment size limits and configures kernel parameters for better fuzzing performance. Since macOS has more conservative values on shared memory, it's necessary to run `afl-system-config`, or manually adjust the values to fuzz with AFL++.

e.g.:
```sh
kern.sysv.shmmax: 524288000
kern.sysv.shmmin: 1
kern.sysv.shmseg: 48
kern.sysv.shmall: 131072000
```

📝 laanwj opened a pull request: "net: Prevent accidental circuit sharing when using Tor stream isolation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32176)
Add a class TorsStreamIsolationCredentialsGenerator that generates
unique credentials based on a randomly generated session prefix
and an atomic counter.

This makes sure that different launches of the application won't share
the same credentials, and thus circuits, even in edge cases.

Example with `-debug=proxy`:
```
2025-03-31T15:51:20Z [proxy] SOCKS5 sending proxy authentication d91418ab1b2fc8d7b672a6eb3ac96f8f-0:d91418ab1b2fc8d7b672a6eb3ac96f8f-0
2025-03-31T15:51:21Z [proxy] SOCKS
...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "Replace MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE to preclude 64 non-witness bytes only":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26398#issuecomment-2766799625)
Concept ACK.

I don't buy that the discontinuity would cause any more confusion than making harmless transactions non-standard. The upgrade hook argument made sense back when this PR was closed, but i don't think it holds anymore now that no proposal includes invalidating <64 bytes transactions.

> OTOH, it might be plausible to just not worry about small-tx's at all, in which case the check could just be removed entirely, avoiding any discontinuities...

This goes completely against your
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#discussion_r2021216973)
concept ack introducing this constant. I think it would be best to have it in a separate commit and replace the magic number in policy.cpp with this

💬 glozow commented on pull request "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#discussion_r2021218605)
Should use `CURRENT_VERSION` instead of magic number

💬 glozow commented on pull request "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#discussion_r2021201880)
Yes, this seems to be redundant with `TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION`. It also appears to be unused, did you maybe forget to delete it?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "rpc: Support v3 raw transactions creation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31936#discussion_r2021361765)
This is needed as the arg is non-string type. My understanding is that @luke-jr is concept nacking the PR. I don't really understand the comments about the positionalness of this arg?

📝 instagibbs opened a pull request: "TxGraph: Increase fuzz coverage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32177)
Was looking at my local coverage report, and noticed a few spots that will not or cannot be hit.

CountDistinctClusters, GetAncestorsUnion, and GetDescendantsUnion accept nullptrs, but the test harness never employs them. Disallow them.

We never call PullIn whenever there isn't staging, so just enforce that invariant via assertion.

Remaining places that are not covered:

1) Relinearize: Currently we seem to always start with a cold (not known to be optimal) cluster, and after one attem
...