📝 brunoerg opened a pull request: "fuzz: wallet, add target for `fees`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27647)
This PR adds fuzz coverage for `wallet/fees`. Some functions may use or not (non default) values from `wallet`, `CCoinControl` or `FeeCalculation`. So the logic is to make the test sometimes fill up some attributes and others no.

⚠️ Aminkavoos opened an issue: "I can take the lock on this issue?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27648)
I can take the lock on this issue?

_Originally posted by @vincenzopalazzo in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23119#issuecomment-929591085_

✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "I can take the lock on this issue?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27648)

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "assumeutxo (2)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27596#pullrequestreview-1425210799)
I started testing this by creating / loading a snapshot on signet at height 100016. I haven't really looked at the code yet and also didn't read the provided docs so that I could do things by trial and error, and hopefully get to the desired result anyway but have a better chance to encounter some edge cases / bugs along the way.

Things worked really well! Just some observations / minor issues:
- Didn't encounter any problems with indexes, pruning, `-reindex` or `reindex-chainstate`
- In on
...

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Relay own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1192851862)
Also, if you send the `INV` first and wait for a request to send the actual tx, you might be a little more confident that the peer you connected to is really relaying txs, not just gathering statistics.

I was thinking that you could send a fixed `VERSION` string and no feature messages (`WTXIDRELAY`, `SENDADDRV2`, etc), as a way of minimising how identifiable your node is versus other clients doing sensitive-relay. (I don't think you can have a larger anonymity set than that, since "send a si
...

💬 brunoerg commented on issue "Increase fuzz coverage in the wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27272#issuecomment-1546428911)
I'm working on increasing fuzz coverage in the wallet. Just to track:

- #27647 - for `wallet/fees` stuff
- #27585 - add more coverage for coin selection

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "I can take the lock on this issue?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27648)

⚠️ random9brat opened an issue: "BIP 39 words update"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27649)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

Would it be possible to update bip39 words somehow to contain Serbian words (would be much useful for people from Balkan). I know this github is just btc repo but where would be the best place for this conversation to start?

### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.

Brain wallet would be much easier for at least 50.000.000 people (Balkans+outside who uses that language).

### Describe the solution you'd like

A
...

💬 achow101 commented on issue "BIP 39 words update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27649#issuecomment-1546495261)
Bitcoin Core does not support BIP 39. Discussion of changes to BIPs should be made on the [bitcoin-dev mailing list](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev) or the [bips repo](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips).

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "BIP 39 words update"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27649)

⚠️ SharinganKazekage opened an issue: "Mine bitcoin using FPGA"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27650)
hey i have a project in university, is to create a fpga to mine bitcoin. Any idea where to start please?

💬 theochino commented on issue "Mine bitcoin using FPGA":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27650#issuecomment-1546539927)
https://youtu.be/y3dqhixzGVo

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Mine bitcoin using FPGA":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27650#issuecomment-1546541424)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base. General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat.

✅ MarcoFalke closed an issue: "Mine bitcoin using FPGA"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27650)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for `fees`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27647#discussion_r1192929497)
Any reason to create a fresh wallet for each iteration? Should give more iter/second if this was static.

Also, could run `clang-format` to avoid the leading whitespace bloat?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "nested invalidate block doesn't work like I expect":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10439#issuecomment-1546543076)
Ok, closing for now due to lack of interest, progress and direction.

Pull requests with improvements are always welcome. Moreover, it is possible to re-open this issue or create a new issue referencing it, if there is fresh interest.

✅ MarcoFalke closed an issue: "nested invalidate block doesn't work like I expect"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10439)

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Introduce field element and group element classes to test_framework/key.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26222#issuecomment-1546544187)
@real-or-random Makes sense, that simplifies some things too. Done.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: avoid sporadic MINIMALDATA failure in feature_taproot.py (fixes #27595)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27631#issuecomment-1546544317)
> This passes your example, and doesn't seem to break any other test.

Seems fragile to change a data structure with one-off code for a single test case. If the one-off special case is needed, it can be put into the test case itself.

💬 martinus commented on pull request "util: implement `noexcept` move assignment & move ctor for `prevector`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27334#discussion_r1192934995)
I think it's enough to have `other._size = 0;` because then `other.is_direct()` will return false and no free happens

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "p2p: Increase tx relay rate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27630#issuecomment-1546551585)
> randomly drop half of `m_recently_announced_invs` if it exceeds some maximum size

I just realized this would act as a shredder on clusters. Some peers would only get the parent (that's fine), but (for n > 2 clusters) most would get children for which they don't have the parent yet.

So any kind of load distribution between peers would have to be done per cluster. Perhaps by randomly dropping clusters until the queue is at an acceptable size. Or by coordinating the distribution globally f
...