💬 edilmedeiros commented on pull request "signet: omit commitment for some trivial challenges":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29032#issuecomment-2876932472)
Code Review ACK 6adec89e3961508875e79240a19bc981e5addf1a (untested)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "lint: Check for missing trailing newline":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32477#discussion_r2087077335)
Did a git clean -fxd before running it so I think it should've covered only the tracked files.

------

Will let you decide of course which ones makes sense to include, just pointing out that we may want to extend this list.

💬 edilmedeiros commented on pull request "signet: omit commitment for some trivial challenges":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29032#issuecomment-2876941545)
Code Review reACK 2be93f7ba3866892d98795384779ce2e965753a1 (untested)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "lint: Check for missing trailing newline":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32477#discussion_r2087083142)
I haven't tested it, if you say it's fast enough, I believe you

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "lint: Check for missing trailing newline":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32477#issuecomment-2876944750)
ACK fa9198af55df74b0c19c9125d256ad4df83cf005

🤔 caesrcd reviewed a pull request: "config: allow setting -proxy per network"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32425#pullrequestreview-2837204950)
reACK e98c51fcce

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: add `-W[leading|trailing]-whitespace`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32482#issuecomment-2876950405)
> GCC 15 now has options to turn these into compile failures: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-15/changes.html#c-family. Fix the few cases of leading tabs, and trailing whitespace, and then enable these options.

Concept ACK on that.

> Unfortunately, CMake/Qt will generate code that contains trailing whitespace:
>
> ```shell
> [ 98%] Building CXX object src/qt/CMakeFiles/bitcoinqt.dir/bitcoinqt_autogen/EJRQKI7XPS/qrc_bitcoin_locale.cpp.o
> /root/bitcoin/build/src/qt/bitcoinqt_autogen/EWIEGA46WW
...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "interfaces: refactor: move `Mining` and `BlockTemplate` implementation to miner":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32378#discussion_r2087092911)
Done

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "interfaces: refactor: move `Mining` and `BlockTemplate` implementation to miner":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32378#discussion_r2087093235)
Done!

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "interfaces: refactor: move `Mining` and `BlockTemplate` implementation to miner":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32378#discussion_r2087093815)
Added the comment as requested.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Update `secp256k1` subtree to latest master":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32028#issuecomment-2876976229)
> Here are the identified typographic and grammatical errors that impact comprehension in the provided git diff:
>
> CHECK(secp256k1_ec_seckey_tweak_add(CTX, privkey, rnd); -> CHECK(secp256k1_ec_seckey_tweak_add(CTX, privkey, rnd)); [missing closing parenthesis]

I can't seem to find `CHECK(secp256k1_ec_seckey_tweak_add(CTX, privkey, rnd)` in either our, or libsecp256k1s codebase.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "interfaces: refactor: move `Mining` and `BlockTemplate` implementation to miner":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32378#issuecomment-2876983186)
Force-pushed to address recent comments by @Sjors:

1. Added an explanation for why we ignore the result of `WaitTipChanged`.
2. Clarified the comment for `AddMerkleRootAndCoinbase`.
3. Shortened line lengths for improved readability.

Additionally, in the recent push, I added a commit that skips the fee check during block template total fees computation in `waitNext`. This check is redundant after #31897.

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "Add checkBlock() to Mining interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#pullrequestreview-2837265952)
Concept ACK after https://bitcoincore.reviews/31981

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2877008733)
> unless @luke-jr/Knots argues convincingly that the removal of these config options in Core makes maintaining them in Knots an excessive amount of work

It really shouldn't be. After this PR it's a matter of changing the default. After we actually drop the deprecated option, it would be a matter of reverting that one commit.

> I don't know if it makes sense for Core to try catering to Knots' objectives

In general Bitcoin Core provides very limited catering to forks, whether that's altc
...

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "Update `secp256k1` subtree to latest master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32028#pullrequestreview-2837285736)
ACK 915c1fa72c07a1908f7dc18a065230c7c4a64db2

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Update `secp256k1` subtree to latest master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32028)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add bitcoin wrapper executable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31375#issuecomment-2877018237)
re-tACK 4e1aae19512df82af584a064640c2143c5c5fa4f

Briefly retested on macOS. Will retest on Windows later.

Main changes since my last review:
- using subprocess in Windows to replace a bunch of string manipulation code (good idea @theStack)
- `bitcoin node` instead of `bitcoin daemon` to disambiguate from (detaching) `-daemon`

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31981#issuecomment-2877028785)
Thanks. I still need to address the questions by @stringintech.

💬 bytejedi commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2877049144)
Bitcoin is a digital currency that OP_RETURN should NOT EXIST ever since the beginning. You all turning bitcoin to shitcoin. Look what you all did these years, just fix bugs and CVEs please.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Update `secp256k1` subtree to latest master":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32028#issuecomment-2877052289)
> I can't seem to find `CHECK(secp256k1_ec_seckey_tweak_add(CTX, privkey, rnd)` in either our, or libsecp256k1s codebase.

See https://github.com/maflcko/DrahtBot/issues/50.

The prior result was correct, but it (obviously) can't be fixed here in a subtree bump anyway:

- dependendencies -> dependencies [typo]
- uninitalized -> uninitialized [typo]
- lamba -> lambda [typo]

🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#pullrequestreview-2802813202)
Concept ACK

Reducing the coupling between validation functions and the UTXO set makes the validation functions more usable, and more testable. The approach taken here seems sensible, but I'm going to think about alternatives a bit more.