📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "test: Explain how to reproduce zmq:: upstream race"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32703)
An explanation makes it easier to reproduce, if needed.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Explain how to reproduce zmq:: upstream race":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32703#issuecomment-2954115227)
For example, the following diff gives the following output.

```diff
diff --git a/ci/test/00_setup_env_native_tsan.sh b/ci/test/00_setup_env_native_tsan.sh
index b341adfec5..f2b72b8256 100755
--- a/ci/test/00_setup_env_native_tsan.sh
+++ b/ci/test/00_setup_env_native_tsan.sh
@@ -10,7 +10,11 @@ export CONTAINER_NAME=ci_native_tsan
export CI_IMAGE_NAME_TAG="mirror.gcr.io/ubuntu:24.04"
export APT_LLVM_V="20"
export PACKAGES="clang-${APT_LLVM_V} llvm-${APT_LLVM_V} libclang-rt-${APT_LLVM
...

⚠️ PJJacobowitz opened an issue: "Windows arm64 Bitcoin Node?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32704)
Any chance someone would develop the Bitcoin Node for Windows on Arm?

There are now many Windows laptops on the market that are using the Snapdragon arm processor.

It would be great to have an arm64 Windows version of the Bitcoin Node.

https://www.theverge.com/24319497/windows-on-arm-2024-review-laptops

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Windows arm64 Bitcoin Node?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32704#issuecomment-2954130494)
See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31388#issuecomment-2854625982

💬 jonatack commented on issue "test: `tool_wallet.py` references no-longer used CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32576#issuecomment-2954145600)
Hi @Mercy435 -- yes, am updating #28116.

💬 Mercy435 commented on issue "test: `tool_wallet.py` references no-longer used CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32576#issuecomment-2954149728)
Thanks for the quick update, @jonatack! Glad to hear you're on it and updating #28116. Please feel free to reach out if there’s any way I can help.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Windows arm64 Bitcoin Node?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32704#issuecomment-2954165283)
Dupe of #31388.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Windows arm64 Bitcoin Node?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32704)

💬 PJJacobowitz commented on issue "Windows arm64 Bitcoin Node?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32704#issuecomment-2954187169)
Awesome. Thank you guys.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "improve MallocUsage() accuracy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28531#discussion_r2134789894)
@LarryRuane, most of these tests will be executed on your own fork as well (except a few Cirrus fuzzers).
You can freely experiment there - see for example my attempts as https://github.com/l0rinc/bitcoin/pull/20

💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "improve MallocUsage() accuracy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28531#discussion_r2134790913)
I didn't know that, that will prevent clutter here with that temporary stuff, thanks! I'll do that from now on (I want to do a few more similar experiments).

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "improve MallocUsage() accuracy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28531#discussion_r2134791862)
yeah, I also have a few experiments where I'm not sure about the state of CI so I push to my local fork first - though the remaining CIs still surprise me sometimes after upstream push :)

💬 b-l-u-e commented on pull request "tests: Remove hardcoded addresstype in `rpc_psbt.py`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32701#issuecomment-2954223345)
Code review ACK e8a0776

I have tested the code. The change correctly removes the hardcoded addresstype restrictions that were added as a temporary measure before Taproot PSBT support was fully implemented.

**Testing performed:**
- Verified the test passes with the changes: `test/functional/test_runner.py rpc_psbt`
- Confirmed the test also passes on master branch

**Rationale:**
The TODO comment explicitly stated this restriction should be removed "once taproot has psbt extensions".
...

💬 sipa commented on pull request "improve MallocUsage() accuracy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28531#issuecomment-2954239265)
I wonder if perhaps it would be feasible to run a little runtime self-calibration at startup to find the malloc overhead parameters, so that they would be correct on all platforms.

📝 itashia opened a pull request: "Update net_types.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32705)
Refactor: Improve readability, performance, and safety of the code

- Enhanced readability:
- Used if statements with initializers (C++17)
- Removed unnecessary else blocks via early returns
- Grouped code logically with clearer comments

- Performance optimizations:
- Replaced `size() == 0` with `empty()` for efficiency
- Reduced redundant checks
- Used `const` for immutable data

- Safety and reliability:
- Applied `static_cast` for explicit type conversions
- Min
...

✅ itashia closed a pull request: "Update net_types.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32705)

📝 itashia opened a pull request: "Update net_types.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32706)
Refactor: Code structure, performance, and modern C++ improvements

- Code structure improvements:
- Introduced namespaces for internal constants
- Centralized definition of all JSON keys
- Used structured bindings (C++17) in loops

- Performance optimizations:
- Pre-allocated memory for JSON arrays
- Applied std::move to avoid unnecessary copies
- Cleared maps before repopulating them

- Safety and reliability:
- Added try-catch blocks for error handling
- Used con
...

✅ itashia closed a pull request: "Update net_types.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32706)

🤔 sigmaemilio reviewed a pull request: "checkqueue: set MAX_SCRIPTCHECK_THREADS to nCores - 1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32692#pullrequestreview-2908661505)
Gg

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "test: headers sync timeout":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32677#discussion_r2134916035)
This doesn't return the timestamp of the best header, but the time of the tip (which is still at genesis, after all headers up to minchainwork have been downloaded but no blocks connected). As far as I know (didn't check) we don't expose `m_chainman.m_best_header->Time()` via RPC, so it may be hard to test the dynamic part in a functional test (which the test doesn't do anyway because no headers are exchanged, but it currently pretends that it could).