💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "wallet, refactor: Remove Legacy wallet unused warnings and errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32481#issuecomment-2957298584)
_<ins>Updates</ins>_:
* Removed "non-descriptor" checks and error instances in RPC (noticed while reviewing #32708).

💬 average-gary commented on pull request "BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (regtest only)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-2957388710)
ACK.

💬 average-gary commented on pull request "BIP-348 (OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK) (regtest only)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32247#issuecomment-2957389146)
ACK.

👍 pablomartin4btc approved a pull request: "wallet: Fix wallet interface detection of encrypted wallets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32620#pullrequestreview-2911854866)
tACK 130a922980778b293b22169d5e5649afde3ba33b

<details>
<summary>In master without this change when I try to migrate an encrypted legacy wallet I get the error message saying that the passphrase wasn't provided.</summary>


</details>
<details>
<summary>This branch fixes the issue, making possible that the <code>AskPassphraseDialog</code> gets opened properly, and if
...

💬 PeterWrighten commented on pull request "wallet: Allow read-only database access for info and dump commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32685#issuecomment-2957602059)
> We require that all commits compile and pass the tests by themselves, but it looks like the commits in this PR do not. Please revise your commits so that they pass all of the tests individually.

Okay, but it seems without permission, I cannot run some CIs and tests on GitHub. I have passed 11 CIs on GitHub, and all tests on my machine. How should I confirm whether they are all passed on Git Action or not?

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Allow read-only database access for info and dump commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32685#issuecomment-2957642222)
> I cannot run some CIs and tests on GitHub.

Approved, they should be run automatically now.

📝 achow101 opened a pull request: "init, doc: Replace datacarrier(size) deprecation with non-recommendation text"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32714)
Instead of marking `-datacarrier` and `-datacarriersize` options as deprecated, only say that these options are not recommended for use.

While deprecation obviously means that the options are not recommended for use, many users seem to believe that it also means that the options will be imminently removed. My understanding is that there is currently no plan to remove these options in the near future, and I don't think it would be wise to open a PR to remove the options for a few more years. W
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "init, doc: Replace datacarrier(size) deprecation with non-recommendation text":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32714#issuecomment-2957749613)
lgtm ACK 4f06bf3451c7800ccc54853b354285fb159ef382

Makes sense to go through a normal and proper deprecate-remove cycle over two releases, once, and if there is need to. Otherwise, this may be a situation similar to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29240, where the deprecation warning is meaningless and confusing.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "init, doc: Replace datacarrier(size) deprecation with non-recommendation text":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32714#discussion_r2136975760)
I think it would be easy enough to enumerate the potential degredations of performance here explicitly, no? Should have said this on the other PR, but the notice in general feels weirdly inconsistent to me. Basically all the other policy options have similar effects if they are tightened beyond their defaults too. What makes this one different?

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "init, doc: Replace datacarrier(size) deprecation with non-recommendation text":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32714#discussion_r2136983552)
Sure, any suggested wording?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: fuzz: fix AFL++ link":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32713#discussion_r2136998186)
Is there a reason why clang-11/LTO should not be available when now the minimum clang version required by this project is clang 16?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "init, doc: Replace datacarrier(size) deprecation with non-recommendation text":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32714#issuecomment-2957850915)
ACK 4f06bf3451c7800ccc54853b354285fb159ef382

Deprecating seemed premature to me, let's do it in smaller steps to be more aligned with the users.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads 10% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132#issuecomment-2957908956)
Looks like the CI started failing, due to too many threads being launched in the functional tests with that parallelism? As the threads may open files, this could be hitting the max open files limit? Or maybe it is a different limit hit?

💬 lordnakamoto commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2957922134)
This is a disgraceful precedent. There is no consensus for this change. It is clear that the maintainers of this repo have been corrupted. We will leave no stone unturned in getting to the bottom of this. We will discover the truth and take appropriate action.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "(RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32427#issuecomment-2957923761)
The latest push updates the block tree store to use a write ahead log for atomic writes, and crc32c checksums to detect data corruption. As mentioned, taking this out of draft again.

Did not spend too much time yet on evaluating the various proposals for reforming block storage yet, but I am warming up to the idea. I still think it is largely orthogonal to the work here, besides potentially needing another change to the data serialization.

👋 TheCharlatan's pull request is ready for review: "(RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32427)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "init, doc: Replace datacarrier(size) deprecation with non-recommendation text":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32714#issuecomment-2957986589)
Concept NACK.

It's fine to _add_ a non-recommendation text, but we should keep the deprecation warning. If by the time we would normally drop a depreceated feature (v31 or v32) there's still a strong risk of brigading, then that's perhaps a _political_ argument for delaying it further, but it's still deprecated.

I don't think the comparison with #29240 is correct here. There the deprecation itself was a mistake, because there were good technical reasons for users to keep using username and
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "doc: add missing packages for BSDs (cmake, gmake, curl) to depends/README.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32711#issuecomment-2958008359)
utACK f8ff5690212866597958a52d4cd049d66e51d9fd

I also only tested on OpenBSD.

cc @vasild

💬 hMsats commented on issue "bitcoind 29.0 much slower than 28.0 on my system: cause found":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32455#issuecomment-2958082615)
This is my final conclusion:

Because the situation didn't improve I switched back to 2 MiB using a backup and everything works fine again. After a while I turned off Fulcrum and CLN and ran the above bash script again. Now no spikes (rcp request taking longer than 10 seconds) came up anymore. I then ran it again with a threshold of 5 seconds. Still nothing. Then ran it with a threshold of 2 seconds and the result was:

```
3 900585 Tue Jun 10 08:58:46 AM CEST 2025
2 900585 Tue Jun 10 09:01:44 A
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "validation: stricter internal handling of invalid blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31405#discussion_r2137230303)
I'd like a comment here too.