💬 yuvicc commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#issuecomment-3011745929)
> though I think the last two commits can be squashed
Done!

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "rpc, doc: clarify watch-only wallets balances in RPCHelp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32761#issuecomment-3011790118)
@rkrux I think the `include_watchonly` param is also outdated and should be removed. Watch-only descriptor wallet balances are marked as spendable, so `include_watchonly` no longer serves any purpose.

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "rpc, doc: clarify watch-only wallets balances in RPCHelp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32761#discussion_r2170890355)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32761/commits/220074ef094866386211db4d647d5ff1c93ba54e: Consider "Note: For watch-only wallets, this returns the balance of monitored addresses, but funds cannot actually be spent"

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc, doc: clarify watch-only wallets balances in RPCHelp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32761#issuecomment-3011840067)
> @rkrux I think the `include_watchonly` param is also outdated and should be removed. Watch-only descriptor wallet balances are marked as spendable, so `include_watchonly` no longer serves any purpose.

See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32618

💬 maflcko commented on issue "v27.2 guix build fails with hash mismatch":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31266#issuecomment-3011875412)
Same here:

```
building /gnu/store/z3s5wmdqmbznsh7i1wvs0y9lw7zmqw1w-gnutls-3.7.7.tar.xz.drv...


Starting download of /gnu/store/sziaihhn2rs2p95gfn83yi78b9dlj2qi-gnutls-3.7.7.tar.xz
From http://artfiles.org/gnupg.org/gnutls/v3.7/gnutls-3.7.7.tar.xz...
download failed "http://artfiles.org/gnupg.org/gnutls/v3.7/gnutls-3.7.7.tar.xz" 404 "Not Found"

Starting download of /gnu/store/sziaihhn2rs2p95gfn83yi78b9dlj2qi-gnutls-3.7.7.tar.xz
From http://www.crysys.hu/gnutls/v3.7/gnutls-3.7.7.tar.xz...
foll
...

💬 musaHaruna commented on pull request "rpc: Distinguish between vsize and sigop adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32800#issuecomment-3011908517)
> It makes much more sense to stick to weight for consensus-related matters, and vsize for policy in all cases.

Sorry, I didn't quite fully understand the comment (do you mean sigopsize should return only `int64_t sigopWeight = entry->GetSigOpCost() * nBytesPerSigOp;`) can you elaborate more on it, and what you are suggesting. Thanks.

💬 yuvicc commented on pull request "merkle: pre‑reserve leaves to prevent reallocs with odd vtx count":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32497#issuecomment-3011987044)
lgtm re-ACK be8f3053a7ad526823f32f1a70847b9c06c4c54b

Before e87430ed5fad6f9d90c1e7d256b9b8276b936c24
| ns/leaf | leaf/s | err% | total | benchmark
|--------------------:|--------------------:|--------:|----------:|:----------
| 53.83 | 18,577,129.91 | 0.1% | 1.10 | `MerkleRoot`
| 53.62 | 18,648,858.81 | 0.1% | 1.10 | `MerkleRoot`
| 53.70 | 18,621,594.40 | 0.1% | 1.10 | `Mer
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "ipc: Handle unclean shutdowns better":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32345#discussion_r2171026682)
CI on https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/pull/90#issuecomment-3011857912 complains of an unused result.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "ipc: Handle unclean shutdowns better":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32345#discussion_r2171082503)
<csignal>

💬 PeterWrighten commented on pull request "Add read-only mode to sqlite db and use in `bitcoin-wallet`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32818#discussion_r2171326181)
In this code, you should add more seeds number of platform to pass CI.

💬 PeterWrighten commented on pull request "Add read-only mode to sqlite db and use in `bitcoin-wallet`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32818#issuecomment-3012286236)
> > How does this compare with #32685?
>
>
>
> Ah, I didn't know (or had perhaps forgotten) about that PR. I came via #15608 and did not check what was open. Shame on me :(
>
>
>
> I will mark this as draft and take a look over that PR.

Never mind. Your implementation is also great. But seems there is lack of some tests for walletdb and db...

💬 naiyoma commented on pull request "wallet: have external signer use PSBT error code EXTERNAL_SIGNER_NOT_FOUND":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32682#issuecomment-3012316854)
Post Merge TAck 9dfc61d
I tested this by setting up HWI and using Trezor as my external signer
I noticed while reviewing this that some tests have been commented out —> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/functional/wallet_signer.py#L81 and also
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/functional/wallet_signer.py#L171
Perhaps a good follow-up would be to work on as well, ?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "clang-format: modernize and realign clang-format configuration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32813#discussion_r2171408367)
Thanks, managed to install an older version and redid the changes for maximal compatibility.

💬 Sjors commented on issue "`dumptxoutset` rollback feature does not take forks into account":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32817#issuecomment-3012406102)
This goes back to the discussion in #29565 that we probably shouldn't be using block invalidation as a hack to make the chain state manager roll back. Instead we should actually roll back (though no need for a new RPC).

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Add read-only mode to sqlite db and use in `bitcoin-wallet`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32818#discussion_r2171485551)
🤔

🤔 fanquake reviewed a pull request: "Add release note for #32530"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32819#pullrequestreview-2966053187)
ACK 558f0880a8f374ab7a06bd829635a5e188bd8419

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Add release note for #32530"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32819)

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "rpc, doc: clarify the response of listtransactions RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32737#discussion_r2171711817)
Good point, I have reworded to remove the word "output". I do want to let an example be present because this behaviour was not apparent to me when I first started using this RPC.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "rpc, doc: clarify the response of listtransactions RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32737#discussion_r2171715691)
I have not used the term "logical/financial" to describe these transactions yet but I can add it if people believe that would be a valuable addition.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "test: fix an incorrect `feature_fee_estimation.py` subtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32463#discussion_r2171735436)
I think just linking the PR without some explanation will not be that enough, so I instead link the issue comment with the comprehensive explanation, it will be easy to dig in up to that PR after clicking the current link in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9b75cfda4d62a0a3bde402503244dd57e1621a12.