⚠️ ekrembal opened an issue: "Internal bug detected: FinalizeAndExtractPSBT(psbtx_copy, mtx)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32849)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [x] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

```
bitcoin-cli -testnet4 descriptorprocesspsbt cHNidP8BAF4CAAAAAfrAU8xRZDY7er/kAUGzVtup++LN4otxeOtANj9Tw8xYAAAAAAD9////AeAPlwAAAAAAIlEgmQIRpk7kW78uK6z/DBX37H4Pi4OLy3Fau0pXquQSXLUAAAAAAAEBK4CWmAAAAAAAIlEg5cugS+vKVwm3OSTEr0sIVU/ahEJzIS6iXjsvWNwJ0VUBAwSDAAAAAQhDAUFATOMkSjzzD+7k1AnzZgJ+G+sDZXX5ob0tlQ9mZIseDe73u4fU6SPKdtxve2Wm/mVNrRIP5cPEnkcMv0BJ2iIWgyEWtJa/uuFJh4F8U9WSvgqmbEXHuURDwfdFUTc/nONN
...

💬 romanz commented on pull request "doc: add `/spenttxouts` to REST-interface.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32842#issuecomment-3024141446)
Thanks!

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "threading: remove ancient CRITICAL_SECTION macros":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32592#issuecomment-3024157584)
@theuni want to rebase this now that #32465 is in?

💬 fanquake commented on issue "[BTC signet v22.0] websocket not working as expect":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32848#issuecomment-3024213036)
Is this `v22.0` or `v26.0`: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32762#issuecomment-2978990456? Please only open issues when using a maintained version of Bitcoin Core, which is currently `27.x`, `28.x` or `29.x`.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "wallet: Fix relative path backup during migration.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32273#issuecomment-3024221935)
> Thanks, I've used parts of this suggestion but with some changes

Thanks for following up, and it's a good observation that calling `filename()` on an `fs::path` like I [suggested](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32273#issuecomment-2821309098) doesn't always always return a usable file prefix, since it can return odd fragments like ".." and doesn't handle trailing slashes.

But I feel like it would still be straightforward to address the problem of turning a wallet name into a safe
...

💬 saravadeanil commented on issue "[BTC signet v22.0] websocket not working as expect":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32848#issuecomment-3024230141)
@fanquake Thanks for checking I am using `v22.0` for signet node.

I was able to fix the initial sync issue by `addnode` referring https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32762#issuecomment-2977713689

💬 sipa commented on issue "[BTC signet v22.0] websocket not working as expect":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32848#issuecomment-3024239736)
Bitcoin Core has no websocket support whatsoever.

👋 l0rinc's pull request is ready for review: "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#discussion_r2177745211)
That change seems riskier than the rest, we can do it in a follow-up.
The PR is ready for review.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "[BTC signet v22.0] websocket not working as expect":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32848#issuecomment-3024315066)
Is this still an issue with a recent version of Bitcoin Core? If yes, what are the steps to reproduce?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521#discussion_r2177796421)
It seems to me the first historical tx that violates this new rule is https://mempool.space/tx/659135664894e50040830edb516a76f704fd2be409ecd8d1ea9916c002ab28a2 with 2585 sigops.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521#discussion_r2177807221)
> Apologies if that came across as patronizing

> if you insistently derail a PR with irrelevant concerns

no, they're not irrelevant or silly, I expect better arguments than these

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521#discussion_r2177826383)
Can we please ask a different reviewer for an opinion on this one thing to break the tie before anyone's feelings get hurt?

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2177843490)
> This should be && instead of ||.

Yeah, my bad.

> .isNull() check is not really reliable either, because it will happily accept an empty array.

At the moment you could do:
```
./build/bin/bitcoin-cli -signet -datadir=/tmp/btc getdescriptoractivity '[]' '[]'
{
"activity": [
]
}
```
And that doesn't make sense either.
> I think just making sure we only execute the request.params[n].get_array().getValues() statements if we've first checked that !request.params[n].isNull() sho
...

💬 sipa commented on pull request "policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521#discussion_r2177844858)
@l0rinc We should certainly not gratuitously make changes the worsen performance, but I think there have been reasonable arguments given here:
* It results in simpler code changes, specifically ones that impact consensus logic less.
* The slowdown in negligible compared the overall cost of transaction validation. It's good to be aware that there is a slowdown, but also reasonable to dismiss it on the basis that it's entirely justifiable in the presence of a much more important concern (reducin
...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521#discussion_r2177851038)
> Do we have data on how many main-chain transactions historically exceed the new threshold of 2500 legacy sigops?
I’d like to confirm that the new policy would block no real-world traffic and is purely a preventive DoS measure ahead of any future BIP-54 soft-fork activation.

I don't think past usage is necessarily the best predictor, i think it's more convincing to reason through what real-world traffic could look like. The BIP [goes through this reasoning](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/b
...

💬 saravadeanil commented on issue "[BTC signet v22.0] websocket not working as expect":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32848#issuecomment-3024436337)
I am trying to perform rawtx using websocket.

It think it works on bitcoin testnet & mainnet network with version v22.0.0.

I am wondering why it's not working with signet.

💬 sipa commented on issue "[BTC signet v22.0] websocket not working as expect":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32848#issuecomment-3024444002)
Can you elaborate on what you're using? Because as I mentioned, Bitcoin Core has no websocket support. You may be using JSON-RPC, or ZMQ, or a P2P connection...

💬 saravadeanil commented on issue "[BTC signet v22.0] websocket not working as expect":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32848#issuecomment-3024449821)
@sipa Sorry for the confusion, I am using zmqpubrawtx port.

📝 brunoerg opened a pull request: "test: check P2SH sigop count for coinbase tx"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32850)
We currently do not test that `GetP2SHSigOpCount` returns 0 for coinbase transactions (see line L129 at https://corecheck.dev/mutation/src/consensus/tx_verify.cpp). This PR addresses it.