💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "wallet: Track no-longer-spendable TXOs separately":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27865#discussion_r2181221787)
Why is it optional instead of false by default?

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "wallet, test: best block locator matches scan state follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32580#discussion_r2181674862)
nit: I haven't seen the format I'm proposing here but just to make it more clear if it makes sense...
```suggestion
self.log.info(
"Test that on a duplicate block disconnection event after unclean shutdown:\n"
" - wallet transactions are un-abandoned after temporarily invalidated blocks;\n"
" - wallet doesn't crash."
)
```

🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "wallet, test: best block locator matches scan state follow-ups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32580#pullrequestreview-2981629314)
cr-ACK 1b5c545e82fe3cf5027f16b43e2306aeb8d4ef9b

Reviewed #30221 to verify the agreed follow-ups:
- In `wallet.cpp`:
- another opportunity to use `setLastBlockProcessedInMem` - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30221#discussion_r2090917963
- `(!loc.IsNull())` - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30221#discussion_r2096279905
- In `wallet_reorgsrestore.py`:
- update test log - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30221#discussion_r2091417700
- assert rescanning - http
...

👍 rkrux approved a pull request: "wallet: Remove ISMINE_WATCHONLY and watchonly from RPCs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32618#pullrequestreview-2981864736)
ACK b1a8ac07e91dd1d305fcbc16ea931d60e46c0055

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "wallet: Remove ISMINE_WATCHONLY and watchonly from RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32618#discussion_r2181951390)
Got it. Generally how long do we wait to remove a field from the code after marking it deprecated?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: Make process_message(s) more deterministic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32822#issuecomment-3031079858)
> mock time

My bad and nice catch. Added it there as well.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "cmake: Move internal binaries from bin/ to libexec/":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#discussion_r2182003768)
04e51ba1110e13598e0b11a35ce5abf4a1789f53: now that the wrapper binary is available, the release note could enumerate how to call these now: `bitcoin test`, etc.

👍 Sjors approved a pull request: "cmake: Move internal binaries from bin/ to libexec/"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#pullrequestreview-2981960982)
re-ACK 705791cd436f237fe9bbac2cf52d63ab4b2a41c7

Left a suggestion for the release note.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Fix tiebreak when loading blocks from disk (and add tests for comparing chain ties)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29640#discussion_r2182072018)
Possible typos and grammar issues:

In feature_chain_tiebreaks.py: “Make sure than only the former connects” -> “Make sure that only the former connects” [‘than’ should be ‘that’]
In feature_chain_tiebreaks.py: “# Restart and check enough times to this to eventually fail if the logic is broken” -> “# Restart and check this enough times to eventually fail if the logic is broken” [‘to this’ is misplaced and hinders comprehension]

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "checkqueue: set MAX_SCRIPTCHECK_THREADS to nCores - 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32692#issuecomment-3031197708)
Maybe turn into draft while CI is red and this is still a WIP?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fee estimate test: fix #31944 by handling a legitimate scenario that …":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32615#issuecomment-3031268246)
Just ensure enough random transactions have been created to reliably return a fee estimate in any run?

💬 maflcko commented on issue "fuzz: Fix stability, determinism issues":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29018#issuecomment-3031280019)
Just dropping an extremely hacky/ugly patch that could be useful to collect the combined debug log while iterating over all fuzz input files in one process and then split that debug log again for each fuzz input file and show the diff:

<details><summary>hacky patch</summary>

```diff
diff --git a/a.py b/a.py
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..a28b602891
--- /dev/null
+++ b/a.py
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+import os
+import sys
+
+in_a=sys.argv[1]
+out_a=[]
+for basename_a in [in_a,in_a.replace('.a.',
...

💬 saikiran57 commented on pull request "Added rescan option for import descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31668#discussion_r2182139002)
hi @achow101 can you please review it again.

📝 fanquake converted_to_draft a pull request: "checkqueue: set MAX_SCRIPTCHECK_THREADS to nCores - 1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32692)
A fixed MAX_SCRIPTCHECK_THREADS value is not flexible for users to leverage their cpu resources, and a value large than nCores - 1 doesn't make sense since it only adds some context switch overhead. Set it to nCores - 1. Assumption: A user who sets the number of script verification workers is aware of how this affects the system performance, otherwise he/she leaves it as default (which is 0)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: check P2SH sigop count for coinbase tx"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32850)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Make config warnings fatal if -DWCONFIGURE_ERROR=ON":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31665#discussion_r2182226882)
erroneous rebase?

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "wallet, test: best block locator matches scan state follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32580#discussion_r2182241246)
I recall spending some time to come up with a log format specifically for this but I was not satisfied with the ones I came up, and thus defaulted to the regular one.
This suggestion looks better to me, I will use it if I end up retouching.

📝 Sjors opened a pull request: "Have createwalletdescriptor auto-detect an unused(KEY)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32861)
The `createwalletdescriptor` was introduced in #29130 to let users add a `tr()` descriptor to an existing SegWit wallet. The new `addhdkey` method from #29136 introduces a new potential workflow: start from a blank wallet, generate an HD and then add only the descriptors you need, e.g.:

```sh
bitcoin rpc createwallet TaprootMaxi blank=true
bitcoin rpc addhdkey
bitcoin rpc createwalletdescriptor bech32m
```

Before this PR the last line would fail, requiring the user to call `gethdkeys`
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: `addhdkey` RPC to add just keys to wallets via new `unused(KEY)` descriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29136#issuecomment-3031449845)
> Another thing I noticed is that createwalletdescriptor is not smart enough to just use the only available unused(KEY) descriptor.

I opened a followup PR for this #32861.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "wallet: remove dead code in legacy wallet migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32758#issuecomment-3031518930)
Rebased over master to incorporate changes from #31423.