💬 fjahr commented on issue "bitcoin core crashes when too many rpc calls are made":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11368#issuecomment-1560260664)
See #27732 for the wallet issue, I that makes sense to keep these things separate.

📝 theStack opened a pull request: "test: refactor: introduce `generate_keypair` helper with WIF support"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27733)
In functional tests it is a quite common scenario to generate fresh elliptic curve keypairs, which is currently a bit cumbersome as it involves multiple steps, e.g.:

privkey = ECKey()
privkey.generate()
privkey_wif = bytes_to_wif(privkey.get_bytes())
pubkey = privkey.get_pubkey().get_bytes()

Simplify this by providing a new `generate_keypair` helper function that returns the private key either as `ECKey` object or as WIF-string (depending on the boolean `wif` parameter)
...

⚠️ Sokhanetaze80 opened an issue: "Is there any documentation on PROTOCOL_VERSION I can refer to please? How is this decided and how does it cope with branches?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27734)
Is there any documentation on PROTOCOL_VERSION I can refer to please? How is this decided and how does it cope with branches?

_Originally posted by @rebroad in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/932#discussion_r580883_

✅ Sokhanetaze80 closed an issue: "Is there any documentation on PROTOCOL_VERSION I can refer to please? How is this decided and how does it cope with branches?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27734)

:lock: achow101 locked an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27734)

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: improve IBD sync time by skipping block scanning prior birth time":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27469#issuecomment-1560345015)
cr-ACK 76396ca376188631ba46bd47b134881efcc6f755

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "init: Improve file descriptor limit handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27730#issuecomment-1560455205)
Duplicate of #27539?

🤔 MarcoFalke reviewed a pull request: "wallet: improve IBD sync time by skipping block scanning prior birth time"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27469#pullrequestreview-1440982489)
left some comments/nits/questions. Feel free to ignore.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "wallet: improve IBD sync time by skipping block scanning prior birth time":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27469#discussion_r1203481523)
first commit: This would lead to issues in the rare case that more than 2 hours worth of blocks are produced, as they end up being in the future.

Is there a reason for the first commit?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "wallet: improve IBD sync time by skipping block scanning prior birth time":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27469#discussion_r1203482881)
first commit: Any reason this is changed?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "wallet: improve IBD sync time by skipping block scanning prior birth time":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27469#discussion_r1203482268)
Also, it is a source of non-determinism, but I guess this is fine.

📝 MarcoFalke opened a pull request: "test: Disable legacy wallet for mempool_packages.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27735)
This fixes a bug.

On master:

```
$ ./test/functional/mempool_packages.py --legacy-wallet
File "./test/functional/mempool_packages.py", line 52, in run_test
self.nodes[0].importaddress(self.wallet.get_address())
test_framework.authproxy.JSONRPCException: Bech32m addresses cannot be imported into legacy wallets (-5)
```

On this pull:

```
$ ./test/functional/mempool_packages.py --legacy-wallet
usage: mempool_packages.py [options]
mempool_packages.py: error: unrecognize
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: Disable legacy wallet for mempool_packages.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27735#issuecomment-1560544086)
(An alternative to test this would be to compile with bdb only)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Intermittent failures in interface_usdt_mempool.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27380#issuecomment-1560583591)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6382990889058304?logs=ci#L3266

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "init: Improve file descriptor limit handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27730#issuecomment-1560647386)
> Duplicate of #27539?

Ugh, mostly yeah.

✅ fjahr closed a pull request: "init: Improve file descriptor limit handling"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27730)

🤔 fjahr reviewed a pull request: "init: Fixes for file descriptor accounting"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27539#pullrequestreview-1441209058)
Concept ACK

I think it would be very helpful to add comments to explain what is going on. See my accidentally duplicate PR for some suggestions: #27730.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "init: Fixes for file descriptor accounting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27539#discussion_r1203666492)
Needs an explanation of why it is ok to take `FD_SETSIZE` completely out of the equation in the commit description.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Parallel compact block download"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25258)