✅ 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)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "index: ThreadSanitizer: data race on vptr ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27355#issuecomment-1560737121)
> Not really a fix if there is something else going on but.. could use [furszy@8495c85](https://github.com/furszy/bitcoin-core/commit/8495c852ebe199a96a4e205937861b76f54227eb) (quick and dirty) to remove the active-wait timeout error.

Mind opening a pull so that it can be reviewed and tested?

Review note: I don't think you need to embed the exception into the promise. A thread (re-)throwing into void will lead to immediate abort anyway. It should be sufficient to replace `[this] { ThreadSy
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "index: ThreadSanitizer: data race on vptr ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27355#issuecomment-1560738959)
To reproduce locally, one can try to build with tsan, then run the functional tests in the background to eat all available CPU, then run the failing test case in the foreground in a loop until it fails.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Notes on Block-In-Flight Handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16172#issuecomment-1560740198)
cc @instagibbs