💬 maflcko commented on pull request "cmake: Improve Python robustness and test usability":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31233#discussion_r2187385272)
> the correct fix would be to just remove the cmake stuff here and move this test to the python test runner, so that it is run like all other python unit/util/functional tests.

Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32881



> (Actually, while testing, a missing python is now a hard error already when `-DBUILD_GUI=ON`. So I don't think the wording "refactor" accurately represents the changes here.)

To clarify, either the changes here in this pull need to be reverted/fixed up,
...

📝 HowHsu opened a pull request: "index: remove unnecessary locater cleaning in BaseIndex::Init()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32882)
BaseIndex::DB::ReadBestBlock() already cleans locater in failure path, remove duplicate code in the caller and change ReadBestBlock to return void.

✅ tdb3 closed a pull request: "rpc: add `relevant_blocks` to `scanblocks status`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30713)

💬 romanz commented on pull request "index: store per-block transaction locations for efficient lookups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541#issuecomment-3039513232)
Added a short description in `doc/REST-interface.md` and `doc/files.md`, and updated release notes in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541/commits/c695d134683d52bce9e499a5848e4c4c7951155c.
Please let me know if there are any additional open issues :)

🤔 l0rinc reviewed a pull request: "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#pullrequestreview-2987741921)
Thanks @maflcko for the review, addressed your nits in the latest push.

The [final diff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f5c6a09d3593955a1966b359c76c60c223896c8f..e036ba4ddaeb24a2361c356f7f270ee60bfff984) is mostly the same, since the comments were mostly about intermediary commits.

I have exploded the big vector-to-uint64 commit into 3, these two were split out:
* refactor: move `util::Xor` to `Obfuscation().Xor`
* refactor: encapsulate `std::vector<std::byte>` keys into `Obfuscati
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2185852047)
> adding const before std::span doesn't really say much

This is an intermediary commit, meant to lay the groundwork for more risky changes later.
It may not make a lot of sense on its own, even though it does prohibits argument reassignments such as:
```C++
auto apply_random_xor_chunks{[&](std::span<std::byte> target, const std::span<std::byte, sizeof(uint64_t)> obfuscation) {
std::array<std::byte, sizeof(uint64_t)> key_bytes{};
obfuscation = std::span<std::byte, sizeof(uint64_t)
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2185875881)
I'm not exactly sure I understood, but added a comment to `write_offset` to clarify that it's meant to check that we can start obfuscation from any offset

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2185698665)
I can't say that I don't disagree with none of that!

----

I tried to encode the meaning into a check (i.e. that the obfuscated value should differ from the original, unless obfuscation is turned off), but it got indeed quite weird, thanks :)

Maybe there's a middle-ground that documents the expectation better:
```C++
BOOST_CHECK_NE(original != roundtrip, all_zeros);
```
or even better (which would eliminate the need for the comment as well)
```C++
const bool key_all_zeros{std::rang
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2185892222)
was a leftover from the previous `1_MiB` - removed, thanks.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2185693472)
Yeah, this was done to separate the formatting from code change being done later - but I also dislike doing it in a former commit where we don't see yet why the alignment won't be off in a few more commits. And the comment is meaningless, so I've removed it, thanks.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2185692178)
the `key_offset_bytes % SIZE_BYTES` part wouldn't be tested if we just used `key_offset{m_rng.randrange(8U)}` - can you suggest a better comment to make that obvious?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2185864960)
Kept the inner const, removed the outer

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2185893737)
Fine, reverted.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2185940231)
> Also, the line is touched later anyway

That's why low-risk changes such as the whitespace formatting was done in a separate commit. But I've reverted it an now the optimization commit does the formatting as well.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#discussion_r2187619161)
@furszy and @ismaelsadeeq have opined on it in the [IRC meeting](https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2025-07-03):
> [18:38](https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2025-07-03#1132853) <furszy> l0rinc: I just had a quick talk with abubakarsadiq and It seems we still need to send the signal just to update the best seen height inside the fee estimation class, but we can skip some of the calculations on the event processing side (all the stats objects are initialized but c
...

📝 vtjl10 opened a pull request: "Rename `shuffled_indeces` to `shuffled_indices` in `rpc_packages.py`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32883)


```markdown


## Description
This pull request fixes a typo in the variable name, changing `shuffled_indeces` to `shuffled_indices` in `test/functional/rpc_packages.py`.
This improves code readability and ensures consistency with standard English spelling.

```

💬 jadijadi commented on issue "seeds: `seed.testnet.achownodes.xyz` not returning results":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32879#issuecomment-3039859682)
Where/What is `check-dnsseeds.py`? :)
by the way `p2p_dns_seeds.py` is successful now.

```build/test/functional/p2p_dns_seeds.py
2025-07-05T19:23:26.136000Z TestFramework (INFO): PRNG seed is: 7894142597834298071
2025-07-05T19:23:26.137000Z TestFramework (INFO): Initializing test directory /tmp/bitcoin_func_test_02pna7sg
2025-07-05T19:23:26.399000Z TestFramework (INFO): Check that setting -connect disables -dnsseed by default
2025-07-05T19:23:26.759000Z TestFramework (INFO): Check that running
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "rpc: use CScheduler for relocking wallet and remove RPCTimer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32862#issuecomment-3040312858)
Code Review ACK fcfd3db563e89fd79820a4cdfa102d624d801de1

Nice code removal, I did some additional grepping to make sure nothing was missed and didn't see anything.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Embed default ASMap as binary dump header file":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28792#issuecomment-3040333005)
Rebased

Also moving the conversation here that I started on IRC last week: I suggested some sharing of access to the tools and data repositories in the asmap github org in case of emergency and asked for feedback. @sipa suggested that instead the https://github.com/asmap/asmap-data could be moved to the bitcoin-core org instead. I now think this is actually even better because that repository holds data that is encoded particularly for use in Bitcoin Core while the rest of the tooling in the
...

📝 eval-exec opened a pull request: "rest: replace `rf_names[0].rf` by `RESTResponseFormat::UNDEF` for code clarity"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32884)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improve coverage are a
...