💬 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
...

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "seeds: `seed.testnet.achownodes.xyz` not returning results"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32879)

💬 achow101 commented on issue "seeds: `seed.testnet.achownodes.xyz` not returning results":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32879#issuecomment-3040796548)
> Where/What is `check-dnsseeds.py`? :)

https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-maintainer-tools/blob/main/check-dnsseeds.py

> by the way p2p_dns_seeds.py is successful now.

That's not what we're talking about.

💬 romanz commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#issuecomment-3041007146)
> I was also wondering if it were possible to combine this with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541 to avoid the pruning limitation by writing the position in a block instead.

I think that we can allow pruning if the index data is stored using the following schema:
- key: `siphash(spent_outpoint) + serialize(tx_disk_position)`
- value: `b""`

It supports fast lookup of a outpoint spender by using LevelDB prefix scan (similar to how it's done in [electrs](https://github.com/roman
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: remove logic for spent-and-FRESH cache entries and writing non-DIRTY entries":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30673#issuecomment-3041210438)
This is still important - @andrewtoth, how can I help?

📝 pstratem opened a pull request: "Cache m_cached_finished_ibd in ActivateBestChain."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32885)
Calculating this in the only place the chain tip can change means we don't need to hold cs_main.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Rename `shuffled_indeces` to `shuffled_indices` in `rpc_packages.py`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32883#issuecomment-3041338771)
Please don't open new pull requests just for tiny typo fixes, they are a drag on our integration testing infrastructure, maintainer time and reviewer time. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#refactoring:

> Trivial pull requests or pull requests that refactor the code with no clear benefits may be immediately closed by the maintainers to reduce unnecessary workload on reviewing.

There are many more significant ways to contribute to Bitcoin -- for example, loo
...