✅ 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
...

✅ pinheadmz closed a pull request: "Rename `shuffled_indeces` to `shuffled_indices` in `rpc_packages.py`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32883)

💬 optout21 commented on pull request "refactor: use options struct for signing and PSBT operations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32876#discussion_r2188489973)
Nit: Maybe `options` could be inlined here?

📝 Raimo33 opened a pull request: "Remove redundant else statements"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32886)

✅ Raimo33 closed a pull request: "Remove redundant else statements"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32886)

📝 Raimo33 reopened a pull request: "Remove redundant else statements"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32886)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "Remove redundant else statements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32886#issuecomment-3042335106)
Please stop spamming, a lot of people are getting email notifications in these cases.

💬 Raimo33 commented on pull request "Remove redundant else statements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32886#issuecomment-3042340180)
Got it. But I see a lot of bad code through the whole repo

✅ pinheadmz closed a pull request: "Remove redundant else statements"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32886)

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Remove redundant else statements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32886#issuecomment-3042346466)
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
...

🤔 Prabhat1308 reviewed a pull request: "threading: use correct mutex name in reverse_lock fatal error messages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32829#pullrequestreview-2991646500)
> So one thing I noticed is that the tests passed, but the previous commit [85c2848](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32829/commits/85c2848eb575f4abaa81fdd4e8f3b2048693dd98) had failures but CI / test each commit (pull_request) passed
>
> not sure this is a followup someone can look at to fix?

I could replicate this when I built cmake with
```
cmake -B build -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug
```
This is because the specific piece of code is not enabled until there is the `DEBUG_LOCKORDE
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "(RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32427#issuecomment-3042550496)
Rebased 155afe8529a611c3dcb3fb76101abd01020a24ea -> 80810b6011e30ac5ff72c43a2fbfd0e13df0c4cc ([blocktreestore_0](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/blocktreestore_0) -> [blocktreestore_1](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/blocktreestore_1), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/blocktreestore_0..blocktreestore_1))

* Fixed silent merge conflict with #29307

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "index: fix wrong assert of current_tip == m_best_block_index"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32878#pullrequestreview-2991732098)
I think that this assert could be hit if a reorg was happening while `Sync()` was going on:

1) `Sync()` syncs some blocks but isn't finished (doesn't update m_best_block)
2) The node undergoes a reorg, so that some of the synced blocks need to be rewinded.

3) `Rewind()` is called and the assert fails.

I could trigger this on regtest with an added sleep in `Sync()`, freezing the sync so that I could do the reorg.
I think it's going to be hard / impossible to trigger it in a test witho
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: Mitigate disk filling attacks by rate limiting LogPrintf, LogInfo, LogWarning, LogError":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2188157982)
what's the reason for commented out code? Is this PR still in draft mode or is it ready for review?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "log: Mitigate disk filling attacks by rate limiting LogPrintf, LogInfo, LogWarning, LogError":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2188155450)
nit: so many comment styles used here, most in new code. Now that this is a one-liner, we can unify it with the rest of the comments here:
```suggestion
//! Fixed window rate limiter for logging.
```

If you apply this, please see other similar ones as well.

The problem with these inconsistencies is not just cosmetic, these differences are distracting us from being able to treat inconsistencies as code smells.