💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: disable boost multi index safe mode in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27724#issuecomment-1560854361)
> Again, this is unrelated, because the issue happens in master. See also https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4517884630663168?logs=ci#L4910

Should be fixed in #27737.

💬 russeree commented on pull request "rpc: Fix invalid bech32 address handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27727#issuecomment-1560857791)
Very cool! I am not in a position to ack,nack. I have noticed a potential grammatical issue. The term 'byte' is correctly used only when the size of the program/data is 1. In all other cases, including 0, 2, 3, 4, ..., the correct term would be 'bytes'.

For instance, in the error string 'Invalid Bech32 v0 address program size (16 byte), per BIP141', 'byte' should be replaced with 'bytes' as the size is 16."

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "25.0 Final Changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27686#issuecomment-1560861380)
> Release notes for the new scanblocks RPC (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23549) are currently missing,

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "25.0 Final Changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27686#issuecomment-1560862446)
> Release notes for the new scanblocks RPC (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23549) are currently missing,

Pulled them in, and deleted the wiki page.

💬 theStack commented on issue "25.0 RC Testing Guide Feedback":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27736#issuecomment-1560893497)
Thanks for creating this testing guide! I didn't have a chance to look at any of the detailled steps yet, but have a suggestion to add two other features to test. v25.0 will be the first release where Bitcoin Core takes internal use of the compact block filters (BIP158, enabled via `-blockfilterindex=1`), rather than only serving them to peers. There is on one hand a new RPC call `scanblocks` [1] which looks for blocks containing a certain set of passed descriptors by using block filters, and on
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#issuecomment-1560904235)
The first two commits are wonderful refactors. But cce96182ba2457335868c65dc16b081c3dee32ee breaks `p2p_compactblocks.py --valgrind` for me:

```
023-05-24T10:54:53.143000Z TestFramework (INFO): Testing reconstructing compact blocks from all peers...
2023-05-24T10:54:53.304000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
...
File "/home/sjors/.pyenv/versions/3.8.16/lib/python3.8/http/client.py", line 972, in send
self.sock.sendall(data)
BrokenPipeError: [Errno 32] Broken pipe
```

O
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: compile Clang and compiler-rt in msan jobs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27737#issuecomment-1560912072)
No idea about the `bash` error. Maybe `set -ex` is missing in the file?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: compile Clang and compiler-rt in msan jobs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27737#issuecomment-1560914159)
> No idea about the bash error. Maybe set -ex is missing in the file?

Have a change to just remove `cd` usage entirely, that should make the linter happy

🤔 MarcoFalke reviewed a pull request: "ci: compile Clang and compiler-rt in msan jobs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27737#pullrequestreview-1441557570)
Do you happen to know what the difference to the debian package is? Maybe it can be fixed upstream instead?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: compile Clang and compiler-rt in msan jobs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27737#discussion_r1203908972)
```suggestion
export CI_IMAGE_NAME_TAG="ubuntu:22.04"
```

nit: Can use LTS if you don't need clang-16?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#issuecomment-1560936457)
I can't reproduce. Can you share the combined log or steps to reproduce starting on a fresh install of the operating system? Otherwise there is nothing we can do.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "rpc: Fix invalid bech32 address handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27727#issuecomment-1560940532)
@russeree Thx, I think it is fine if you open a follow-up after merge.

⚠️ Godonzrepublic opened an issue: " WOW WOW GOOD NEW I HAVE BEEN GETTING LOT OF PROFITS WITH THE HELP OF THIS MOG VIA INSTA👉 @TECK_SPY"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27738)
> ## 2023-03-01 :construction:
>
> - Open Transifex translations for 25.0

See #27169.

---

@GregTonoski
> What is the "23.0" in the sentence: "Finalize and close translations for 23.0"? Isn't it a typo, perhaps?

That's correct. See https://www.transifex.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/content/.

_Originally posted by @hebasto in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549#issuecomment-1446439957_

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1203944494)
Changed to use T-T-T-Taproot for fixed size (thanks @achow101)

💬 Godonzrepublic commented on pull request "test: Disable legacy wallet for mempool_packages.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27735#issuecomment-1560960381)
WOW WOW GOOD NEW I HAVE BEEN GETTING LOT OF PROFITS WITH THE HELP OF THIS MOG VIA INSTA👉 @TECK_SPY

🤔 Godonzrepublic reviewed a pull request: "test: Disable legacy wallet for mempool_packages.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27735#pullrequestreview-1441618246)
WOW WOW GOOD NEW I HAVE BEEN GETTING LOT OF PROFITS WITH THE HELP OF THIS MOG VIA INSTA👉 @TECK_SPY

💬 michaelfolkson commented on pull request "Allow configuring target block time for a signet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27446#issuecomment-1560991977)
I think "you should continue to maintain a fork of Core if this adds significant value to you" is a reasonable counter. I did a quick scan of historical pull requests and I couldn't find any pull requests that were merged to support bitcoin-inquisition specifically beyond the introduction of signet itself.

> However, I also think supporting options that might lead to clients running disagreeing consensus rules on the same network is dangerous

We are already in a world of (potentially) dis
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Prevent file descriptor exhaustion from too many RPC calls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27731#discussion_r1203996100)
Yeah, I think it will be hard to find a number where there isn't a specific limit and specific circumstances that would still cause problems. If we set the limit dynamically based on what's really available there would be a range where we would effectively set `evhttp_set_max_connections(http, 0);` which would probably mean that we couldn't even shut down the server via the RPC interface.

When the maxconnections are reduced to 15 that doesn't mean that there are only 15 file descriptors left.
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#issuecomment-1561017232)
I also cannot reproduce.

💬 VladdyC commented on pull request "Deniability - a tool to automatically improve coin ownership privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/733#issuecomment-1561041240)
This is really cool and I'd love to have it as an option in Bitcoin Core. However, most CoinJoin implementations are more advanced in this regard – for example, WabiSabi performs both divisions and consolidations. And it makes me wonder to which extent it's possible to decentralize coordination to the point where clients randomly take turns in doing it.

Anyway, this is just my curiosity/wish list. I believe that anything is better than having no privacy options at all, so I'd be happy with s
...