💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "index: fix wrong assert of current_tip == m_best_block_index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32878#issuecomment-3046511372)
The test should probably be added to the PR after the commit fixing it

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-3046513244)
@ismaelsadeeq I don't think 1p1c is compatible with this approach at all, unless the connection is intentionally held open long enough for the parent to be fetched from the sending node? Obviously the connection could be held open with additional logic but just pointing this out. A sender-initiated package relay system might be easier to extend (but way out of scope of this PR).

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#issuecomment-3046516046)
> A few pushes ago I changed the limit back from 24,000 to 3,000 after changing the benchmarks to be more representative of actual worst case and realizing we actually definitely can't handle 24k

Can you recap what the deficiency was?

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "index: remove unnecessary locater cleaning in BaseIndex::Init()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32882#discussion_r2191008997)
No harm in returning success, even if ignored currently.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "refactor: Header sync optimisations & simplifications":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32740#discussion_r2191012890)
meta: There's an issue with the `https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/09c7d0f703067d455aae4ee458ba7953c29d72fb#r2149379657` style links (taken from outdated "File Changes"-tab?). I've switched to mostly grabbing links from the "Conversation"-tab `https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32740#discussion_r2149379657`.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "[WIP] wallet: tx creation, don't select outputs from txes that are being replaced":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26732#issuecomment-3046561786)
> @furszy: #27286 was merged, in case this is still relevant.

Thx. It is still relevant but I don't have enough time to tackle it. Up for grabs.

👋 sipa's pull request is ready for review: "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263)

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#issuecomment-3046566193)
Rebased after the merge of #31553, and undrafted.

💬 brunoerg commented on issue "test: break `feature_block` into subtests?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32877#issuecomment-3046576815)
> Are you sure? I'd say the reorg test is useful to perform on a "dirty" state.

I agree that in this case is useful, but not sure about the other tests. But anyway, since the reorg is the slowest test, running it without reorg should be fine. So we could have just an option to skip it?

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Remove watchonly behavior and isminetypes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#issuecomment-3046770880)
#32618 merged, ready for review now.

👋 achow101's pull request is ready for review: "wallet: Remove watchonly behavior and isminetypes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Move (Un)LockCoin WalletBatch creation out of RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32593#discussion_r2191169711)
If I need to retouch.

💬 pstratem commented on pull request "Cache m_cached_finished_ibd where SetTip is called.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32885#issuecomment-3046915168)
> Conceptually not a bad idea to cache and lock less, but imo this makes the code more brittle (and harder to understand), e.g. if any tip updates happen without the cache being updated separately.
>
> Do you have any data as to the actual performance improvements from this PR?

I'm (very) open to suggestions on how to make the caching call more robust. (Indeed I expected some.)

There's no performance improvement from this PR, it's the first in a series of proposed changes I'll be making
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: fix feature_init.py intermittencies":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32835#issuecomment-3046915670)
ACK 4207d9bf823bea9f94b484ebf3c9274ca781b245

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: fix feature_init.py intermittencies"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32835)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: Use type-safe exception to pass RPC help":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32660#issuecomment-3046955303)
ACK fa946520d229ae45b30519bccc9eaa2c47b4a093

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: use CScheduler for relocking wallet and remove RPCTimer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32862#issuecomment-3046962563)
ACK fcfd3db563e89fd79820a4cdfa102d624d801de1

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: remove dead code in legacy wallet migration"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32758#pullrequestreview-2995635591)
code reviewed, looks good. Just left a comment about the last commit.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: remove dead code in legacy wallet migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32758#discussion_r2191246827)
In 2b8b658308c8fbfd9d41d8eb7b9491b615c43872:
Based on the commit description, this change seems more like you reasoning about the code flow than something that benefits the reader? I'm not sure it's adding much value.

💬 furszy commented on issue "intermittent issue in feature_init.py (bitcoind should have exited with expected error LevelDB error: Corruption)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32600#issuecomment-3046966568)
can close it.