⚠️ 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
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Improve display address handling for external signer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24313#discussion_r1204047087)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24313#discussion_r1203035210

> Returning the error in an optional feels a bit wrong since it inverts the typical pattern. Rather than checking that the result is equivalent to `true`, we have to check that it's equivalent to `false`.

Returning `optional<bilingual_str>` or `Result<bool>` both seem ok here, but the ideal thing would be to return `Result<void>` so there are just 2 cases for calling code to handle 1-success, and 2-failure with an err
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#issuecomment-1561078786)
It's not a virtual machine. Logs are combined by default, right?

```
$ cat /tmp/bitcoin_func_test_zkozpx3h/test_framework.log | nc termbin.com 9999
```

https://termbin.com/c3yr

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: compile Clang and compiler-rt in msan jobs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27737#discussion_r1204069957)
Switched back to Jammy in next push.

📝 MarcoFalke opened a pull request: "ci: Add missing set -e to 01_base_install.sh"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27739)
Otherwise errors are silently ignored

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Add missing set -e to 01_base_install.sh":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27739#issuecomment-1561108254)
Looks like it is working: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4766589006905344?logs=build#L2788


Added another unrelated commit to re-trigger CI and to give more yummy review to reviewers.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#issuecomment-1561118892)
Ah, this is more useful:

```
==2894643== Thread 25 b-msghand:
==2894643== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==2894643== at 0x24A6EC: (anonymous namespace)::PeerManagerImpl::RemoveBlockRequest(uint256 const&, std::optional<long>) [clone .isra.0] (in /home/sjors/dev/bitcoin/src/bitcoind)
==2894643== by 0x25AAA1: (anonymous namespace)::PeerManagerImpl::ProcessBlock(CNode&, std::shared_ptr<CBlock const> const&, bool, bool) (in /home/sjors/dev/bitcoin/src/bitcoin
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#issuecomment-1561137418)
Maybe open a separate issue? (There are already too many comments in this thread).

Make sure to include details, otherwise it will be harder to do something. Note that not all compiler versions are compatible with all valgrind versions.

💬 justingoldberg commented on issue "Frequent "Timeout downloading block" with 24.1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27705#issuecomment-1561165980)
Can you block this peer?

👋 ryanofsky's pull request is ready for review: "refactor: Replace `std::optional<bilingual_str>` with `util::Result`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25977)

💬 instagibbs commented on issue "Notes on Block-In-Flight Handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16172#issuecomment-1561195606)
As of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626 this case should be covered, you can close

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on issue "25.0 RC Testing Guide Feedback":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27736#issuecomment-1561196420)
Thank you @theStack for pointing this out, these are important features, I will add them to the guide.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Notes on Block-In-Flight Handling"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16172)