💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2198517643)
```Suggestion
// Transactions with 9 inputs maximize the computation / LatencyScore ratio.
```

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Resolve guix non-determinism with emplace_back instead of push_back":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32930#issuecomment-3058896316)
x86_64 guix build of f43571010e38

```
$ find guix-build-f43571010e38/output/ -type f -print0 | env LC_ALL=C sort -z | xargs -r0 sha256sum
bb9e6435df82cfe01c78e046ef39cea62a3b0ad0deafa66e1d2a15257bc21eeb guix-build-f43571010e38/output/dist-archive/bitcoin-f43571010e38.tar.gz
7d3bc9459a51abcb2d9d36b69fc135cbb4940c092a9f8df63032c6e9f659a958 guix-build-f43571010e38/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/SHA256SUMS.part
34af63c893a315745364d1f4dd36bbc1521eef0cad42ea964ba1d0dc5cbcf738 guix-build-f4357101
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "Resolve guix non-determinism with emplace_back instead of push_back":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32930#discussion_r2198649602)
do we need to create a temp copy or would this also work?
```suggestion
vecSend.emplace_back(DecodeDestination(rcp.address.toStdString()), rcp.amount, rcp.fSubtractFeeFromAmount);
```

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Resolve guix non-determinism with emplace_back instead of push_back":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32930#discussion_r2198651313)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32930#issuecomment-3056019241 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32930#discussion_r2196837764

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "Resolve guix non-determinism with emplace_back instead of push_back":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32930#discussion_r2198651842)
Ah, it was already the case before, my bad

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "Resolve guix non-determinism with emplace_back instead of push_back":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32930#issuecomment-3058951465)
code review ACK f43571010e3853e83a21aa4774b1c8da47b5d961

🤔 instagibbs reviewed a pull request: "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#pullrequestreview-3007132369)
review through 18e40b6cd5a11e23b7a0654bdd12f08e610ce980

no big concerns on first pass

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#discussion_r2198611036)
```Suggestion
/** The number of linearization improvements steps needed per cluster to be considered acceptable. */
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#discussion_r2198624434)
```Suggestion
Assume(iters >= iters_done);
auto [cost, optimal] = queue[pos].get()->Relinearize(*this, iters - iters_done);
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#discussion_r2198587961)
would this also be trivially true for `<=2`?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#discussion_r2198654706)
would it be possible to assert that this must return true if the value is high enough since we have a limited txgraph size?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#discussion_r2198606359)
comment below says

"// Make the graph linearize all clusters acceptably."

I'm guessing these chains are trivial to linearize, so this was likely already achieved with 10k iterations?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#discussion_r2198615257)
```Suggestion
* steps will be performed per cluster before it is considered to be of acceptable quality. */
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#discussion_r2198669205)
double-checking: NEEDS_RELINEARIZE, ACCEPTABLE and OPTIMAL are the only possible cases here, right?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2198682795)
in case this seems more straight forward to understand
```suggestion
// are wtxid which were already reconsiderable for some peer due to a previous AddChildrenToWorkSet().
```

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "rest/rpc: use more util::Join"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32942#pullrequestreview-3007283767)
Code Review ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32942/commits/e68a4ba976af59dfd15e3aa432e1ce80e7d21083

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "fuzz: Add missing calls to `SetMockTime` for determinism"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32927#pullrequestreview-3007292861)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32927/commits/fa8862723c14cdd471bbffc7a4897ece2e6d8a7f

💬 achow101 commented on issue "guix: Zip file non-determinism when building in WSL":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32931#issuecomment-3059133385)
Switching to a non-ntfs drive works I guess. But it would be preferable if the build was filesystem agnostic.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "[WIP] Cluster mempool implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#issuecomment-3059151670)
Follow-up from a while back: let's just explicitly say which layer of txgraph we're querying: https://github.com/instagibbs/bitcoin/commit/bb48f6c4736c227bcee6c4dda8e95b0b0287cfef

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: remove dead code in legacy wallet migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32758#issuecomment-3059157165)
ACK 150b5c99ca11885ef15d04139d919d734e2c211a