💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: Relax BlockRequestAllowed to respond to advertised blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32869#issuecomment-3063139475)
@dergoegge a node can still avoid punishment by announcing the sending a `notfound` after 9m59s, but this may be better behaved average behavior. Might be worth bringing up on an irc meeting to get some more eyes on this problem and potential solution?

💬 1BitcoinBoWP1FZ4xwTNkq6XksKidmgYYw commented on pull request "New SVG, Icons, PNGs and X PixMaps":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/879#issuecomment-3063162709)
@hebasto Long live the Russian Federation! 🇷🇺 I hope they kill all Ukranians who are nationalist scumbags like yourself. I see you added the Ukranian flag to your profile. Shane on you. I know you love the nazi Stepan Bandera. Better you stop thinking you running Bitcoin Core and you can decide what can be merged or not. I need other reviewers who doesn't come from Ukraine. By the way, why you'rr not on the front lines? All Ukranian man required to join the military.

💬 KATHI160 commented on issue "intermittent timeout in wallet_signer.py : 'createwallet' RPC took longer than 1200.000000 seconds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32855#issuecomment-3063165275)
> Maybe this is [#32524](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32524), but with N=1 and no way to reproduce, this seems difficult to debug.

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "refactor: Convert GenTxid to `std::variant`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "New SVG, Icons, PNGs and X PixMaps":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/879#issuecomment-3063205687)
@1BitcoinBoWP1FZ4xwTNkq6XksKidmgYYw that kind of commentary is unacceptable.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "New SVG, Icons, PNGs and X PixMaps"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/879)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#issuecomment-3063245757)
Rebased for #32631

🤔 BrandonOdiwuor reviewed a pull request: "cmake: Create subdirectories in build tree in advance"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32773#pullrequestreview-3011416264)
Tested ACK 0b7d038972315b5537cc42038094902ebd5dd8cf

Confirmed that the subdirectories are created in the build tree before the symlinks preventing accidental COPY_ON_ERRORs like `invalid_signer.py`

Commit: 0b7d038972315b5537cc42038094902ebd5dd8cf
<img width="1274" height="103" alt="Screenshot 2025-07-11 at 20 51 32" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/16f03539-b0e1-4d62-941b-33a34061355a" />

Branch: Master
<img width="1311" height="110" alt="Screenshot 2025-07-11 at 20 50
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Introduce per-txin sighash midstate cache for legacy/p2sh/segwitv0 scripts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32473#discussion_r2201478752)
looks right, 20 maximally sized sigs should fit under limits

💬 JeremyRubin commented on pull request "refactor: Convert GenTxid to `std::variant`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#issuecomment-3063383775)
i get that this is an overall improvement to the type safety, but I think that it's gone about sort of the wrong way since it leaves a lot of data-structures that are supposed to be made homogeneous as hetergeneous still. E.g.,

```
std::set<GenTxid> m_tx_inventory_to_send;
```

is _supposed_ to be `std::variant<std::set<Txid>, std::set<WTxid>>`.

You can create a templated wrapper to encapsulate a generic container interface for this.

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "FUZZ: Test that BnB finds best solution":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32894#discussion_r2201577538)
In a similar test, I run `SelectCoinsBnB` twice and swap fee_rate and long_term_fee_rate, then assert that when long_term_fee_rate is greater less outputs (or equal) are found between the two runs.

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "FUZZ: Test that BnB finds best solution":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32894#discussion_r2201595887)
could not `cost_of_change` be randomly selected from a range `(0, MAX)`?

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "FUZZ: Test that BnB finds best solution":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32894#discussion_r2201606218)
It looks like a downside to this brute force approach is it only allows pool sizes up to 16. Curious if you consider just pre-generating a solution which would allow any theoretical size.

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "FUZZ: Test that BnB finds best solution":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32894#discussion_r2201612657)
I suppose `MAX` could be `MAX_MONEY` here?

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "FUZZ: Test that BnB finds best solution":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32894#discussion_r2201638315)
doesn't this create pools that could sum to greater than `MAX_MONEY`?

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "FUZZ: Test that BnB finds best solution":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32894#discussion_r2201659630)
I think there should be something that prevents `max_spendable` from being greater than `MAX_MONEY`?

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Why bitcoin use so many RecursiveMutex"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32947)

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Why bitcoin use so many RecursiveMutex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32947#issuecomment-3063584446)
Stop opening duplicate issues.

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "FUZZ: Test that BnB finds best solution":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32894#issuecomment-3063652119)
Concept ACK adding a test that shows BnB finds the best solution (min waste). The downside to this approach however is it limits solutions to 16 and theoretically BnB could find solutions of larger sets without hitting the maximum iteration limit. Code looks good though otherwise.

I think this should be prioritized to merge first over https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32150 so that it can add more test safety to that refactor.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "cmake: Move internal binaries from bin/ to libexec/":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-3063715290)
> I think it makes more sense that some of our binaries should be command line binaries presenting stable, backward-compatible CLIs, and other binaries can be internal binaries that do useful things for us but users are not expected to use directly and we are free to change, rename, merge, or split up in the future.

It's not clear to me how the approach here really helps with that though. Essentially it just adds a tiny extra step for the user to use these binaries. I think the utility of the
...