💬 anhilde commented on issue "Bitcoin Core v29.0 incorrectly enters IBD mode when only ~600 blocks behind, preventing normal sync":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32955#issuecomment-3067588151)
That makes sense, I will check it, when it gets stuck again. It may take some time until that happens. I have had it happen about twice in 2 months.

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3067601788)
Concept NACK

I don't see any need to change default `minrelaytxfee`. It is configurable and users can change it for their node. Full RBF and OP_RETURN changes were done for different reasons. However, this is now getting into DoS territory.

Only fee estimation should be changed to work with lower fee rates: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13990

It's good that bitcoin price in terms of USD is higher and the cost for an attacker to use p2p as broadcast system has increased over th
...

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3067602407)
<img width="3200" height="1800" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8c579f7d-6749-4c3b-b234-dcb454ce5ceb" />

📝 Sameera1994 opened a pull request: "minor updates"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32962)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "wallet: Remove `upgradewallet` RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32944#discussion_r2203825769)
If we simply delete these functions, there will be issues with the `getwalletinfo` and `migratewallet` RPCs, as they call `CanSupportFeature`, which calls `IsFeatureSupported`, which checks the `CWallet::nWalletVersion` attribute.

Those functions can potentially be removed, but the following code snippets need to be addressed first:: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6a13a6106e3c1ebe95ba6430184d6260a7b942bd/src/wallet/rpc/wallet.cpp#L92-L94 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6a
...

🤔 delta1 reviewed a pull request: "fix spelling in tor.md docs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32961#pullrequestreview-3014742758)
ACK 84ef5524d5abaf07cc9970f42e74ee15bd381e3d

just a typo fix in a markdown file

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "wallet: Remove `upgradewallet` RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32944#issuecomment-3067948494)
Release note added

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fix spelling in tor.md docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32961#issuecomment-3067976145)
lgtm ACK 84ef5524d5abaf07cc9970f42e74ee15bd381e3d

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "minor updates"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32962)

📝 Sameera1994 opened a pull request: "Update copyright headers to 2025"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32963)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Bitcoin Core v29.0 incorrectly enters IBD mode when only ~600 blocks behind, preventing normal sync":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32955#issuecomment-3067990809)
> This is my startup log from a try where it was in IBD:

It looks like the log is truncated. It would be good to include the next 20 minutes as well, as it is possible you have hit a peer timeout, which can happen normally and is also handled normally (after the timeout), without the need for user intervention.

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "Update copyright headers to 2025"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32963)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Update copyright headers to 2025":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32963#issuecomment-3067996996)
Thanks, but there is little point in touching files only for touching the copyright years, and touching them manually. This should be done with a script.

Also, you can't include merge commits.

I'll close this for now. Future contributions are welcome, but please familiarize yourself with the contribution guideline and dev docs.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: mention key removal in rpc interface modification":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32867#issuecomment-3068042014)
lgtm ACK e7b1c33b41334a9c2ce80033d92e3fac466eb70c

📝 w0xlt opened a pull request: "descriptor: don't underestimate the size of a Taproot spend (instead, overestimate it)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32964)
This PR revives #26573 since it has some ACKs and is labeled "Up for grabs".
I just added a comment explaining the behavior change.

💬 maflcko 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-3068068295)
Possibly similar root cause: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5280224666976256?logs=ci#L1710

At least on CI, back when I tested https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32529 by Mara did seem to improve the situation.

I wonder if we should re-open and use that pull, even if there isn't a reproducer or further details available.

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "Intermittent failure in rpc_invalidateblock.py assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getblockchaininfo()['headers'], 7) [ AssertionError: not(24 == 7)]"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32965)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16238294537/job/45851271663?pr=32954#step:13:3105

```
test 2025-07-12T13:43:20.090739Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "D:\a\bitcoin\bitcoin\build\test\functional\test_framework\test_framework.py", line 195, in main
self.run_test()
~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^

...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "[POC] ci: Skip compilation when running static code analysis":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32953#discussion_r2204014136)
this was done in the past, but it makes bisecting harder, because those images (and their package mirrors) quickly get deleted upstream

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Avoid cd into build dir":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32880#issuecomment-3068102986)
> ACK [fa0eca8](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/fa0eca82ec1222ec1c68835ce7acdf9c8c4740ad), I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.

I think you reviewed a commit that still had the pre-existing $GOAL bug?

💬 delta1 commented on pull request "fix spelling in tor.md docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32961#discussion_r2204019614)
I think this change would have to be upstream at [bitcoin-core/secp256k1](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1)