💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Remove wallet version and several legacy related functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32977#discussion_r2208326435)
In dbf8dbf4b1792686be70050c3b19e477769d142b "wallet: Remove `CWallet::nWalletVersion` and related functions"

We still need to write the minversion record for newly created wallets so that they can be opened in older versions with the expected feature set.

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#issuecomment-3075063066)
Thanks for the reviews @josibake and @Sjors . I am currently travelling, and I will get to them later in the week.

📝 puchu opened a pull request: "set min tx fee to 100sat/kvB"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32982)
as the price of bitcoin rose and the mempool is already filled with 100sat/kvB txs, accept this reality and reflect the change in the current policy/code

✅ pinheadmz closed a pull request: "set min tx fee to 100sat/kvB"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32982)

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "set min tx fee to 100sat/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32982#issuecomment-3075161914)
closing as duplicate of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "wallet: Remove `upgradewallet` RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32944#discussion_r2208459894)
nit (only if you have to re-touch): sorry, my bad, missed the "-" (bullet point) in my previous suggestion but I think that will be added during the release process if there are more updates on RPCs.
```suggestion
- `upgradewallet` has been removed. It was unused and only applied to unsupported legacy wallets.
```

👍 pablomartin4btc approved a pull request: "wallet: Remove `upgradewallet` RPC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32944#pullrequestreview-3021991698)
ACK d89c6fa4a71810cdb28395d4609632e1b22249b3

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "wallet: Remove wallet version and several legacy related functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32977#discussion_r2208482177)
Ok, perhaps we can rename the function to `SetInitialVersion`, `SetCompatibleVersion` or similar with a comment/ note about the intention. Is this something that needs to be kept forever or some "deprecation" case?

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "rpc: add optional peer_ids param to filter getpeerinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32741#issuecomment-3075411770)
I would do peer_id|peer_ids and accept both a single number (most common use) or an array (efficient).

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "wallet: Remove wallet version and several legacy related functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32977#discussion_r2208578726)
I had changed it to `WriteLatestLegacyWalletVersion` before seeing your comment.
If that doesn't work, we can change it to something else.

💬 lifofifoX commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3075441263)
It's ridiculous to obsess over "spam" and have it dictate policy, rather than rely on economic incentives. Dust limits should be set based on it being economical to spend a UTXO at minimum relay fees, rather than your misplaced notion of "spam".

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2208593588)
Done

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2208595036)
Done

💬 yuvicc commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#issuecomment-3075479833)
> Across several test files, `trigger_reorg` is defined twice:
>

I am not sure if you have reviewed the code nicely, there isn't any duplication but rather a different approach using time-based timelock, see [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#discussion_r2180262495)

>
> Only the node lookup differs. Would it make sense to extract a single trigger_reorg(fork_blocks, node) utility in test_framework/blocktools.py and have all tests call that?

For now, I think we ca
...

💬 BitcoinMechanic commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3075509865)
> It's ridiculous to obsess over "spam" and have it dictate policy, rather than rely on economic incentives. Dust limits should be set based on it being economical to spend a UTXO at minimum relay fees, rather than your misplaced notion of "spam".

This is an ideological stance that ignores how Bitcoin has operated for basically its entire existence.

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "doc: add alpine build instructions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32559#discussion_r2208614184)
Updated to `samurai` and removed explicit `xz` (seems preferable to let this be pulled in as a dependency, or not, by `cmake`) in 4f502baf8f649e30d9495760b54080c272882213

🤔 murchandamus reviewed a pull request: "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#pullrequestreview-3022079811)
Reducing `DEFAULT_MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE` only makes sense to me in conjunction with reducing `DEFAULT_BLOCK_MIN_TX_FEE`. Otherwise nodes become subject to free relay attacks that could be used to waste bandwidth across the network with transactions that are not even in danger of getting mined in most blocks.

> `DEFAULT_INCREMENTAL_RELAY_FEE` should be decreased along with this as well.

That’s probably a bad idea, as it would increase the surface for bandwidth wasting attacks 10× even on top of what
...

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#discussion_r2208520547)
I don’t understand why this line was changed, could you elaborate?

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "doc: add alpine build instructions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32559#discussion_r2208620081)
I don't have a good way to test this personally, as I'm primarily using alpine in a container. I've therefore updated the comment here to:

```
User-Space, Statically Defined Tracing (USDT) is not supported or tested on Alpine Linux at this time.
```

...which I think is more accurate having done more research into systemtap/dtrace/usdt support on Alpine. This doesn't preclude someone from getting it working/documenting the steps in the future.

💬 enirox001 commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#issuecomment-3075576230)

Thanks for the clarification! You’re absolutely right - I should have reviewed the implementation details more carefully. I appreciate you pointing out that these are different approaches (including the time-based timelock approach) rather than simple duplication.

Also, you’re correct about my phrasing - “defined twice” was unclear when it’s actually “defined multiple times across files.”
Makes sense to address this in a follow-up PR along with other tests that need reorg corrections.