✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Poisson Sum; γ^(i/R) + ∑(S[0:i]·τ·φ^j)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33010)

💬 BitcoinMechanic commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3090015438)
> > DUST_RELAY_TX_FEE should be decreased along with this as well...
>
> DEFAULT_MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE and DUST_RELAY_TX_FEE serve different purposes. The former is about protecting the P2P network, while the latter also aims at protecting the UTXO set from DoS attacks. Given that half of the UTXO set is spam these days, it seems like the dust limit should rather get _increased_ than decreased. So it's a whole different discussion, and I would not want to conflate these two in this PR.

The issu
...

💬 farrelalfeshal10 commented on issue "Poisson Sum; γ^(i/R) + ∑(S[0:i]·τ·φ^j)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33010#issuecomment-3090037033)
Thanks a lot if It has actually been realized even though it is not with the mathematical language that I brought, I am grateful and maybe I am the one who does not understand Bitcoin in that part😬

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2216475964)
> Write may throw, but Read does not

Did that change in this PR?

> Why not just keep the code as-is here and use m_obfuscation = new_key

You mean like this?
```C++
const auto new_key{FastRandomContext{}.randbytes<Obfuscation::KEY_SIZE, uint8_t>()};
Write(OBFUSCATION_KEY_KEY, std::vector<uint8_t>{new_key.begin(), new_key.end()});
m_obfuscation = Obfuscation{MakeByteSpan(new_key)};
```
instead of
```C++
Write(OBFUSCATION_KEY_KEY, FastRandomContext{}.randbytes(Obfuscation::KEY_SIZE
...

💬 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-3090062876)
Rebased -> master@672c85cb1ea0d76ef9e596b2a964b2311b11b815

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#issuecomment-3090094623)
think you need to fix issues first

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "ci: Use APT_LLVM_V in msan task":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32999#issuecomment-3090107388)
ACK fad040a5787a8ac0a13aef5c54e5a675de239e92

This will cut down on the msan job run time a lot when the docker build cache is empty.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2216551450)
Yeah, I know we're using these in `serialization.h`, but it seems to me the current option might be easier to optimize, see https://godbolt.org/z/fh8o9xdvz

It's possible my reproducer is not representative, I also don't mind switching if others prefer it.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "[29.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32863#pullrequestreview-3034292282)
ACK 5300295083f2e199c22a7ad55e62a8dc7549a76e

💬 Zeegaths commented on pull request "docs: adds correct updated documentation links":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32699#issuecomment-3090182245)
Yes, it's done.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 at 15:41, maflcko ***@***.***> wrote:

> *maflcko* left a comment (bitcoin/bitcoin#32699)
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32699#issuecomment-3089360188>
>
> Can this be drafted/closed, or are you still working on this?
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32699#issuecomment-3089360188>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZVGWLBQ4RMG7UWJVYM
...

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "[29.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32863)

📝 Crypt-iQ opened a pull request: "log: rate limiting followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33011)
Followups to #32604.

The only behavior change is that prefixing with `[*]` is done to all logs (regardless of `should_ratelimit`) per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2195710943. This does not need a release note as the release notes were already a bit vague as pointed out in the comment.

💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "log: rate limiting followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33011#issuecomment-3090274955)
Addressed in this PR:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2188529752
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2163341392
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2163349298
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2182919153
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2185313756
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2188155450
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/326
...

📝 darosior opened a pull request: "script: return verification flag responsible for error upon validation failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33012)
For unconfirmed transactions, we currently distinguish between Script validation failures due to standardness rules and those due to consensus rules. The distinction is used to decide whether to disconnect the peer which submitted this transaction.

This is currently achieved by repeating Script validation with only the consensus verification flags, after it failed with the standardness flags. It is wasteful, and potentially significantly more so since we have Taproot. This PR proposes to repl
...

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521#pullrequestreview-3034612261)
light code review ACK 96da68a38fa, looks correct to me

💬 glozow commented on pull request "policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521#discussion_r2216772534)
When I changed this to `false`, none of the tests failed - maybe worth adding a multisig case?

💬 darosior commented on pull request "policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521#discussion_r2216808190)
This line is counting ops in the scriptSig. I'm not sure it makes sense to add a test case with an `OP_CHECKMULTISIG` sneaked in the scriptSig because this is already non-standard.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#issuecomment-3090534874)
light ACK 50024620b909fc30b68a3715680e963f048482a5

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521#issuecomment-3090586828)
ACK 96da68a38fa295d2414685739c41b8626e198d27