💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2217039648)
Not sure I understand why this is better, we have the xor instructions spread to multiple places now - apply_random_xor_chunks & inline `original ^ key_bytes`. What do others think?

🤔 l0rinc reviewed a pull request: "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#pullrequestreview-3034969188)
Thanks for the review.
Since the PR is in review for almost a year now, and since the remaining comments seem like they can potentially be done in follow-ups as well, I'd prefer getting this over the finish line soon.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2217034784)
Sure, if I push again, I'll consider these nits

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2217030868)
If you insist, I'll do it if I have to push again.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2217033100)
Can you please point me to a documentation or code which demonstrates that?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2217040108)
Sure, I'll merge those commits next time I push

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#issuecomment-3091278861)
Had to rebase after https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/067365d2a8a421a074bb54394118beccb3f775c2#diff-e6100361fa0e9e25478f808ca084e5f681d4dddbbee7b3bea0f9d5bcd29db3aaR39-R563, `src/txorphanage.cpp` was moved to `src/node/txorphanage.cpp`, the change is exactly the same otherwise, would appreciate re-reviews.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#issuecomment-3091292177)
ACK 248b6a27c351690d3596711cc36b8102977adeab

💬 lifofifoX commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3091388547)
> A short while ago I sent an RBF with a 0.5 sat/vB fee, waited 30 minutes, and it still hadn’t reached mempool.space’s node

I believe that's because mempool.space nodes did not lower `incrementalrelayfee` through [config](https://github.com/mempool/mempool/blob/master/production/bitcoin.conf#L23C1-L23C14).

📝 b-l-u-e opened a pull request: "rpc: Fix internal bug in descriptorprocesspsbt when encountering invalid signatures"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33014)
## Summary
Fixes #32849 - Replace `CHECK_NONFATAL` with proper error handling in `descriptorprocesspsbt` RPC to prevent internal bug assertions when encountering invalid Schnorr signatures.

## Problem
When `descriptorprocesspsbt` encounters a PSBT with invalid signatures (e.g., invalid Schnorr signatures with SIGHASH_SINGLE | ANYONECANPAY flags), it triggers an internal bug assertion instead of returning a user-friendly error message.

## Solution
Replace the `CHECK_NONFATAL(FinalizeAndE
...

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144)

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#issuecomment-3091891676)
> Minified this is:

I don't think you need the `git fetch; git checkout` here -- you get the same error with that command (dropping the `/bitcoin`) on master afaics?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#issuecomment-3091927892)
Thanks a lot @maflcko, @ryanofsky, @hodlinator and @achow101 for all the reviews and reproducers and suggestions!

💬 stwenhao commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3091997169)
> you can't force people to pay higher fees unless it's a consensus rule

I think even if consensus rules would dictate fees, then it would still be possible to bypass them. For example: users can sign a given transaction, only if the next one would send them their coins back. Which means, that if free transactions would be consensus rule, then users would use additional anchor-like outputs to pay to miners. And if 100% fee transactions would be required by consensus, then miners could still s
...

💬 ArmchairCryptologist commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3092171983)
> When we have 1 sat/vB, then miners are guaranteed to get at least 0.01 BTC in fees per block

This is only correct if there are enough 1+ sat/vB transactions to fill the block. Miners are free to set their own minimum fee policy, and if some "fee market bidders" (transactors) are unwilling to pay 1 sat/vB and some "fee market buyers" (miners) are willing to mine at less than 1 sat/vB, miners who aren't willing to mine at less than 1 sat/vB blocks would be mining less-than-full blocks instead
...

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "init: [gui] Avoid UB/crash in InitAndLoadChainstate"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32987#pullrequestreview-3035308818)
ACK fac90e5261b811739ada56e06ea793a12f9c2c3d

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "wallet/rpc: fix listdescriptors RPC fails to return descriptors with private key information when wallet contains descriptors missing any key":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32471#discussion_r2217261456)
`ToPrivateString` will be called on a non-watch-only wallet when the user tries RPC `listdescriptors[private=true]`. In this case, `has_priv_key` will be `false` and the RPC call should fail as expected.

⚠️ fanquake opened an issue: "intermittent timeout in wallet_signer.py : sendall timed out"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33015)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6466141373071360?logs=ci#L1714:
```bash
[17:24:42.699] node1 2025-07-18T21:24:35.153536Z [scheduler] [net.cpp:2387] [void CConnman::DumpAddresses()] [net] Flushed 0 addresses to peers.dat 0ms
[17:24:42.699] node0 2025-07-18T21:24:35.182594Z [scheduler] [net.cpp:2387] [void CConnman::DumpAddresses()] [net] Flushed 0 addresses to peers.dat 1ms
[17:24:42.699] test 2025-07-18T21:24:41.997879Z TestFramework (ERROR): Called Process failed with 'error: timeout on tran
...

💬 DerEwige commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3092301624)
What about rpc calls that currently only alow minimum value of 1 sat/vb?

eg: https://developer.bitcoin.org/reference/rpc/bumpfee.html
Should those endpoints be changed at the same time as the min relay fee?

📝 bigshiny90 opened a pull request: "test: Add functional tests for blockreconstructionextratxn"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33016)
This adds tests for the `-blockreconstructionextratxn` parameter which controls the extra transaction pool used for compact block reconstruction.

Uses RBF transaction pairs to populate the pool since that's a straightforward way to get transactions into the extra pool - send an original, then replace it with higher fee, and the original ends up in the extra pool.

Note: Targeting 29.x because the extra transaction pool eviction behavior tested here doesn't currently work on master.