💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "[25.x] rpc: Fix invalid bech32 handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27750#issuecomment-1562662588)
Should be a clean cherry-pick last time I checked. The previous branches conflict in the tests.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[25.x] rpc: Fix invalid bech32 handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27750#issuecomment-1562664356)
Happy to just do it as I've done here. Am fixing the conflicts in 24.x.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "[25.x] rpc: Fix invalid bech32 handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27750#issuecomment-1562676654)
Yeah, I was trying to say lgtm. Sorry if this was unclear.

clean cherry-pick ACK 796e1145a93f4584936528aa27c4f6b2016263d9 💼

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJ
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "rpc: Use 'byte'/'bytes' for bech32(m) validation error message"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27747)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "macOS: Bump minimum required runtime version and prepare for building with upstream LLVM":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27676#issuecomment-1562719393)
> I believe I've fixed authorization and it should just work(tm).
> it would be helpful to get a confirmation.

Guix builds are working. However the security checks don't pass, as `has_dyld_chained_fixups` seems to only be available with LIEF 0.13.0, and we are currently using `0.12.3`.

📝 MarcoFalke opened a pull request: " doc: Add doc/release-notes/release-notes-25.0.md "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27751)
Also, fix a typo in another doc.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: Add doc/release-notes/release-notes-25.0.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27751#discussion_r1205363139)
Not the release notes?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Spurious (?) valgrind failure for p2p_compactblocks.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27741#issuecomment-1562731029)
Steps to reproduce on a fresh install of Ubuntu Mantic (currently the same packages as your 23.04):

```
export DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive && apt update && apt install curl wget htop git vim ccache -y && git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git --depth=1 ./bitcoin-core && cd bitcoin-core && apt install build-essential libtool autotools-dev automake pkg-config bsdmainutils python3-zmq libevent-dev libboost-dev valgrind -y && ./autogen.sh && ./configure && make -j $(npro
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Spurious (?) valgrind failure for p2p_compactblocks.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27741#issuecomment-1562731856)
Maybe try clang over gcc or a newer version of valgrind for now?

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "index: prevent race by calling 'CustomInit' prior setting 'synced' flag"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27720#pullrequestreview-1443690741)
Nice, ACK 3126454dcfa1dd29bb66500d5f2b5261684d6c58

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "doc: Add doc/release-notes/release-notes-25.0.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27751#pullrequestreview-1443771760)
ACK fab19a8ae30c7f2b9347f70f16799e14dc1970b1, confirmed that the release-notes are identical to what was reviewed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27686/

Suggesting some minor improvements to the release notes, but perhaps this is not a suitable place?

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "doc: Add doc/release-notes/release-notes-25.0.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27751#discussion_r1205446835)
nit
```suggestion
- Transactions of non-witness size 65 vbytes and above are now allowed by mempool
```

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "doc: Add doc/release-notes/release-notes-25.0.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27751#discussion_r1205440859)
broken link:
```suggestion
parameter](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/JSON-RPC-interface.md#parameter-passing) called `args` that can
```

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "doc: Add doc/release-notes/release-notes-25.0.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27751#discussion_r1205451246)
```suggestion
and `-listen` (users may still set them to override). (#26899)
```

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "doc: Add doc/release-notes/release-notes-25.0.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27751#discussion_r1205449892)
```suggestion
and scripts that contain invalid opcodes. (#25943)
```

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "doc: Add doc/release-notes/release-notes-25.0.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27751#discussion_r1205451526)
```suggestion
impacting performance. (#26471)

```

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "doc: Add doc/release-notes/release-notes-25.0.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27751#discussion_r1205484400)
No, I don't think it is vbytes, it is non-witness bytes, which is different.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: Add doc/release-notes/release-notes-25.0.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27751#issuecomment-1562867151)
> Suggesting some minor improvements to the release notes, but perhaps this is not a suitable place?

They should have been suggested before the notes were finalised in #27686. This is just copying them into master.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "doc: Add doc/release-notes/release-notes-25.0.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27751#discussion_r1205489623)
Or just `/doc/JSON...` or `./../JSON...`?

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "doc: Add doc/release-notes/release-notes-25.0.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27751#discussion_r1205490836)
Ah, good point. `bytes`, then, as per the PR title? The lack of unit is upsetting high school teachers worldwide.