💬 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.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Spurious (?) valgrind failure for p2p_compactblocks.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27741#issuecomment-1562872873)
Oh, and if you use clang and valgrind 3.19, you'll also have to set `gdwarf`:

`./configure CC=clang CXX=clang++ CFLAGS='-gdwarf-4' CXXFLAGS='-gdwarf-4'`

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "doc: Add doc/release-notes/release-notes-25.0.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27751#discussion_r1205496351)
I considered that, but since I think these notes are copy-pasted elsewhere (e.g. bitcoincore.org), I think we generally prefer to stick to absolute links here? At least that's how it is in `release-notes-24.0.1.md` too.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[25.x] Parallel compact block downloads"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27752)
Backports:
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27743

Draft for now. As we may need to pull in more changes here.

📝 FATHI899 opened a pull request: "Create helpcoin"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27753)
<!--
*** 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
...

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Create helpcoin"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27753)

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "Create helpcoin"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27753)
<!--
*** 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
...

⚠️ Xekyo opened an issue: "`coinselector_tests` use non-representative CoinSelectionParams and UTXO costs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27754)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

Most test cases in the `coinselector_tests` have `effective_feerate`, `long_term_feerate`, `discard_feerate`, and `cost_of_change` in the corresponding CoinSelectionParams set to 0 which is not accepted during production use of the wallet with the default configuration—we require transactions to at least pay `minRelayTxFee` (1 ṩ/vB). Under a minimum feerate of 1 ṩ/vB, a (standard) change o
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#issuecomment-1562913602)
Up for backport in #27752.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "p2p: Unconditionally return when compact block status == READ_STATUS_FAILED":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27743#issuecomment-1562914163)
Backported in #27752.

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Validation of malformed address fails with a peculiar message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27723#issuecomment-1562914805)
Does #27727 not fix this, otherwise I think we can close it? Or does it get kept open for the milestone

Running the example malformed address on master I now see a specific error:

```sh
$ /home/will/src/bitcoin/src/bitcoin-cli validateaddress bc1qqrq69gfzvvqcxs6rgg3crqjzcw369sxzyp3v9sspursx9gmzyv32x7xa5z
{
"isvalid": false,
"error_locations": [
],
"error": "Invalid padding in Bech32 data section"
}
```

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#issuecomment-1562915943)
Concept ACK

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Validation of malformed address fails with a peculiar message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27723#issuecomment-1562917691)
This can be closed given it's fixed in master, and the change will be backported to multiple branches.

✅ MarcoFalke closed an issue: "Validation of malformed address fails with a peculiar message"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27723)

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: improve IBD sync time by skipping block scanning prior birth time":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27469#discussion_r1205554251)
ha, loved it. I was so deep that ended up complicating things for no reason.
Dropped the first commit and squashed the mock time change into the last one.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "net: Allow inbound whitebind connections to more aggressively evict peers when slots are full":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27600#discussion_r1205554274)
@mzumsande what's your opinion on this? Is this PR a big enough change to warrant this kind of warning?

👍 MarcoFalke approved a pull request: "wallet: improve IBD sync time by skipping block scanning prior birth time"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27469#pullrequestreview-1443984697)
Concept ACK. Haven't reviewed the code.