💬 maflcko commented on pull request "wallet, sqlite: Encapsulate SQLite statements in a RAII class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33033#discussion_r2227753763)
I don't understand this change. The commit message just says "util: Add value_type and span constructor to (W)Txid", but it doesn't say why or where this is needed. Compiling without this (locally) seems to pass.

Also, conceptually, it seems to go in the opposite direction that we want to go in. This makes implicit construction from any byte span to `transaction_identifier` possible again. The constructor `transaction_identifier(const uint256& wrapped)` is private and will still catch those cas
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "wallet, sqlite: Encapsulate SQLite statements in a RAII class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33033#discussion_r2227638927)

encapsualtes -> encapsulates [spelling error in comment “encapsualtes” makes the word misspelled]

💬 HowHsu commented on pull request "index: fix wrong assert of current_tip == m_best_block_index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32878#issuecomment-3112459168)
> > > @HowHsu, are you going to include the test or a patch to reproduce the issue? I’m happy to ACK it either way.
> >
> >
> > Hi furszy, I thought the test I put already demonstrate the issue, though it is not proper to be included to the codebase.
>
> Are you referring to the one you linked in [#32878 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32878#issuecomment-3045485948)? That link returns a 404.

Sorry for that, check this one: https://github.com/HowHsu/bitcoin/commit/e9
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "wallet: Remove wallet version and several legacy related functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32977#discussion_r2227792656)
> 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.

I think I may be missing something, but I don't understand what feature set this is referring to. `CanSupportFeature()` is only called on legacy BDB wallets, but they can't open sqlite descriptor wallets anyway, so retaining the code here for compatibility does not seem needed.

It is fine to keep it for consistency or for documentation purposes, b
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "package validation: relax the package-not-child-with-unconfirmed-parents rule":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31385#discussion_r2227804494)

unconfiremd -> unconfirmed [spelling error in “unconfiremd parents”]

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "package validation: relax the package-not-child-with-unconfirmed-parents rule":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31385#discussion_r2227809802)
in the first commit (after the rebase): This is now required. Otherwise:

```
assert_equal(testres[0]["reject-reason"], "missing-inputs")
^^^^^^^^^^^^
NameError: name 'assert_equal' is not defined

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "[29.x] Backport #32521":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33013#issuecomment-3112537332)
the ci failure is unrelated. The fix was https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/cd8089c20baaaee329cbf7951195953a9f86d7cf, but that never made it into 29.x

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add functional tests for blockreconstructionextratxn parameter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33023#issuecomment-3112587616)
Could turn into draft while CI is failing?

🤔 janb84 reviewed a pull request: "doc: update headers and remove manual TOCs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33040#pullrequestreview-3050853475)
ACK ca38cf701dc635d39db987105c5b2ccc87fd9815

changes since last ACK:
- Removed manual TOCs

📝 fanquake converted_to_draft a pull request: "test: Add functional tests for blockreconstructionextratxn parameter"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33023)
This adds tests for the -blockreconstructionextratxn parameter which controls the extra transaction pool used for compact block reconstruction.

Uses policy rejected transactions to populate the extra pool for tests.

🤔 yuvicc reviewed a pull request: "doc: update headers and remove manual TOCs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33040#pullrequestreview-3051001175)
re-ACK ca38cf701dc635d39db987105c5b2ccc87fd9815

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "doc: Fix typos in asmap README"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33049#pullrequestreview-3051009188)
ACK b59dc21847d3bb20c0d77af5b4ca0ae5d8e56221

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: Fix typos in asmap README"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33049)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test, refactor: Embedded ASmap selected preparatory work":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33026#discussion_r2228108478)
In 9481c77420845316e825855ac589aa8a10bff057: Should drop the redundant `\n` on all lines.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test, refactor: Embedded ASmap selected preparatory work":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33026#discussion_r2228114963)
In 74932c62f9627a2eee634b1dd16fe2582c258a74: Seems a bit awkaward to add an (undocumented) special case here for asmap? Can't we just fail if the value given isn't a valid path, or stop supporting this behaviour? cc @ryanofsky

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#issuecomment-3112940862)
Updated 1f96d1cefc721b579b7aa3b05c2e65df62c0c5cf -> 10c3a0689a3b73eb2b291ee81dd85066fa32497d ([spendblock_8](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/spendblock_8) -> [spendblock_9](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/spendblock_9), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/spendblock_8..spendblock_9))

* Fixed silent merge conflict with #32521

📝 ajtowns opened a pull request: "net, validation: don't punish peers for consensus-invalid txs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33050)
Because we do not discourage nodes for transactions we consider non-standard, we don't get any DoS protection from this check in adversarial scenarios, so remove the check entirely both to simplify the code and reduce the risk of splitting the network due to changes in tx relay policy.

Then, because we no longer make use of the distinction between consensus and standardness failures during script validation, don't re-validate each script with only-consensus rules, reducing the cost to us of t
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: disable builtin rules and suffixes.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33045#issuecomment-3112964377)
Guix build (aarch64):
```bash
5702ab3b5222a5ec2c2d901692f8d9f1eddd93b40b39ff48fd87076a3e11c6b7 guix-build-9ef65a3df7a8/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
808b47ca979c07c77e26073f1fab3c5bc894541298092bbc99d2e9f59ff7cb4b guix-build-9ef65a3df7a8/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-9ef65a3df7a8-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
64ff4842f37a1e8ea949a2946144cce1cbb7ec4351424f85b2fc90e4e7d24ef6 guix-build-9ef65a3df7a8/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-9ef65a3df7a8-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
30273f
...

💬 danielabrozzoni commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2228161506)
Thanks a lot for the explanation, and the updated comments! It's much more understandable now.

🤔 marcofleon reviewed a pull request: "[29.x] test: Do not pass tests on unhandled exceptions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33046#pullrequestreview-3051143596)
lgtm ACK 411e15194b3a770ff455d413a0fe2495f0362297