🤔 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

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: inline constant return values from `dbwrapper` write methods":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33042#issuecomment-3112999265)
Looks like this was introduced in 421218d3040279c84616891e8d14b05576b07c57, I guess because it was less verbose. How verbose would it be to pass it up and check it everywhere? Also, `git grep '\<catch\>' ./src/index/base.*` doesn't return anything, so I wonder how index code deals with those exceptions?

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "net, validation: don't punish peers for consensus-invalid txs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33050#issuecomment-3113000946)
See also #33012.

DoS banning was introduced in #517. DoS banning for some txs was removed in #896, #2540 and #3843, and then extended back to cover various post-p2sh soft forks in #26291. DoS banning was changed to be less banny in #14929, changed to discouragement in #19219 and changed from score-based to instant in #29575.

Also related is the `RECENT_CONSENSUS_CHANGE` validation state, which was removed in #31269, but which was intended to prevent banning/discouragement of peers that wou
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "wallet: Set migrated wallet name only on success"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32984)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: update headers and remove manual TOCs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33040)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "[29.x] test: Do not pass tests on unhandled exceptions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33046)

💬 bigshiny90 commented on pull request "test: Add functional tests for blockreconstructionextratxn parameter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33023#issuecomment-3113073248)
updated to fix CI Lint fail (whitespace removal)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: check proper OP_2ROT behavior"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33047)

💬 bigshiny90 commented on pull request "test: Add functional tests for blockreconstructionextratxn parameter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33023#issuecomment-3113104256)
updated to fix CI Lint errors

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "Enable `-natpmp` by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33004#issuecomment-3113109911)
Post-merge ACK b2d07f872c58af9cfdf9f9a4af0645376f9b98cb

🤔 fanquake reviewed a pull request: "ci: Use optimized Debug build type in test-each-commit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32888#pullrequestreview-3051259900)
Seems fine to add this and be using `mold` in one job.

> This ci run took 30min7sec (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16112781421/job/45459901801?pr=32888)

This doesn't actually show the new changes here right?