✅ 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.

💬 theuni 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-1562984009)
> Guix builds are working.

Thanks for the build.

> 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`.

Sigh. It just never ends. Converting back to draft as I don't intend to look into this immediately.

📝 theuni converted_to_draft a pull request: "macOS: Bump minimum required runtime version and prepare for building with upstream LLVM"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27676)
This (I believe) resolves the last of the blockers for [switching us away from cctools and instead using out-of-the-box llvm and lld](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21778) for building Darwin binaries.

For now, we continue building with a pre-packaged llvm and cctools, but after this PR the clang+lld combo should just work for anyone trying it. Additionally after this PR, the new runtime `fixup_chains` behavior will be in-use, as ld64 uses it as well.

The commits may seem unrelate
...

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[24.x] rpc: Fix invalid bech32 handling"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27755)
Backports https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27727 to 24.x. Not a clean cherry-pick.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "rpc: Fix invalid bech32 address handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27727#issuecomment-1562989901)
Backported to 25.x in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27750 and 24.x in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27755.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Remove util/system from kernel library, interface_ui from validation.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27636#issuecomment-1562994545)
Re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27636#issuecomment-1560199240

Thank you for the review!

> all of them can be safely ignored and definitely shouldn't stand in the way of this PR making progress.

I'll fix these if I have to push again, otherwise will address them in follow ups.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "kernel: Remove util/system from kernel library, interface_ui from validation.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27636#issuecomment-1562999859)
re-ACK 7d3b35004b039f2bd606bb46a540de7babdbc41e (no change) 🎋

<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+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: re-ACK 7d3b3500
...

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "depends: remove redundant stdlib option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27721#pullrequestreview-1444038853)
ACK 4fe5f3c4675263ea106e7ac6d336ec769392ebc3

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[23.x] rpc: Fix invalid bech32 handling"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27756)
Backports https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27727 to 23.x. Not a clean cherry-pick. Same commit as #27755.