💬 maflcko commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add capnp wrapper for Chain interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29409#issuecomment-3114802810)
For reference, the lint task still fails. Not sure if this is intentional or if you missed it.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2229493624)
(tested podman buildx on a vanilla Ubuntu 24.04, fwiw)

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "NOMERGE DEBUG WIP ignore"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33028)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "NOMERGE DEBUG WIP ignore":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33028#issuecomment-3114821576)
this is just too difficult to reproduce

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "cli: return local services in -netinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31886#discussion_r2229516213)
Review feedback was unfavorable to adding test coverage for -netinfo. I'm not against it and happy to review proposals.

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "getbestblockhash is sometimes taking a very long time":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32733#issuecomment-3114844144)
Running v29 on my Pi4 has been fine so far. Even with 8 available I rarely ever see it use more than 2, and this is with lnd, LndHub, tor, and a few other services. I will note that I am still running the 32-bit PiOS however.

```
$ free -mh total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 7.7Gi 1.2Gi 490Mi 41Mi
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "NOMERGE DEBUG WIP ignore":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33028#discussion_r2229528575)
It just reproduced. i guess the deadlock happens inside `Popen`, as there are no logs lines after this one:


```
./test/functional/combine_logs.py /ci_container_base/ci/scratch/test_runner/test_runner_₿_🏃_20250724_203021/rpc_signer_0/ | grep -C3 'warning'
test 2025-07-24T20:30:49.464060Z TestFramework.bitcoincli (DEBUG): Running bitcoin-cli ['-datadir=/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/test_runner/test_runner_₿_🏃_20250724_203021/rpc_signer_0/node3', 'enumeratesigners']
node3 2025-07-24T2
...

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "test: add assertions to SRD max weight test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33058#issuecomment-3114861829)
> [18:13:33.790] ./wallet/test/coinselector_tests.cpp(1247): �[1;31;49merror: in "coinselector_tests/srd_tests": check EquivalentResult(expected_result, *res) has failed�[0;39;49m

That is the unit test, right? It passes for me locally. I just re-based and pushed again and now that job is passing. I wonder now if there's a possible random seed that could cause SRD to fail.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "NOMERGE DEBUG WIP ignore":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33028#discussion_r2229541626)
Same bt as in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32524#issuecomment-2888967608:

```
Thread 33 (Thread 0xf5933b40 (LWP 2485619) "b-httpworker.2"):
#0 0xf7f8e589 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#1 0xf7aaeac7 in read () from /lib32/libc.so.6
#2 0x57dae8b6 in subprocess::util::read_atmost_n (fp=0x595e06d0, buf=0xf59305e4 "", read_upto=1024) at ./util/subprocess.h:437
#3 0x57dc2e19 in subprocess::Popen::execute_process (this=0xf5930cd8) at ./util/subprocess.h:1247
#4 0x57daf434 in subpro
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "cli: return local services in -netinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31886#discussion_r2229541731)
I kept the order the same as in getpeerinfo RPC, the GUI, and the -netinfo peers list.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet, sqlite: Encapsulate SQLite statements in a RAII class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33033#discussion_r2229546952)
I've dropped this commit from this PR and moved it to #33034. Also dropped `value_type` and made the constructor just take `span<const std::byte>` and that seems to work.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet, sqlite: Encapsulate SQLite statements in a RAII class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33033#discussion_r2229549000)
Done

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "test: reduce runtime of p2p_opportunistic_1p1c.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33048#pullrequestreview-3053254178)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33048/commits/eb65f57f319dc4e2ea8c83cf7e283c36f1c0d53b

On my machine, master: 43 s
This PR: 27 s

Even reducing the number of transactions and peer connections used in the DoS portions of the test, it still fills the orphan pool past its limit, ensuring that evictions occur.
The use of mock time also makes the test more deterministic.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: `addhdkey` RPC to add just keys to wallets via new `unused(KEY)` descriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29136#discussion_r2229559648)
We can have multiple keys if the key is multipath.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: `addhdkey` RPC to add just keys to wallets via new `unused(KEY)` descriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29136#discussion_r2229563232)
External signer always has private keys disabled.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: `addhdkey` RPC to add just keys to wallets via new `unused(KEY)` descriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29136#discussion_r2229564365)
This call to `Parse` has `require_checksum` set to `false` so the checksum is not required.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: `addhdkey` RPC to add just keys to wallets via new `unused(KEY)` descriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29136#discussion_r2229572215)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: `addhdkey` RPC to add just keys to wallets via new `unused(KEY)` descriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29136#discussion_r2229572501)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: `addhdkey` RPC to add just keys to wallets via new `unused(KEY)` descriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29136#discussion_r2229572728)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: `addhdkey` RPC to add just keys to wallets via new `unused(KEY)` descriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29136#discussion_r2229572849)
Done