💬 Sjors commented on pull request "cmake: Move internal binaries from bin/ to libexec/":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-3121464147)
@achow101 there was some discussion about `test_bitcoin` above: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-2807539249
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-3027233699

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "[POC] wallet: Add Support for BIP-353 DNS-Based Bitcoin Address via External Resolver":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#discussion_r2232783849)
So after #28201 this would no longer be a failure?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "[POC] wallet: Add Support for BIP-353 DNS-Based Bitcoin Address via External Resolver":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#discussion_r2232784061)
Maybe return an array of strings, because there might be multiple options we can pay to (regular address, silent payment, some future thing).

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "[POC] wallet: Add Support for BIP-353 DNS-Based Bitcoin Address via External Resolver":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#discussion_r2232784859)
Can you add this to the send RPC as well? Ideally the code should reusable by the GUI too, so maybe move it to CWallet.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "[POC] wallet: Add Support for BIP-353 DNS-Based Bitcoin Address via External Resolver":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#issuecomment-3121475171)
Concept ACK

Using `RunCommandParseJSON()` is similar to how we handle external signers. It's a good way to add this functionality without adding a lot of code and dependencies.

It won't be useful until we have silent payments send support #24897 (we don't want to encourage address reuse), so this PR could be contingent on that.

Node in a box applications like [Rspiblitz](https://github.com/raspiblitz/raspiblitz) could easily ship and configure a resolver, so this can be used not just by
...

💬 HowHsu commented on pull request "truc: optimize the in package relation calculation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33062#discussion_r2232787217)
Hi glozow,

> I think most of the benefits of precomputing this would be realized in the loop a few lines down looking for a package_tx sibling.

Could you elaborate on this?

As is, I'm not sure how much faster precomputation is: n=2 in normal cases, and we don't need to continue computing parents once we've realized it's oversize.

Yep, for n=2, I think no much difference here.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "intermittent timeout in wallet_signer.py : sendall timed out":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33015#issuecomment-3121553822)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4962760091500544?logs=ci#L1710

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "util: Revert "common: Close non-std fds before exec in RunCommandJSON"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33063#issuecomment-3121554126)
ACK faa1c3e80d95552bdc2c0e717065ebf8d510138f

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "intermittent issue in rpc_signer.py (enumeratesigners timeout) under GLIBCXX debug mode"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32524)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "util: Revert "common: Close non-std fds before exec in RunCommandJSON""
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33063)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "intermittent timeout in wallet_signer.py : sendall timed out"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33015)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "intermittent timeout in wallet_signer.py : 'createwallet' RPC took longer than 1200.000000 seconds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32855)

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "test: fix RPC coverage check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33064)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Run unit test parallel with functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33000#issuecomment-3121563681)
Concept ACK. Not sure about the approach of more Bash, to call new Python, that wraps more Bash.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#issuecomment-3121571275)
@hebasto how can we move past the GUI build failures here? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16538448423/job/46776353144?pr=32998#step:6:3769.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "SegFault in `coinstatsindex_tests`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32936#issuecomment-3121573845)
Has this happened again? If not, and the suspicion is OOM, then I think close, and re-open if it happens again, with more info / steps to reproduce?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: add option to skip large re-org test in feature_block":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33003#issuecomment-3121579232)
Looking at corecheck, there are currently 3 other functional tests that run slower than `feature_block.py` (`p2p_segwit.py`, `p2p_opportunistic_1p1c.py` & `mining_getblocktemplate_longpoll.py`). `p2p_opportunistic_1p1c.py` should be better after #33048.

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "refactor: Move `FreespaceChecker` class into its own module"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/881)
The MOC compiler in older versions of Qt 6 fails to parse `qt/intro.cpp`, as noted in [this comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#issuecomment-3082011233).

This PR proposes a move-only refactoring to simplify the source structure by eliminating the need for the inline `#include <qt/intro.moc>`, thereby effectively working around the issue.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#issuecomment-3121589767)
> @hebasto how can we move past the GUI build failures here? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16538448423/job/46776353144?pr=32998#step:6:3769.

Sure!

> > > CI failure seems to be due to [a bug in qt6 6.4](https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-31496?focusedId=888930&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-888930):
> >
> >
> > Although both failed CI job use Clang 20.1.7, the error can also be reproduced with GCC 13.3.
>
> [Refac
...

💬 hebasto commented on issue "SegFault in `coinstatsindex_tests`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32936#issuecomment-3121596465)
> Has this happened again?

Yeah, see: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin-core-nightly/actions/runs/16535696284/job/46769686066.

> ... and re-open if it happens again, with more info / steps to reproduce?

I'll try to reproduce it locally.