💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "cli: return local services in -netinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31886#discussion_r2233596644)
`{self.config['environment']['CLIENT_NAME']}`

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "cli: return local services in -netinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31886#discussion_r2233596661)
`{self.config['environment']['CLIENT_NAME']}`

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#discussion_r2233730246)
@macgyver13 Did you use the same private key for scan and spend?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2233666164)
nit: the code isn't in exact alignment with the comment - and since we *are* calling it with `0`, maybe something like:
```suggestion
Assert(d >= 0ms); // Steady time cannot move backward.
```
(nit2: to obviate that we don't just mean that jumps cannot be 0.5 seconds, we might want to use `0ms` instead)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2233663906)
typo in commit message:
> no state *is* leaked between test cases

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2233658117)
👍 for using the built-in `min` instead.

Could we add it to the commit message that this isn't just a simple refactor (and not just about the return value), but as @hodlinator stated in a different PR where he did the same:
> That way we can always proceed instead of just exiting the fuzz target, wasting cycles. Also reduces code complexity.

🤔 l0rinc reviewed a pull request: "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#pullrequestreview-3058931165)
Thanks for fixing these, left quite a few comments, hope you'll find them useful

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2233667188)
nit: I understand that it's meant to be symmetric with `ElapseSteady`, but I don't find the comment helpful as it is.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2233680450)
It doesn't just initialize the state of the object, but modifies the global state as well - can we make that more obvious to make sure the users understand that?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2233674509)
maybe we could reuse the previous setters like we do in other methods:
```suggestion
void operator()(std::chrono::seconds d) { set(m_t + d); }
```
or maybe even:
```suggestion
void operator()(std::chrono::seconds d)
{
Assert(d >= 0s); // Elapse time cannot move backward.
set(m_t + d);
}
```
nit: I don't find the operator to be intuitive here, maybe we could call it `Advance` instead?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2233676772)
In the constructors we're using the setters, can we use it here, too, to minimize the places where we're adjusting the local/global state?
```suggestion
~ElapseTime() { set(0s); }
```

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2233681737)
I think the part that a setter modifies both the local and global state should be made more obvious, it's not intuitive:
```suggestion
void Set(NodeSeconds t) noexcept
{
m_t = t;
SetMockTime(m_t); // Set the global mock time.
}
```
nit: capitalized + noexcept

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2233691602)
are we planning on using the new declared object? Could we rather skip the name, or call it a `time_mock` or something to obviate why it's unused?

⚠️ OreoCookieRustDev opened an issue: "Pruned node missing some coinbase UTXOs (version: 28.1)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33071)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [x] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

Bitcoin Core version: 28.1
Node state: Fully synced, pruned
Observed issue:
Using a fully synced pruned node (prune=550), I scanned the UTXO set using bitcoin-cli scantxoutset for the address 1J6PYEzr4CUoGbnXrELyHszoTSz3wCsCaj (known to contain the original 50 BTC coinbase from satoshis block 8).

The result returns only small non-coinbase dust UTXOs totaling 0.00012281 BTC - every transac
...

💬 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_r2233868340)
I think initially it would be similar to [HWI](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/HWI): separately maintained and released. (but see discussion below)

💬 Bost commented on pull request "guix: accomodate migration to codeberg":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32439#issuecomment-3124271015)
FYI my build fails:

```
bost@ecke ~/dev/guix$ guix describe | grep -B 1 -A 2 codeberg
guix fe71182
repository URL: https://codeberg.org/guix/guix.git
branch: master
commit: fe7118239d45f032d78c86f62c6b3d7119ee77e2

bost@ecke ~/dev/guix$ git show fe7118239d45f032d78c86f62c6b3d7119ee77e2
commit fe7118239d45f032d78c86f62c6b3d7119ee77e2 (HEAD -> master, codeberg/master, codeberg/HEAD)
Author: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Date: Sat Jul 26 23:41:51 2025

gnu: b
...

✅ OreoCookieRustDev closed an issue: "Pruned node missing some coinbase UTXOs (version: 28.1)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33071)

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Pruned node missing some coinbase UTXOs (version: 28.1)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33071#issuecomment-3124295188)
> Using a fully synced pruned node (prune=550), I scanned the UTXO set using bitcoin-cli scantxoutset for the address 1J6PYEzr4CUoGbnXrELyHszoTSz3wCsCaj (known to contain the original 50 BTC coinbase from satoshis block 8).

First of all I think you mean block 9 ;-)
And second of all, this is not known and is in fact incorrect! Satoshi did not use a pay-to-pubkey-hash address. If you check that coinbase transaction on an [explorer](https://mempool.space/tx/0437cd7f8525ceed2324359c2d0ba26006d92d8
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "index: initial sync speedup, parallelize process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26966#issuecomment-3124309346)
Did a rough benchmark test. Froze a full node at height `906551` by restarting with `-noconnect` and also `-txindex -blockfilterindex`. First test was from master, after 48 hours I aborted the process after reaching only:

```
$ bitcoin-cli getindexinfo
{
"txindex": {
"synced": false,
"best_block_height": 770289
},
"basic block filter index": {
"synced": true,
"best_block_height": 906551
}
}
```

Running this PR (restarting with empty `indexes/`), both ind
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Pruned node missing some coinbase UTXOs (version: 28.1)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33071#issuecomment-3124328203)
finally...

```
$ bitcoin-cli -rpcclienttimeout=999999999999999 scantxoutset start '[{"desc":"pk(0496b538e853519c726a2c91e61ec11600ae1390813a627c66fb8be7947be63c52da7589379515d4e0a604f8141781e62294721166bf621e73a82cbf2342c858ee)"}]'
{
"success": true,
"txouts": 167415131,
"height": 907405,
"bestblock": "000000000000000000017573b428d3f13ad8944f368b53ad195ad03b3bdbb1a1",
"unspents": [
{
"txid": "0e3e2357e806b6cdb1f70b54c3a3a17b6714ee1f0e68bebb44a74b1efd512098",
"vout": 0
...