🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: limit max stack size to 512 KiB"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33079)

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "guix: warn SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH set in guix-codesign"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33073#pullrequestreview-3068095587)
ACK 1bed0f734b3f2dd876193b5cad303bfab1d250d5

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#issuecomment-3133043442)
> This means the code was [953c90d](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/953c90d7649c076e6e43418f50c33b3ae5f82608) vs [3219847](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/321984705dbcc5982013c8cfb52389cf3f2e75f6)

Dang, I must have rebased on upstream/master (out of habit) to drop that top commit. Thanks for catching.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "guix: warn SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH set in guix-codesign"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33073)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: warn SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH set in guix-codesign":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33073#issuecomment-3133068173)
Backported to `29.x` in #33074.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "index: initial sync speedup, parallelize process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26966#discussion_r2240255267)
> [b360102](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b36010261921adc74e61bdcbc91ba6b7778bad9a)
>
> Wonder if it should be specified that threadpool is **shared** among all indexers (that support multithreading)

Done as suggested.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: warn SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH set in guix-codesign":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33073#issuecomment-3133128929)
Backported to `28.x` in #33076.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "wallet, rpc: add anti-fee-sniping to `send` and `sendall`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28944#pullrequestreview-3068216620)
ACK aac0b6dd79b0db1e9d42a6f466709a61cfd1f69f

💬 darosior commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3133154267)
@delta1 i would suggest picking up https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13990 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13922. In this order, or make a good argument why it would be fine to lower the settings without first making the fee estimation work be compatible.

Feel free to ping me for review, i think this is important it makes it into the next release. I'm managing expectations however since, as it's been pointed out multiple times already, this is a lot less trivial than some pe
...

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "wallet, rpc: add anti-fee-sniping to `send` and `sendall`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28944)

💬 delta1 commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3133195798)
@darosior thanks I intend to make fee estimation work correctly as well

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "cli: return local services in -netinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31886#discussion_r2240344928)
good eye, done

💬 theuni commented on pull request "rpc: use CScheduler for relocking wallet and remove RPCTimer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32862#issuecomment-3133226979)
Looks like https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/111048 to me?

💬 theuni commented on pull request "rpc: use CScheduler for relocking wallet and remove RPCTimer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32862#issuecomment-3133245232)
Nm, I misunderstood that report. We don't have a shared lib missing instrumentation.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "ipc: add bitcoin-mine test program":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-3133306000)
re-ACK e1f139bd5fc9ee737d2b08307fca2b33354c5747

> I feel like adding more special cases to this code will make it less less useful as a demonstration of what the mining API looks like and how it can be called.

Previously, I assumed that the purpose of this commit was to demonstrate how the mining API works. @Sjors highlighted it's for test coverage here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-3087403014. Your recent comment seems to reinforce my original assumption.


...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "ipc: add bitcoin-mine test program":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30437#issuecomment-3133365936)
re-ACK e1f139bd5fc9ee737d2b08307fca2b33354c5747

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "refactor: GenTxid type safety followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33005#pullrequestreview-3067511438)
ACK 94b39ce73831acc4c94c7f0d1347d5991b27ef0b

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "refactor: GenTxid type safety followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33005#discussion_r2239805692)
nit: `txid` declaration not really helpful imo
```suggestion
const Wtxid& wtxid{txinfo.tx->GetWitnessHash()};
const auto inv = peer->m_wtxid_relay ?
CInv{MSG_WTX, wtxid.ToUint256()} :
CInv{MSG_TX, txinfo.tx->GetHash().ToUint256()};
```

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "refactor: GenTxid type safety followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33005#discussion_r2240488569)
tl;dr - I think the current implementation 94b39ce73831acc4c94c7f0d1347d5991b27ef0b (i.e. ajtown's suggestion in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33005#discussion_r2224354639) is pragmatically the best way forward.

---

> `GetIter` is already exposed

I think "still" is more appropriate than "already", see e.g. work done in #28391. Non-mempool code using `mapTx` iterators imo remains an anti-pattern and we should strive to reduce, not increase it.

> That removes p2p-specific cod
...

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "refactor: GenTxid type safety followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33005#discussion_r2240139278)
ghost nit