💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "kernel: improve BlockChecked ownership semantics":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33078#discussion_r2246254900)
What's the benefit of passing a `const std::shared_ptr`?

💬 jlopp commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141183635)
Concept ACK; this is effectively increasing economic scalability. If we can do so without reopening DoS vectors, that's a win.

💬 caesrcd commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141192328)
Concept ACK

The economic incentives are already evident: over 80% of the hashrate is mining transactions below 1 sat/vB, and the number of noderunners relaying transactions with fees below the current standard is increasing every day.

👍 pablomartin4btc approved a pull request: "test: Perform backup filename checks in migrate_and_get_rpc in wallet_migration.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33104#pullrequestreview-3076775979)
utACK 4b80147feb97300e92e1f940b8d989a0af331e06

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141253053)
Again, Concept NACK. Everything below 1s/vB is spam. There's no reason to change the default.

>Over that period the USD price of BTC has risen by roughly 2-3 orders of magnitude,

It's the USD that has fallen, Bitcoin has only increased *relative to* it. Actually, Bitcoin probably hasn't even kept up its value, so if anything we should be looking to increase the default relay fee, if maintaining the same actual-value cost is the goal.

>The minimum relay feerate is a DoS protection rule,
...

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "kernel: improve BlockChecked ownership semantics":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33078#discussion_r2246327956)
Mostly for clarity and intent (with this change, cannot reassign or mutate the local shared_ptr copy). Other than that, no real effect.
It is a nit, not blocking.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#issuecomment-3141265710)
> because the current syntax for distinguishing named parameters is inherently ambiguous.

But since the server knows the names of the named parameters, it can also check whether the incoming string starts with the name of a parameter.

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141277334)
Concept ACK

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "log: rate limiting followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33011#discussion_r2246301270)
(source location is unrelated, just wanted to get into thread mode)
I wanted to add something to this [this thread](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2115526293).

I didn't review the original PR, but I would appreciate an `-ratelimitlogging` option for the sake of testing, undocumented / `DEBUG_ONLY` would be fine for me:
- already now, multiple functional tests hit the limit (`feature_taproot.py`, `p2p_headers_sync_with_minchainwork.py`, `wallet_avoidreuse.py`, `wal
...

💬 caesrcd commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141298823)
@luke-jr
> Everything below 1s/vB is spam.

That’s false. I recently made several consolidation transactions myself, all confirming at <1 sat/vB. Labeling everything below 1 sat/vB as "spam" ignores legitimate use cases like UTXO consolidation, which is actually beneficial for the network.

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "descriptors: MuSig2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244)

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#issuecomment-3141318636)
> Alternatively, maybe we can make the rpc client aware of all of the rpcs so it can do that conversion?

That's basically what the PR does implicitly and what my refactoring of the PR does more explicitly with string/json formats in
[rpc/client.cpp](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/b998cc52d51b48db9271fdba0bd69e9aaccb7999/src/rpc/client.cpp#L16).

I think if you look at that file you will see that the the parsing logic is not that complicated and can be well explained. The code the
...

🤔 willcl-ark reviewed a pull request: "cmake: Move internal binaries from bin/ to libexec/"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#pullrequestreview-3076892707)
Concept ACK.

I still see a number of references to out-dated locations in our codebase with this PR:

```bash
$ git grep "bin/\(test_bitcoin\|bench_bitcoin\|bitcoin-chainstate\|bitcoin-gui\|bitcoin-node\|test_bitcoin-qt\)"
.github/workflows/ci.yml: ./bin/test_bitcoin.exe -l test_suite
.github/workflows/ci.yml: run: ./bin/bench_bitcoin.exe -sanity-check
ci/test/03_test_script.sh: DIR_UNIT_TEST_DATA="${DIR_UNIT_TEST_DATA}" LD_LIBRARY_PATH="${DEPENDS_DIR}/${HOST}/lib" "${B
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Perform backup filename checks in migrate_and_get_rpc in wallet_migration.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33104#issuecomment-3141363807)
reACK 4b80147feb97300e92e1f940b8d989a0af331e06

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#issuecomment-3141369795)
> That's basically what the PR does implicitly and what my refactoring of the PR does more explicitly with string/json formats

Yes, but I meant more so in having access to `RPCHelpMan` which already has the names and types of all parameters.

💬 aeonBTC commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141370193)
Concept ACK

In the past month, over 200,000 sub-1 sat/vB transactions were propagated and confirmed, despite a super majority of nodes not relaying them. This again demonstrates that market-driven blockspace demand and economic incentives consistently prevail over relay policies.

💬 RobinLinus commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141404798)
> It's the USD that has fallen, Bitcoin has only increased _relative to_ it.

Making such a bold claim—especially one that clearly contradicts observable reality—without any justification makes it seem like you're just trolling. Bitcoin hasn’t only risen against the USD; it has also significantly outperformed gold, stocks, and nearly every other asset over the past decade.

🤔 fjahr reviewed a pull request: "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#pullrequestreview-3076976529)
Concept ACK

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#discussion_r2246439610)
This was reduced by a factor 100 and not by a factor 10 like all the other tests here. Probably a typo?

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "validation: detect witness stripping early on":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33105#issuecomment-3141419839)
ACK 0e22a1401c7edee8946f404dd0deb59a94231340