🤔 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

💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "log: rate limiting followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33011#discussion_r2246449498)
Oh, I did not know functional tests were hitting the limit. I will add an option to disable the rate limiting.

⚠️ vishalnimavat2004 opened an issue: "Bitcoin and Quantum Computing: A Path to Post-Quantum Security"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33107)
Bitcoin and Quantum Computing: A Path to Post-Quantum Security

Abstract

This whitepaper explores the looming threat of quantum computing to Bitcoin's current cryptographic structure. It outlines how Bitcoin's existing security (based on ECDSA) is vulnerable to quantum attacks, explains how post-quantum cryptography (PQC) provides a viable defense, and proposes a technically feasible path forward using NIST-approved quantum-safe algorithms like SPHINCS+ and Dilithium.


---

Table of Contents


...

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "Musig2 tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32724#issuecomment-3141547340)
Rebased and fixed `musig.mutant.2.cpp`.
It is impossible to reach the condition in `musig.mutant.5.cpp` with valid public keys. The condition detected by mutant 2 prevents sending invalid public keys to `secp256k1_musig_pubkey_agg`.
Even if I try to send P and -P, the MuSig2 protocol prevents key cancellation attacks.

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Bitcoin and Quantum Computing: A Path to Post-Quantum Security"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33107)

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "Musig2 tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32724#issuecomment-3141549392)
The CI error is related to the wallet migration test.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33096

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "validation: periodically flush dbcache during reindex-chainstate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32414#issuecomment-3141578226)
ACK 0431a690c3a498a1e728c9df34a132ac16177a04

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "refactor: remove unused `ser_writedata16be` and `ser_readdata16be`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33093#issuecomment-3141583139)
ACK 0431a690c3a498a1e728c9df34a132ac16177a04

🤔 murchandamus reviewed a pull request: "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#pullrequestreview-3077093617)
Concept ACK

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#discussion_r2246522617)
I was wondering why you decided to change the `DEFAULT_BLOCK_MIN_TX_FEE` to 1 s/kvB instead of 100 s/kvB and I couldn’t find a motivation in this commit or the main comment.

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#discussion_r2246528817)
What sort of rounding problem were you seeing here? I thought that Fee Frac would essentially get rid of rounding issues.

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#discussion_r2246536279)
At what precision does the minimum mempool feerate change? Could it be problematic if the mempool overflowed with transactions below 1 s/vB?

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "refactor: remove unused `ser_writedata16be` and `ser_readdata16be`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33093)