💬 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)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Add `exportwatchonlywallet` RPC to export a watchonly version of a wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32489#discussion_r2246561816)
Done

💬 rot13maxi commented on pull request "[WIP] policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141712721)

> > Contrast this with the dust feerate, which defines a value as "too small" based on Bitcoin's protocol constraints on transaction volume (e.g. spend script size vs block space). The conversion rate is thus irrelevant or, at the very least, applies very differently in that context.
>
> No, dust is defined as too small to be worth spending, which is a factor of fee rate to spend it. If the fee rate is 10x lower, the dust limit is logically 10x lower as well.

Dropping the dust threshold
...

⚠️ Mstone87 opened an issue: "Mike stone"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33108)
### Motivation

Sugabitcoin

### Possible solution

_No response_

### Useful Skills

* Compiling Bitcoin Core from source
* Running the C++ unit tests and the Python functional tests
* ...


### Guidance for new contributors

Want to work on this issue?

For guidance on contributing, please read [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) before opening your pull request.

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Mike stone"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33108)

💬 Zeegaths commented on pull request "wallet: Track no-longer-spendable TXOs separately":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27865#issuecomment-3141776644)
## Performance Testing Results

Tested this PR against master using regtest with high-activity wallets.

### Test Setup:
- Ubuntu 22.04, CMake build
- Fresh regtest environment for both branches
- 1,110 transactions (200 initial coinbase + 500 small sends + 100 coinbase + 300 large sends + 10 final coinbase)
- Identical test patterns on both branches

### Results:

| Operation | Master | PR Branch | Performance Change |
|-----------|--------|-----------|-------------------|
| `ge
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "cmake: Move internal binaries from bin/ to libexec/":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31679#issuecomment-3141813974)
> Actually looking closer these are pretty much all build directory links, so are ok.

Sorry about that, the PR description was confusing and achow thought the same thing you did. I rewrote it now to be clearer. (I think the original PR description was also clear but I had replaced it a few weeks ago with a big table to explain some details of the change, and I think the table made it harder to understand the high-level change.)

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "wallet, refactor: Remove Legacy check and error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33082#issuecomment-3141827198)
<ins>_Updates_</ins>
- Reverted a legacy wallet check and removed some unnecessary `LoadWallet()` calls from a few wallet tests in the first commit.

👋 pablomartin4btc's pull request is ready for review: "wallet, refactor: Remove Legacy check and error"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33082)