🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Move test_chain_listunspent wallet check from mempool_packages to wallet_basic"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27735)

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#issuecomment-1564441571)
@brunoerg are you going to address nits or leave as is? I'd really like to get this merged asap to prevent further rebase conflicts. Happy to quickly re-ack nits too, though.

💬 1ma commented on pull request "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1564474817)
Even then they won't go further than that, unless these peers are miners. This option would be only somewhat relevant if you run a solo mining node or a pool coordinator.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#discussion_r1206869341)
The reason behind that is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#discussion_r1199624849.
But.. could not expose it and move the caller to use `AbortNode()` instead. Same as we do with the external block import failures.

💬 joostjager commented on pull request "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1564482472)
Agreed that the option isn't the most relevant in typical scenarios. But if a restriction can be lifted safely and benefit a specific group of users, why not?

💬 furszy commented on pull request "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#discussion_r1206881682)
Still, in order to do that in the cleanest possible way, will need to refactor `shutdown.cpp`, so `AbortNode` is placed after the static `StartErrorShutdown` function. Which I'm not so sure that worth it due the conflicts that could cause with your PRs. Thoughts?

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "wallet: improve IBD sync time by skipping block scanning prior birth time":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27469#issuecomment-1564497329)
@furszy awwwwwesome thank you for catching that. Ok, passing test is now at https://github.com/pinheadmz/bitcoin/commit/f1238700a1f3d3e88b7f20bc51f0088783d53595

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "wallet: improve IBD sync time by skipping block scanning prior birth time":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27469#discussion_r1205652539)
I'm curious if `.load()` is necessary for the atomic value? Is this the correct reason? https://stackoverflow.com/a/44288045/1653320

👍 pinheadmz approved a pull request: "wallet: improve IBD sync time by skipping block scanning prior birth time"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27469#pullrequestreview-1444104729)
ACK 82bb7831fa6052620998c7eef47e48ed594248a8

Reviewed code and tested locally, wrote a test. I am running this branch side-by-side with master on a VPS and will report who wins the race in a day or so ;-)

<details><summary>Show Signature</summary>

```
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

ACK 82bb7831fa6052620998c7eef47e48ed594248a8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE5hdzzW4BBA4vG9eM5+KYS2KJyToFAmRwxNIACgkQ5+KYS2KJ
yTq5nhAA3dJDzRO4VmDUA8n9YO4RtpcQBHT/t9NOs
...

💬 D33r-Gee commented on issue "25.0 RC Testing Guide Feedback":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27736#issuecomment-1564503293)
> Thank you @evansmj and @D33r-Gee for all your feedback the guide has been updated.

with pleasure!

💬 fanquake commented on issue "25.0 RC Testing Guide Feedback":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27736#issuecomment-1564505208)
25.0 has been tagged. So closing this issue (conversation/testing of final can continue).

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "25.0 RC Testing Guide Feedback"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27736)

⚠️ fanquake unpinned an issue: "Release schedule for 26.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27758)
Here is a proposed release schedule for `v26.0`, the next major release of Bitcoin Core. I've aimed for a release roughly 6 months after the planned release of `v25.0` (#26549).

## 2023-09-01 :construction:
- Open Transifex translations for `26.0`
- Soft translation string freeze (no large or non-critical string changes until release)
- Finalize and close translations for `24.0`

## 2023-10-01 :construction:
- Feature freeze (bug fixes only until release)
- Translation string fre
...

⚠️ fanquake pinned an issue: "BIP324 tracking issue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27634)
This issue will be updated to reflect the current state of [BIP324](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0324.mediawiki) integration.

PRs ready for review:
* #27479 (depends on ellswift support in libsecp256k1, though)
* #26222

Overall plan:
* [x] Support for not wasting ChaCha20 stream bytes: #26153
* [ ] ElligatorSwift integration in Bitcoin Core: #27479
* [ ] Dependency: ElligatorSwift support in libsecp256k1: bitcoin-core/secp256k1#1129
* [ ] Cipher suite implement
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#discussion_r1206916333)
So IIRC, this call [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ca3041984cf3665e27b6783c923ab1c32682500a#diff-b1e19192258d83199d8adaa5ac31f067af98f63554bfdd679bd8e8073815e69dR1669) would call `StartErrorShutdown`?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Add missing set -e to 01_base_install.sh":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27739#issuecomment-1564529747)
Thanks, the last commit should fix your bug.

I wonder if env's like USER(NAME) and PATH should also be excluded, but this can be done later?

💬 furszy commented on pull request "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#discussion_r1206928091)
Yeah [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/bc2315d86f13e6e15f681ecaf5efc9b33e6128a3#diff-b1e19192258d83199d8adaa5ac31f067af98f63554bfdd679bd8e8073815e69dR1675), I just rebased #27607 on top of this one.

Np on using `AbortNode` there. Just would need to bubble up the indexes error so it can be provided to `AbortNode`.

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "p2p: Log addresses of stalling peers"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27761#pullrequestreview-1446443265)
utACK fb02a3cd1a105bdf60ca39e1858e77685be88976

💬 instagibbs commented on issue "Frequent "Timeout downloading block" with 24.1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27705#issuecomment-1564537951)
> Which on this particular node is ~1GB of logs per 2-3 hours.

Another annoying way to find it is detect when node is stalled, then do `getpeerinfo` and see who has a block "inflight", then ban them.

That said, this should not happen regularly post #27626

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "fuzz: Change LIMIT_TO_MESSAGE_TYPE from a compile-time to a run-time setting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27766#discussion_r1206947004)
thx, done