💬 hMsats commented on issue "bitcoind 29.0 much slower than 28.0 on my system: cause found":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32455#issuecomment-3145315142)
Closing this issue concurrent with the 29.1rc1 release candidate. After upgrading Bitcoin Core to 29.0, the solution is to keep the system running for a few days until most LevelDB files have been converted to approximately 32 MB, or to run a `-reindex`. Thanks for all the help and support!

✅ hMsats closed an issue: "bitcoind 29.0 much slower than 28.0 on my system: cause found"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32455)

🤔 caesrcd reviewed a pull request: "policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#pullrequestreview-3080167562)
tACK a43e1b28b2899e1707e7867fd46efe9fcc08f241

Compiled and tested on Arch Linux (kernel 6.15.8, gcc 15.1.1, clang 20.1.8).
Build performed with CMake in Debug mode:
```bash
cmake -B build_test -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=clang++ -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=clang
cmake --build build_test -j$(nproc)
ctest --output-on-failure --stop-on-failure --test-dir build_test -j$(nproc)
build_test/test/functional/test_runner.py
```

All unit and functional tests passed successfully.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "validation: detect witness stripping early on"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33105#pullrequestreview-3080155389)
approach ACK - I'm not super confident in my script knowledge but I can't think of why you couldn't detect witness stripped this way.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validation: detect witness stripping early on":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33105#discussion_r2248582026)
I don't think this comment belongs here. It has too many details about net_processing logic that shouldn't really be mentioned in validation / are already covered in the code that does rejection caching.
```suggestion
// Detect a missing witness so that p2p code can handle rejection caching appropriately.
```

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Interfaces: Expose UTXO Snapshot Loading and Add Progress Notifications":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33117#issuecomment-3145445209)
I plan to test this soon(tm).

💬 achow101 commented on issue "spendable is true for UTXO of private key disabled wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33110#issuecomment-3145501388)
The docs need to be updated, `spendable` is always true for UTXOs belonging to a descriptor wallet, including ones without private keys.

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "p2p: TxOrphanage revamp cleanups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32941#pullrequestreview-3080320302)
re-ACK 3d4d4f0d92d42809e74377e4380abdc70f74de5d

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#pullrequestreview-3080238325)
a2c43c3b9447377d2f2635e23c9043e40b769dd4 looks pretty good to me! Minor comments mostly about docs

💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2248644653)
nit 7f43b5559c5f508ac210350847bca6f0f0e091be

call this `parent_it` as well?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2248642322)
7f43b5559c5f508ac210350847bca6f0f0e091be

nit: generally prefer comments to live on separate lines
```suggestion
// this unconfirmed v3 transaction already has a child
if (wtx.truc_child_in_mempool.has_value()) continue;
```

💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2248646240)
```suggestion
// If this tx has a parent, unset its truc_child_in_mempool to make it possible
// to spend from the parent again. If this tx was replaced by another
```

💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2248686896)
This comment can be confusing - we're not actually looking for transactions spending from *this* tx. We're looking for siblings of this tx, which spend from utxos of `wtx` (which is actually this transaction's parent). Might be helpful to rename `wallet_it` to `parent_it` and update this comment.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2248640723)
1910d9b61f23f65335367f2f8dd021ac1ccd907a

Could be more specific. Also, this isn't only used by AvailableCoinsListUnspent. It's always checked in `AvailableCoins`, but `AvailableCoinsListUnspent` is the only caller that disables it because it's not building a transaction.

```suggestion
// When true, filter unconfirmed coins by whether their version's TRUCness matches what is set by CCoinControl.
bool check_version_trucness{true};
```

💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2248721755)
Now that there is `send` and `sendall` support, is it just transactions received by the wallet?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2248694635)
9b478f1f68c00b5c514a30a53d19cd58fe813795

integers can just be passed by value

💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2248729121)
Missing test coverage for this condition I think? Need `user_input_weight_not_overwritten` test for something spending unconfirmed v3

💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2248722112)
Maybe mention TRUC and/or BIP 431?

📝 ishaanam opened a pull request: "test: fix anti-fee-sniping off-by-one error"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33118)
This fixes the off-by-one error in the anti-fee-sniping tests for `send` and `sendall`. `assert_greater_than` fails if the two values are equal.

Closes #33114

💬 glozow commented on issue "intermittent issue in wallet_sendall.py", line 440, in sendall_anti_fee_sniping assert_greater_than(tx_from_wallet["decoded"]["locktime"], tx_from_wallet["blockheight"]":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33114#issuecomment-3145590340)
#33118