💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo: net_processing changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24008#issuecomment-1565416944)
@fjahr thanks for the write up! It's on my reading list. Will also look at @sdaftuar's PR.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#discussion_r1207968175)
`> 0` is fine too, but I guess nobody will this to zero accidentally.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "[25.x] Parallel compact block downloads":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27752#issuecomment-1565420134)
utACK 50c86f57af5c6a9aa2e4828aeb67d641340b0860

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Fix rpc_getblockfrompeer intermittency by introducing 'getblockfileinfo' RPC command":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27770#issuecomment-1565431844)
Not sure. My preference would be to figure out why the blocks are of different size and then make that deterministic instead.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "httpserver, rest: improving URI validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27253#discussion_r1208014798)
I can't remember tbh, try to find it in the history with no success, not sure if I did it due to matching the consumers(?) or @vasild suggested it at some point...

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "httpserver, rest: improving URI validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27253#discussion_r1208014857)
Well, I think that an empty string wouldn't be a valid URI, at least the `scheme component` (the first part of it which is followed by a ":", which is again followed by the `hier-part` component (which may be empty) must be present according to the [RFC](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986#section-3). I thought it was perhaps validated inside the `evhttp_uri_parse` but I couldn't find it [there](https://github.com/libevent/libevent/blob/bca26524fc4cd7a9e79d210c1079baaa7d29835d/http.c#L4464-L4
...

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "httpserver, rest: improving URI validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27253#discussion_r1208015048)
Yeah missed them, done now, thanks!

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "httpserver, rest: improving URI validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27253#discussion_r1208015177)
Yeah and also it'll be more consistent with the comments above in the private declaration section.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/c72967f48ab9eb02b8dc9231fdcc6ee85d66b7b9/src/httpserver.h#L60-L63

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "httpserver, rest: improving URI validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27253#discussion_r1208015277)
Ok, done.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "httpserver, rest: improving URI validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27253#issuecomment-1565460712)
Updates:
- Incorporated most of @stickies-v suggestions
- I'll remove the `httpserver` private member `replySent` (as @vasild suggested and @stickies-v agrees with), the argument from the constructor and all the logic around it in a separated commit. I can squash it later into 1 if you like.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Introduce secp256k1 module with field and group classes to test framework":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26222#discussion_r1207644980)
when defining classes in python, don't we skip parentheses?
using `class ECPubKey:` and `class ECKey:` instead of `class ECPubKey():` and `class ECKey():`

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Introduce secp256k1 module with field and group classes to test framework":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26222#discussion_r1207999486)
never mind, just reviewed key.py and saw how this is being used in `verify_schnorr`, `tweak_add_pubkey`. agree that it's better/simpler to keep it as it is.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Introduce secp256k1 module with field and group classes to test framework":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26222#discussion_r1207758013)
I thought of "The result is cached." as:
1. someone calls `int()`
2. we do operations inside `int()`, compute what num and den should be and store it locally+lazily without updating actual `self.num`, `self.den`
3. someone calls another FE function
4. the newly computed value of `self.num`, `self.den` gets actually updated only here

isn't this what caching a variable conceptually means? (even though it doesn't matter here where `self.num`, `self.den` gets actually updated) what did y
...

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1208033507)
Instead of pushing the node to `vNodes` and removing it if it's not routable, I think you could do something like:
```cpp
static void AddRandomOutboundPeer(NodeId& id, std::vector<CNode*>& vNodes, PeerManager& peerLogic, ConnmanTestMsg& connman, ConnectionType connType, bool onion_peer = false)
{
CAddress addr;

if (onion_peer) {
auto tor_addr{g_insecure_rand_ctx.randbytes(ADDR_TORV3_SIZE)};
BOOST_REQUIRE(addr.SetSpecial(OnionToString(tor_addr)));
}

wh
...

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: when a block is disconnected, update transactions that are no longer conflicted":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#issuecomment-1565503469)
Ok nice, great. Thanks for the details.
We should code a test exercising exactly that behavior.

👍 furszy approved a pull request: "wallet: when a block is disconnected, update transactions that are no longer conflicted"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#pullrequestreview-1447436505)
Tested ACK 89df7987

> For example, let's say that Alice has a utxo. She creates a transaction, tx1, spending this utxo to Bob. AddToSpends will get called on Bob's node for this transaction, because Bob is the recipient. Alice then creates a conflicting transaction to tx1, called tx2, which sends the funds back to herself. However, Bob's node does not call AddToSpends on tx2, because Bob is not the recipient. If tx2 gets mined, but then that block is disconnected from our node, Bob's mapTxSpe
...

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: when a block is disconnected, update transactions that are no longer conflicted":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#issuecomment-1565558335)
> Would be good to have a real functional test in the future.

#27307 tests this behavior, which is how I found this bug.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "wallet: when a block is disconnected, update transactions that are no longer conflicted"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145)

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1208070951)
great feedback! that's much cleaner. incorporated in the latest push

💬 RandyMcMillan commented on pull request "Mask values on Transactions View":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/708#issuecomment-1565610693)
ACK 4492de1be11f4131811f504a037342c78f480e20

post merge ACK

Great job!

https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/701#issuecomment-1401350037