💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "rpc: add optional peer_ids param to filter getpeerinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32741#discussion_r2293532733)
```suggestion
{RPCArgOptions{.skip_type_check = true, .type_str = {"", "numeric or array"}}}
```

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[29.x] depends: remove xinerama extension from libxcb":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33238#issuecomment-3214250090)
Guess we can't backport this unless we also backport the removal in Qt. Will take a look.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: use new block_to_connect parameter name"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33237)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: CFeeRate encapsulates FeeFrac internally":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32750#discussion_r2293722588)
nit: any reason to exclude negative values? They are documented to behave as-if 0 was passed, so it seems fine to keep the fuzz coverage for it? (https://maflcko.github.io/b-c-cov/fuzz.coverage/src/policy/feerate.cpp.gcov.html)

(There is a unit test covering it, so just a nit)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: CFeeRate encapsulates FeeFrac internally":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32750#discussion_r2293731923)
nano nit: The c-style cast isn't needed and the narrowing check can be enabled:

```cpp
CAmount nFee{m_feerate.EvaluateFeeUp(virtual_bytes)};

📝 gianlucamazza opened a pull request: "test: Add comprehensive tests for 999-of-999 Taproot multisig"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33239)
## Summary

This PR implements comprehensive test coverage for Bitcoin Core issue #28179, proving that 999-of-999 Taproot multisig descriptors work correctly while maintaining performance requirements.

## Background

Issue #28179 requested tests to verify that 999-of-999 Taproot multisig works, addressing the theoretical maximum for `multi_a` descriptors. Previous attempts in PR #28212 and #31719 failed due to performance issues when trying to generate actual spending transactions with 999 sign
...

🤔 naiyoma reviewed a pull request: "test: rpc: add last block announcement time to getpeerinfo result"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27052#pullrequestreview-3144554944)
Tested ACK cbe4603a90220f0ef0b21c4da68ee16791ad9034

Changes since last review: rebased and addressed nit fixes.

Also tested with `msg_cmpctblock` - test passed as expected.

📝 gianlucamazza converted_to_draft a pull request: "test: Add comprehensive tests for 999-of-999 Taproot multisig"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33239)
## Summary

This PR implements comprehensive test coverage for Bitcoin Core issue #28179, proving that 999-of-999 Taproot multisig descriptors work correctly while maintaining performance requirements.

## Background

Issue #28179 requested tests to verify that 999-of-999 Taproot multisig works, addressing the theoretical maximum for `multi_a` descriptors. Previous attempts in PR #28212 and #31719 failed due to performance issues when trying to generate actual spending transactions with 999 sign
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: Add comprehensive tests for 999-of-999 Taproot multisig":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33239#issuecomment-3214498369)
> Previous attempts in PR ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31719

This PR is still open?

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "test: Add comprehensive tests for 999-of-999 Taproot multisig"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33239)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add comprehensive tests for 999-of-999 Taproot multisig":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33239#issuecomment-3214539631)
Thanks, but the value of purely LLM generated "vibe" pull requests is limited, because:

* The "author" does not understand the changes and can not reply to code review feedback
* There are more than 300 pull requests (most written by real humans) waiting for review

Also, the tests don't even pass, so I'll close this for now.

Generally, I think it is fine to use LLMs, if the author would have written the same code almost exactly the same way without the LLM, and also fully understands i
...

⚠️ JustaNewer opened an issue: "Please Cancel the OP RETURN function"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33240)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

From a protocol design perspective, OP_RETURN is unnecessary within the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin’s fundamental and sole purpose should remain peer-to-peer value transfer. Introducing OP_RETURN increases the computational and storage burden on full nodes, resulting in additional costs without providing benefits aligned with Bitcoin’s core mission. In essence, embedding arbitrary data through OP_RETURN is redundant—analogous to attempting t
...

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "Please Cancel the OP RETURN function"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33240)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Please Cancel the OP RETURN function":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33240#issuecomment-3214559159)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base.

General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or one of the Bitcoin subreddits, or any other place that you feel is well suited.

Network-wide consensus and/or P2P changes first need to be discussed with the greater ecosystem, for example https://groups.google.com/g
...

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "oss-fuzz: build is broken"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33232)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "oss-fuzz: build is broken":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33232#issuecomment-3214581022)
should be fixed?

👋 theuni's pull request is ready for review: "threading: remove ancient CRITICAL_SECTION macros"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32592)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "index: Don't commit state in BaseIndex::Rewind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33212#issuecomment-3214600249)
Seems like the 3rd or 4th re-run finally got lucky.

💬 zaidmstrr commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2293916342)
Thanks for suggesting. Fixed

💬 zaidmstrr commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2293916652)
Fixed