💬 enirox001 commented on pull request "test: Fix CLI_MAX_ARG_SIZE issues":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33243#discussion_r2301586217)
That’s reasonable. Since the test uses ASCII 'a' and the sizes are large, encoding won’t change the outcome in practice.

🤔 enirox001 reviewed a pull request: "test: Fix CLI_MAX_ARG_SIZE issues"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33243#pullrequestreview-3156543444)
ACK fa96a4a — thanks for addressing the nits and clarifying the test; LGTM.

✅ w0xlt closed an issue: "`feature_bind_extra.py` test fails in `test_runner` if new nodes are added"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33250)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2301652903)
My point was more that the criteria appears to be applied inconsistently.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2301654129)
I don't think the meaning is different enough to warrant a whole new class.

💬 w0xlt commented on issue "`feature_bind_extra.py` test fails in `test_runner` if new nodes are added":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33250#issuecomment-3225070972)
I haven’t fully reviewed this code yet, but at first glance it seems that if the issue were related to the P2P port, the assert condition in `test/functional/test_framework/util.py` should have failed.

```
def p2p_port(n):
assert n <= MAX_NODES
return PORT_MIN + n + (MAX_NODES * PortSeed.n) % (PORT_RANGE - 1 - MAX_NODES)
```

Anyway, it doesn’t seem like much of a concern, and since the PR doesn’t touch the test further, I’ll close this for now.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Linux download needs installation instructions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32097#issuecomment-3225097225)
Yea I'm not sure. For master, the binaries still have a `libxcb-cursor` dependency, that may need to be installed. It's not clear if #33238 will work for `29.x`, so that will still have a `libxcb-xinerama` dependency, that may need to be installed, (same for `28.x`). There's a note about `libxcb-cursor0` in build-unix, but that isn't shipped with release binaries, or likely read by anyone who isn't compiling from source, so it seems like any of this could benefit from additional documentation.


...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Linux download needs installation instructions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32097#issuecomment-3225106768)
> There's a note about `libxcb-cursor0` in build-unix, but that isn't shipped with release binaries, or likely read by anyone who isn't compiling from source, so it seems like any of this could benefit from additional documentation.

I see, so it seems a bit related to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32565

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Revert compact block cache inefficiencies":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33253#discussion_r2301680659)
Added an assert and comment.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "`feature_bind_extra.py` test fails in `test_runner` if new nodes are added":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33250#issuecomment-3225111710)
The assert is not hit, because you are just setting `port+=2`, not by calling `p2p_port(node_number+N)`.

My recommendation would be to call `p2p_port`, so that the assert is hit in your code.

⚠️ maflcko reopened an issue: "`feature_bind_extra.py` test fails in `test_runner` if new nodes are added"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33250)
When new nodes are added to the `feature_bind_extra.py` test, it succeeds if run individually, but fails if run via `test_runner` with the error message:

```
TestFramework (ERROR): Unexpected exception
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/node/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 191, in main
self.setup()
File "/home/node/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 349, in setup
self.setup_network()
File "/home/node/build/test/functional/fe
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Revert compact block cache inefficiencies":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33253#issuecomment-3225121798)
ACK b7b249d3adfbd3c7b0c4d0499a86300f57982972

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Revert compact block cache inefficiencies":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33253#issuecomment-3225128619)
> Edit: what is the expected memory increase because of the change?

32 bytes per mempool transaction and per extra txn (of which there are 100 by default).

A 300MB mempool might fill up with about ~100k txs (at about 440vb each on average), which would be 3.2MB total. (The 3.2MB would not be an increase overall, but would rather cause earlier eviction from the mempool, ie a ~1% reduction in capacity)

✅ enirox001 closed a pull request: "test: Replace legacy wallet with MiniWallet in rpc_getblockstats.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33184)

💬 zaidmstrr commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2301702270)
According to my analysis, there is nothing more than specified criteria applied inconsistently in the codebase. Can you point out something?

📝 enirox001 reopened a pull request: "test: Replace legacy wallet with MiniWallet in rpc_getblockstats.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33184)
The `rpc_getblockstats.py` test was failing with `--gen-test-data` because it used legacy wallet operations that could be affected by wallet changes, making the test data inconsistent.

I replaced the legacy wallet with MiniWallet to fix this. This makes the test data generation deterministic and reliable.

**Changes:**
- Switched from `wallet_importprivkey`/`sendtoaddress` to `MiniWallet.send_to()`
- Added helper methods for OP_RETURN creation and block retrieval
- Made assertions dynami
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "[29.x] backport #33212":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33251#issuecomment-3225147396)
ACK fcac8022d839572f5d8781096eec14ca7ea2e0dd

💬 zaidmstrr commented on pull request "rpc: Handle -named argument parsing where '=' character is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32821#discussion_r2301715335)
The meaning is totally different, and it's easier and much more maintainable right now. This class doesn't depend on any other class/object. It's an independent representation.

📝 polespinasa reopened a pull request: "wallet, rpc: remove settxfee and paytxfee"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32138)
**Summary**

This PR removes the settxfee RPC and paytxfee setting (Bitcoin Core 31.0).
These two features were deprecated in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278.

This PR does not remove the internal implementation of the default value of paytxfee=0 but removes the option for users to modify it.

👋 polespinasa's pull request is ready for review: "wallet, rpc: remove settxfee and paytxfee"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32138)