💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: return to using dash in CentOS job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33261#discussion_r2303567489)
nit: No need to advertise it here. This will only create a conflict with the GHA rewrite?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: return to using dash in CentOS job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33261#discussion_r2303567806)
nit: remove ksh?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: return to using dash in CentOS job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33261#issuecomment-3227827179)
lgtm ACK 509ffea40abbc706ef8b8fc449b7de8677fc5096

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3227873440)
The sidecar Template Provider application now has its own repo: https://github.com/Sjors/sv2-tp

I suspect that the SRI team will have a Rust alternative soon(tm) as well.

🤔 janb84 reviewed a pull request: "ci: return to using dash in CentOS job"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33261#pullrequestreview-3160028763)
crACK 509ffea40abbc706ef8b8fc449b7de8677fc5096

PR Partially reverts faaabfaea768deb7767c489d32fd2097fd180872 because https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335416 is fixed.

- code-review ✅
- history-review ✅

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "clang-format: align brace-after-struct and *-class formatting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32813#discussion_r2304364072)
We can define it that way as well (though I don't agree with the distinction vs classes), but not specifying it directly results in different versions formatting structs differently, so we should define it explicitly

💬 jsarenik commented on issue "Package Relay Project Tracking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27463#issuecomment-3228916881)
Let me note here that I noticed the zero (tested with LN Anchor) outputs are not being cleared in a read-only descriptor wallet even after they've been spent by a fee-paying transaction in a package.

💬 instagibbs commented on issue "Package Relay Project Tracking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27463#issuecomment-3228924450)
@jsarenik could you open a new issue?

🤔 l0rinc reviewed a pull request: "test: Use extra_port() helper in feature_bind_extra.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33260#pullrequestreview-3160705049)
Concept ACK, please see my alternative suggestion which would get rid of variable reuse and would solve the port iteration in a more portable way

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Use extra_port() helper in feature_bind_extra.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33260#discussion_r2304600873)
I find these reassignments confusing - especially if it contains two ports now.
I think we can get rid of that by using lambdas here, which can provide two separate ports as inputs and the loop would generate the new ports

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Use extra_port() helper in feature_bind_extra.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33260#discussion_r2304594656)
@w0xlt was also modifying these in a different PR, I also considered a similar solution, but suggested using an iterator and lambdas instead https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33231#discussion_r2296873010

📝 zkpepe opened a pull request: "fix: Merkle root calculation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33262)
dropped the extra `SHA256D64` call that was messing up the result.
now it just builds the next level with `Hash(a, b)` like in Bitcoin Core, and the Merkle root comes out right.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "fix: Merkle root calculation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33262)

📝 mdqst opened a pull request: "fix: AutoFile position bug"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33263)
`AutoFile` doesn’t have `seek`, so I swapped it for `SetPos()` like Bitcoin Core does.
now moving around the file works correctly.

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "fix: AutoFile position bug"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33263)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "fix: Merkle root calculation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33262#issuecomment-3229103031)
For the record, this is a similar attempt to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32497#discussion_r2264546311 (probably used by an LLM for inspiration) - but the code was pushed from the GitHub UI and even included the code snipped markers.
@zkpepe, if you want to help, this isn't it, do the work instead of these cheap spams.

💬 average-gary commented on pull request "miner: Reorg Testnet4 minimum difficulty blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31117#issuecomment-3229137770)
https://github.com/average-gary/bitcoin-garrys-mod/tree/testnet4-reorg-sv2

I had Claude implement changes from this PR with https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/tree/sv2 branch so I could use Sv2 for mining. Hoping to leave it hashing to see if we can't reduce the difficulty on TN4 to normalized levels.

I mined this block with it: https://mempool.space/testnet4/block/0000000000000000b92517e2fe1c4d68d8dcf5ad0068297355d7adfd867fe95c

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "doc: unify `datacarriersize` warning with release notes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33224#issuecomment-3229182645)
> Unfortunately, the "opensource" plan used by the [Bitcoin organization](https://explore.transifex.com/bitcoin/) on Transifex has very limited functionality, and it is not guaranteed that updating the translation source file (as in #33193) won’t reset the "Reviewed" status for other strings.

Can we pay them some money to make that no longer a problem?

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "test: Use extra_port() helper in feature_bind_extra.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33260#pullrequestreview-3161172184)
Concept ACK

💬 Aris-Ritz 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-3229262326)
Duplicate of #33224