💬 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

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "net: Prevent node from binding to the same `CService`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33231#discussion_r2305020054)
The execution will be stopped either way (in the master branch or in this PR).
This PR simply prevents the node from attempting to connect twice to the same address and port, and instead terminates it with a clear message — rather than the confusing one currently shown in the master branch.

> I guess the first err msg is from logging while the second is from init.cpp

Yes, that makes sense. I'll check again.