💬 romanz commented on pull request "index: store per-block transaction locations for efficient lookups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541#discussion_r2312254549)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4441827ef4e9b5fe306c5f0a81a52b5d2b5e0b69...5e1c80a22f3d3c6ecf6d4e2777d67656423dd3f3

💬 romanz commented on pull request "index: store per-block transaction locations for efficient lookups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541#issuecomment-3239789278)
Rebasing to resolve a conflict with `master`.

🤔 optout21 reviewed a pull request: "refactor: unify container presence checks (without PR conflicts)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33192#pullrequestreview-3171424512)
ACK f70d2c7faa8f7d724e146e4c409de9c6778b7299

Re-reviewed; this is a subset of #33097, comments from [there](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33094#pullrequestreview-3093962887) still apply:

- The changes increase code readability, as 'contains' expresses the code logic / intent more specifically
- It also results in higher performance, due to potential early exit. The improvement is probably negligible though.
- Changes are localized (each to a single line), local impact only

(
...

💬 romanz commented on pull request "index: store per-block transaction locations for efficient lookups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541#discussion_r2312290776)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541/commits/94389c28e1068ffcc116614d16ac3047eb3068e3 seems to be passing (after a rebase over `master`) :thinking:

💬 romanz commented on pull request "index: store per-block transaction locations for efficient lookups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541#discussion_r2312297480)
Thanks - updated the comment.

💬 naiyoma commented on pull request "rpc: generateblock to allow multiple outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32468#discussion_r2312399866)
I’d suggest removing this instead of commenting it out.

🤔 naiyoma reviewed a pull request: "test: Fixup fill_mempool docstring"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33269#pullrequestreview-3171569181)
ACK fa3f682032a3292604f363a5ee4557937f3d8950

✅ martinus closed a pull request: "Draft: CCoinMap Experiments"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32128)

💬 martinus commented on pull request "Draft: CCoinMap Experiments":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32128#issuecomment-3240102028)
Up for grabs, if anyone is interested

💬 romanz commented on pull request "index: store per-block transaction locations for efficient lookups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541#discussion_r2312514122)
@hodlinator would it be OK to squash https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/94389c28e1068ffcc116614d16ac3047eb3068e3 into https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541/commits/bdd90ab25f5f3b05c03a8dfb7177399264bed377?

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "guix: update time-machine to 5cb84f2013c5b1e48a7d0e617032266f1e6059e2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33185#pullrequestreview-3171703063)
I’ve obtained matching hashes for Guix builds on the `aarch64` and `riscv64` hardware:
```
835b80bca08284974c5300768fb03be2c50143510548f8c1c03c737d6b22e473 guix-build-91560160a011/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
8b0d7a7447ec50624528e42d04c318da20d755dd0e61758a77f2ebfcd74c4a0f guix-build-91560160a011/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-91560160a011-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
95632363960c1db8aafaab8523f35d3d41961455bf075c5e73bf4f7903136563 guix-build-91560160a011/output/aarch64-li
...

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "guix: update time-machine to 5cb84f2013c5b1e48a7d0e617032266f1e6059e2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33185#pullrequestreview-3171710452)
ACK 91560160a011fe3b2f472aa9144d4072e9e369cd, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: Identify transactions spending 0-value outputs, and add tests for anchor outputs in a wallet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33268#pullrequestreview-3171730621)
q: is `IsFromMe()` method still relevant? It seems we could directly call `IsMine()` on the inputs, which is also cached now and should be slightly safer for migration.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Identify transactions spending 0-value outputs, and add tests for anchor outputs in a wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33268#issuecomment-3240325938)
> is `IsFromMe()` method still relevant?

Yes, transactions that we make are still treated specially.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: Identify transactions spending 0-value outputs, and add tests for anchor outputs in a wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33268#issuecomment-3240345028)
> > is `IsFromMe()` method still relevant?
>
> Yes, transactions that we make are still treated specially.

Where?. `IsFromMe()` seems to be only ever called in `AddToWalletIfInvolvingMe()` and `ApplyMigrationData()` next to the `IsMine()` call. In both places we effectively treat it as `is_mine = IsMine(outputs) || IsFromMe(inputs)`.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Identify transactions spending 0-value outputs, and add tests for anchor outputs in a wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33268#issuecomment-3240361084)
> Where?

Hmm, I forgot that `CachedTxIsFromMe` does not use `IsFromMe`. Might need to change that in this PR as well.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: update time-machine to 5cb84f2013c5b1e48a7d0e617032266f1e6059e2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33185#issuecomment-3240432791)
> Could be used for #32764.

That PR would benefit from being updated a bit further, to https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/commit/2877c75dc5db0dbf664fb6170d5754068e941d91.

⚠️ nwokentathankgod-cell opened an issue: "Bug Report: [Provide a concise summary] bc1qq8m35x6sfhva08vzrr5qr75ec9dj000gq8e2mj"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33272)
**Describe the bug:**
A clear and concise description of what the bug is.

**To Reproduce:**
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
1. Go to '...'
2. Click on '...'
3. Scroll down to '...'
4. See error

**Expected behavior:**
A clear and concise description of what you expected to happen.

**Screenshots:**
If applicable, add screenshots to help explain your problem.

**Additional context:**
Add any other context about the problem here.

✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "Bug Report: [Provide a concise summary] bc1qq8m35x6sfhva08vzrr5qr75ec9dj000gq8e2mj"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33272)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: refactor: use string_view in Arg/MaybeArg":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32983#issuecomment-3240910468)
re-ACK b49a4f17aba76d2f2d7f1109d7e68b02303947bf 📦

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: re-ACK b49a4f17aba76d2f2d7f
...