💬 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
...

⚠️ ellenkampguus opened an issue: "Old wallet support (Berkeley 4.8)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33273)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

I can imagine the developer's side of removing support for the old wallets using Berkeley 4.8. However, isn't one of the things people holding Bitcoin want is hold it for a long time? I think it is important to make sure older wallets can just be opened in the default Bitcoin node and wallet software.

This issue relates to "The Bitcoin Devs" not supporting "Bitcoin as it is supposed to be" according to the more purist Bitcoiners, as it s
...

🤔 maflcko reviewed a pull request: "test: Remove polling loop from test_runner (take 2)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33141#pullrequestreview-3172171987)
force pushed with small formatting changes. Should be trivial to re-review via `--ignore-all-space`.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Remove polling loop from test_runner (take 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33141#discussion_r2312988889)
> I can imagine this will result in new test failures we haven't seen before.

I'd doubt that test will fail due to scheduling them more tightly without sleeps in-between. Though, if they do, that is a good thing, because it hints at a bug that we should be aware of and ideally should fix.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Remove polling loop from test_runner (take 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33141#discussion_r2312989089)
thx, formatted

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Remove polling loop from test_runner (take 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33141#discussion_r2312976795)
thx, kept the type

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Remove polling loop from test_runner (take 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33141#discussion_r2312976260)
Yeah, maybe. Though,

* we can't really use the return code anyway (there is none), so the only difference would be that we have to explicitly shutdown the executor somewhere.
* There is no natural place to put it, because doing it in `get_next` seems confusing. Similarly, doing it before sys.exit seems like a layer violation.
* putting an explicit shutdown somewhere is inconsistent, because the code path isn't hit on exceptions (base exceptions)

In practise it doesn't matter, because if
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Remove polling loop from test_runner (take 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33141#discussion_r2312945307)
thx, formatted

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Remove polling loop from test_runner (take 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33141#discussion_r2312989301)
thx, restored original code

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Remove polling loop from test_runner (take 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33141#discussion_r2312977171)
thx, ran formatter

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Old wallet support (Berkeley 4.8)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33273)

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Old wallet support (Berkeley 4.8)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33273#issuecomment-3241043087)
A migration tool will exist in Bitcoin Core for probably perpetuity. This tool is accessible on CLI with the `migratewallet` RPC and from the GUI with File > Migrate Wallet. When attempting to load a legacy wallet, users will be given specific error messages that inform them how to perform the migration.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: add logging to mock external signers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32928#issuecomment-3241184822)
> This will hopefully aid in debugging #32855.

For reference, the issue was something else, and has been fixed now, in the meantime.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: relax external_signer flag constraints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33112#discussion_r2313128076)
Brought it back.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: relax external_signer flag constraints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33112#issuecomment-3241199456)
Rebased and addressed nits.