💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#discussion_r2325253065)
In `ToPrivateString` above , you omit the argument name to indicate its not used; should do the same here:

```suggestion
void GetPrivKey(int, const SigningProvider&, FlatSigningProvider& out) const override
```

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#discussion_r2325279070)
I think we could also remove this function by introducing a `SilentPaymentsSign` function (similar to how we have a taproot sign function). I'll dig into this a bit more, but it seems better to have a special signing function that can _only_ be used for silent payments, instead of a generic `CKey::TweakAdd` function that might be abused/footgunny.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#discussion_r2325275304)
This is only used to recreate the silent payment taproot scriptpubkeys, i.e., $B_{spend} + tweak \cdot G$. But since we already have the full scriptpubkey when scanning, we could just save the tweak and scriptpubkey to the database.

This means more storage, but then we can drop this `CPubKey::TweakAdd` method. This seems better to me because storage is cheap, this should make loading the wallet faster, and it removes a footgun from CPubKey (we dont really want to have a generic method for add
...

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#discussion_r2325303247)
Not a comment for this commit specifically, but I do think we should document either in a commit or in a commit message the entire logic and flow of using silent payments for change. Its a bit complicated and without a clear understanding of all of the cases we need to cover, these changes are a bit hard to follow.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#discussion_r2325262802)
Revisiting this, it would be nice to if we enforce that an SP descriptor cannot be multipath. Beyond that, I think its fine to keep the plurals and for loops, since that matches the style of the rest of the wallet code.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#discussion_r2325305066)
Even better, if we dont have one already, we can create a test case for all of the possible change scenarios and document there.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#discussion_r2325296901)
Not quite sure why this is necessary?

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#discussion_r2325281936)
Reiterating this point. I think I've seen a few PRs related to undodata recently, seems like a good time to bundle all of them as a well motivated refactor? cc @TheCharlatan

🤔 josibake reviewed a pull request: "Silent Payments: Receiving"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#pullrequestreview-3189588826)
Looking good! Really nice to see you were able to remove a lot of custom code related to how we handle the scan and spend keys. Left some comments/questions below.

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#discussion_r2325317749)
Maybe we can use a namespace?

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#discussion_r2325328988)
We need it to extract the `change_dest` from the results of `CreateSilentPaymentOutputs`.

📝 stickies-v opened a pull request: "kernel: make blockTip index const"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33321)
Notification interface subscribers need to view, but not mutate, the index.

This change allows improving the #30595 kernel interface, see e.g. `BlockTreeEntry` where [currently](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595/files#diff-4d05cd02fdce641be603f0f9abcecfeaf76944285d4539ba4bbc40337fa9bbc2R617) a `View` is constructed from a non-const pointer, whereas really this should be a `const btck_BlockTreeEntry* entry`.

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "InitError() doesn't always halt node startup when blockchain state exists":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33276#issuecomment-3258705593)
Is this maybe more about wording/definitions? I'd say node startup is finished when RPC is enabled and we log "[Done Loading](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/37c21ebe4078d5a7b9d8a91aca2ab8b118b9d69f/src/init.cpp#L2157C4-L2157C48)" - in the log, the node does halt before that would happen.

It's true (and could be unexpected) that `initload` may do some work connecting blocks before that, but is there a downside to that? It's not possible to simply delay the initload start without other c
...

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "kernel: make blockTip index const"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33321#pullrequestreview-3189781820)
ACK 75d9b72475708ee0da13fb23ef65dcced805b6af

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: sending":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28201#discussion_r2325436395)
Thanks for finding this! I've rebased on master and pulled in the latest libsecp256k1 changes; I'll push a fix for this tomorrow.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "headerssync: Correct unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2325496639)
You can resolve it if you feel strongly about it, it's not a blocker from my side

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "headerssync: Correct unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#issuecomment-3258918462)
reACK 33d550d3044f9075cc866093c453158288f12dec

Would be great if @sipa or @sdaftuar could also take a look.

🤔 marcofleon reviewed a pull request: "contrib: update fixed seeds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33283#pullrequestreview-3189994622)
ACK 939678940f6c3fdbc36d57a9c9ef6f8edf89d065

Changes in the `makeseeds.py` script look fine. I ran the script myself and the direct diff isn't super useful, but it produced a similar number of seeds at least.

👍 l0rinc approved a pull request: "kernel: make blockTip index const"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33321#pullrequestreview-3189998416)
Code review ACK 75d9b72475708ee0da13fb23ef65dcced805b6af

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add functional test for IPC interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33201#issuecomment-3258956684)
ACK a341e11ac92b30aac856049c696a9ac39854569d

As if by magic, `interface_ipc.py` now _does_ run on the test each commit job.