🚀 fanquake merged 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)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "RFC: blocks: add `-reobfuscate-blocks` arg to xor existing blk/rev on startup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33324#discussion_r2344324168)
> Loading a large file

This is run on request, before anything else loads, it's not *that* large, only 160 MB memory is needed.

For reference, applying the mentioned `dbcache=4` (which isn't used here yet) still makes the node use > 1 GB memory:
<img width="1202" height="631" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1867ba38-ba35-4ce5-86de-5bfe8add145b" />

> Here's roughly what I'm thinking: [ajtowns/bitcoin@202509-reobfus (commits)](https://github.com/ajtowns/bitco
...

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "txgraph: randomize order of same-feerate distinct-cluster transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33335#pullrequestreview-3216844701)
ACK 593d418137e4802bbe229707dcda5796522e2e5e

double-checked Trim benchmark just in case, looks unchanged

💬 fanquake 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-3285414401)
Backported to `30.x` in #33356.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: warn on oversized `-dbcache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33333#discussion_r2344380721)
I was deliberately trying to avoid that, I find that completely unreadable

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: warn on oversized `-dbcache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33333#discussion_r2344386717)
Good idea, thanks. Do you think we should also add the reason for the enable/disable (we'd store an enum instead of the optional bool which would provide more info on *why* signature verification was enabled or disabled)?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "net: check for empty header before calling FillBlock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33296#issuecomment-3285583699)
Backported to `29.x` in #33344.

💬 purpleKarrot commented on pull request "[WIP] cache: remove redundant find() call":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33376#discussion_r2344612738)
Can this condition be checked before the insert?

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: compact block harness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33300#discussion_r2341477921)
nit

```suggestion
const CAmount AMOUNT_FEE{1000};
```

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: compact block harness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33300#discussion_r2341484545)
```suggestion
CBlock block = *info[index].block;
block.vtx.clear();
```

The headers message is a vector of blocks without transactions, so I think you should clear the copy of the block here? Although, technically this doesn't matter because there's only one header in the vector being sent, so the following txs are just ignored.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: compact block harness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33300#discussion_r2341516465)
```suggestion
CBlockHeaderAndShortTxIDs baseCmpctBlock = cmpctBlock;
```

nit: there are few instances of camel case usage here. Our convention is to use snake case (see dev notes).

🤔 dergoegge requested changes to a pull request: "fuzz: compact block harness"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33300#pullrequestreview-3212403908)
Did a first pass, overall approach looks good to me

💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "[29.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33344#issuecomment-3285838336)
Checked that #32646 and #33296 backports are correct and ran `p2p_compactblocks.py` just to be sure.

💬 Raimo33 commented on pull request "[WIP] cache: remove redundant find() call":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33376#discussion_r2344704754)
you mean as it was before?

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "test/refactor: use test deque to avoid quadratic iteration"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33313#pullrequestreview-3217716655)
re-ACK 75e6984ec8c6fa196ad78c11f454da506d7c8ff1

📝 pinheadmz opened a pull request: "Remove unnecessary casts when calling socket operations"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33378)
During review of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32747 several casting operations were questioned in existing code that had been copied or moved. That lead me to find a few other similar casts in the codebase.

It turns out that since the `Sock` class wraps syscalls with its own internal casting (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24357 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20788 written in 2020-2022) we no longer need to cast the arguments when calling these functions.
...

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "cmake: Fix regression in `secp256k1.cmake`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33379)
This PR fixes a regression introduced in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33101 (mea culpa).

From the CMake [docs](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/command/enable_language.html):
> The following restrictions apply to where `enable_language()` may be called:
>
> - It must be called in file scope, not in a function call.

Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33153.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "mining: add applySolution() to interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33374#issuecomment-3286123576)
Fixed typo.

✅ Sjors closed a pull request: "mining: log failed blocks in submitSolution()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33372)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "mining: log failed blocks in submitSolution()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33372#issuecomment-3286128162)
The other PR has the additional benefit that the client can broadcast the block in additional ways, and/or inspect it with `checkBlock()`.