💬 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()`.

💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "p2p: add `DifferenceFormatter` fuzz target and invariant check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33252#issuecomment-3286270887)
tACK 65a10fc3c52ea09a4794345bcf607dff908c783a

I modified the fuzz test and checked that the added `Assume` in net_processing can't be hit.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: warn on oversized `-dbcache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33333#discussion_r2345036887)
sorry, woke up in the middle of the night and replied from my phone :))

💬 vasild commented on pull request "log: Mitigate disk filling attacks by rate limiting LogPrintf, LogInfo, LogWarning, LogError":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2345042637)
I see. Commit `test: don't throw from the destructor of DebugLogHelper` from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812 changes the destructor to not throw exceptions. It has been staying in that PR for a looong time. Maybe it deserves its own PR?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[WIP] cache: remove redundant find() call":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33376#issuecomment-3286334324)
Multiple people have pushed this already, e.g. [`723c49b` (#32128)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32128/commits/723c49b63bb10da843fbb6efc6928dca415cc47f) or [l0rinc/bitcoin@`b23c6a1` (#34)](https://github.com/l0rinc/bitcoin/pull/34/commits/b23c6a1fc8f9a44561add79427d2f3fff4c3718f).
I was about to push my change from my fork after I finished all IBD measurements.

📝 TheCharlatan opened a pull request: "test: Add submitblock test in interface_ipc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33380)
Expands the ipc mining test a bit with submitting a solved block and checking its validity.

💬 BaStiaNQeu commented on pull request "[WIP] cache: remove redundant find() call":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33376#issuecomment-3286386567)
_:-!.

pt., 12 wrz 2025, 20:02 użytkownik l0rinc ***@***.***>
napisał:

> *l0rinc* left a comment (bitcoin/bitcoin#33376)
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33376#issuecomment-3286334324>
>
> Multiple people have pushed this already, e.g. 723c49b (#32128)
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32128/commits/723c49b63bb10da843fbb6efc6928dca415cc47f>
> or ***@***.*** (#34)
> <https://github.com/l0rinc/bitcoin/pull/34/commits/b23c6a1fc8f9a44561add79427d2f3fff4c3718f>
> .
>
...

💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "log: Mitigate disk filling attacks by rate limiting LogPrintf, LogInfo, LogWarning, LogError":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32604#discussion_r2345091587)
Oh, I didn't see #26812 before. Do you want to open a PR with that commit? I am more than happy to review the change.

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "cmake: Fix regression in `secp256k1.cmake`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33379#pullrequestreview-3218326877)
ACK 9193c3e4340bb5b49af2ab04bce335876e7b1076

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "cmake: Fix regression in `secp256k1.cmake`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33379#pullrequestreview-3218377417)
ACK 9193c3e4340bb5b49af2ab04bce335876e7b1076

🤔 sipa reviewed a pull request: "test: Add submitblock test in interface_ipc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33380#pullrequestreview-3218428079)
utACK 557644ee9499583b6d00efda289fb65e8359e084

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-3286511327)
Rebased 1857296c067be3dce5d33fbd1c2ae0cb8a01bef8 -> e450549ae94736fc727d0d8a4a7a6a80e768ecd2 ([kernelApi_63](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_63) -> [kernelApi_64](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_64), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelApi_63..kernelApi_64))

* Fixed conflict with 33321

🤔 instagibbs reviewed a pull request: "Cluster mempool implementation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#pullrequestreview-3217898607)
first pass review through 7683eeed07050fbcfa4f3b77d32303c177e2683e

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster mempool implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#discussion_r2344933415)
7341a51a02adbac1246f72c6643ee0d878b6aa46

nit: could we add some napkin math how we're getting to 9 here

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster mempool implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#discussion_r2345084353)
7f44c6d9893df97bb413e01aa737028cbe52ce75

Think you can delete `CompareTxMemPoolEntryByScore`

commit message is also a bit weird since it's replaced by something related

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster mempool implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#discussion_r2345144877)
5de7f1378a3146368975c10511dfec086d522ff4

This needs to be checking number of ancestors of the (only) child to make sure it doesn't have multiple in-mempool parents. Here it's re-checking the same logic as the line above?

This logic seems to persist to the end of the PR.

I think this could only happen in a reorg, resulting in something like a 2p1c TRUC sibling. Looks like we only test for 1p2c et al.

Using txgraph I feel like we can make these checks extremely compact anyways, maybe c
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster mempool implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#discussion_r2345163699)
20d6bcb2e7f2c3016280321ef31421ca4039b017

nit: child isn't large

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster mempool implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#discussion_r2345196854)
cbcfdf4cb0ef05773bf430ebf6beafc59c1c7bc6

grammar: you're not `avoid`ing disabling sibling eviction here