💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2353859271)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2353859448)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "coins: warn on oversized `-dbcache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33333#issuecomment-3300700773)
> The warning should now be available via RPC as wel, run any of these against the running `bitcoind`:

I don't think this warning belongs in those warnings. The help text for the warnings output states "any network and blockchain warnings", and I don't think this warning about configuration options meets any of these. There are several other similar warnings that we have around configuration options and they do not appear in those warnings fields either, nor should they.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: warn on oversized `-dbcache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33333#issuecomment-3300709449)
Thanks for the feedback, removed the last commit.

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "wallet/rpc: fix listdescriptors RPC fails to return descriptors with private key information when wallet contains descriptors missing any key":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32471#discussion_r2354508110)
I refactored the code a bit and changed `has_priv_key` to `any_success`.

⚠️ Kri5p3y97 opened an issue: "Create"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33409)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Create"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33409)

📝 sashass1315 opened a pull request: "coinstats: avoid unnecessary Coin copy in ApplyHash"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33410)
Replace local Coin coin = it->second; with const Coin& coin = it->second; when iterating outputs in ApplyHash. The hash serialization path only reads from the Coin, and outputs remains valid for the loop’s duration, so copying is unnecessary. This reduces potential allocations (due to CTxOut/CScript) and improves performance without changing behavior.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Backport Cirrus runners to 29.x":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33403#issuecomment-3301993362)
cc @m3dwards

👋 Sjors's pull request is ready for review: "mining: add applySolution() to interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33374)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "mining: add applySolution() to interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33374#issuecomment-3302000477)
Rebased after https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33380 landed.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "net: do not apply whitelist permissions to onion inbounds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33395)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "cmake: Install `bitcoin` manpage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33407)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "cmake: Install `bitcoin` manpage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33407#issuecomment-3302015181)
Backported to 30.x in #33356.

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3302024332)
Here's an update of the compact block reconstruction stats from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3155627414:

I updated node bob to a recent master that includes this PR (#33106) on 2025-08-22. It didn’t have existing sub-1 sat/vbyte transactions in it’s mempool and thus took a few days before the reconstruction rate improved. Besides the bad reconstruction performance on 2025-09-06, 2025-09-07, and 2025-09-08, it performed significantly better.

<img width="1093" h
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads 10% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132#issuecomment-3302056248)
What's the status here?

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "ci: re-add Valgrind job to the CI"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33411)

📝 fanquake converted_to_draft a pull request: "ci: re-add Valgrind job to the CI"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33411)

💬 musaHaruna commented on pull request "rpc: add scan_utxoset option to getbalance(s) to verify wallet balance accuracy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33392#issuecomment-3302123151)
> Maybe run some benchmarks on the utxo set scan and full rescan and add them to the PR here. I don't have a good feeling for what the relation is and this might influence what reviewers think is better concerning running a full rescan automatically or just returning a warning/hint from `importdescriptors`.

I will run some benchmarks on both utxo set scan and full rescan, update the whole PR to use the new approach you suggested i.e to add the feature on `importdescriptors` directly, which I
...

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "ci: re-add Valgrind job to the CI"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33411)