💬 rkrux commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#discussion_r2355572780)
Thanks, this reason can be mentioned explicitly in the function doc above.

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "[28.x] More backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33415)

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "[29.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33344)

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "[30.0] rc2 backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33356)

✅ glozow closed an issue: "Support Multiple OP_RETURNs or Raise OP_RETURN Limit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33413)

💬 glozow commented on issue "Support Multiple OP_RETURNs or Raise OP_RETURN Limit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33413#issuecomment-3303146999)
This was already done in #32406. Easy to miss - fwiw if you're looking to stay up to date with PR merges, I'd recommend the [Optech newsletter](bitcoinops.org).

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: Remove wrong and redundant doxygen tag":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33236#issuecomment-3303236672)
Backported to 28.x in #33415.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Fix benchmark CSV output":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33340#issuecomment-3303239834)
Backported to 28.x in #33415 & 29.x in #33344.

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "tor: enable PoW defenses for automatically created hidden services":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33414#issuecomment-3303277473)
> Should we then also add PoW to the connections that we make to other nodes running behind hidden services?

Reading the linked FAQ, the feature still supports "older clients" (which don't have PoW defence capability), but they may take a lower priority when a service considers itself under DoS. So no PoW is _required_ on the client side.

When the client-side tor is new-enough, my understanding is that the puzzle-solving is automatically handled by Tor, and doesn't need client-side changes
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "ci: re-add Valgrind job to the CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33411#issuecomment-3303296826)
Concept ACK to re-introducing this job.

Wondering whether it's worth adding an extra runner if we add a new `lg`-sized job? On the whole CI queue sizes/times have been reasonable I think since the migration, and we did reduce a few job sizes recently. But still might be worth considering.

The 16th seemed unusually active, most days top out around 20 min max queue time AFAIK, but for reference here's the previous 7 days:

<img width="3384" height="1620" alt="image" src="https://github.com
...

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[27.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33416)
Backports:
* #30198 (partial)

⚠️ zaidmstrr opened an issue: "Test interface_ipc.py fails with Duplicate ID error when libmultiprocess is installed system-wide"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33417)
When I tried to run the `interface_ipc.py` functional test it failed with the error:
```
2025-09-17T08:33:50.642653Z TestFramework (INFO): PRNG seed is: 5837581670543711780
2025-09-17T08:33:50.643144Z TestFramework (INFO): Initializing test directory /tmp/bitcoin_func_test_qg32uhlp
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'kj::ExceptionImpl'
what(): mp/proxy.capnp:0: failed: Duplicate ID @0xcc316e3f71a040fb.
Aborted (core dumped)
```
After further investigating the issue I found that wh
...

👍 willcl-ark approved a pull request: "[28.x] More backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33415#pullrequestreview-3234820180)
ACK 7575828dd2ea539e103067cd35e31333797d22e3

Backports look good. Release notes contain all commits and authors.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Test interface_ipc.py fails with Duplicate ID error when libmultiprocess is installed system-wide":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33417#issuecomment-3303331647)
cc @Sjors @ryanofsky

⚠️ hebasto opened an issue: "`bitcoin.exe` is not included in Windows installer"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33418)
`bitcoin.exe` does not appear to be included in the Windows installer. Was this intended?

💬 hebasto commented on issue "`bitcoin.exe` is not included in Windows installer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33418#issuecomment-3303372538)
cc @ryanofsky

💬 prokillmoon7 commented on issue "`bitcoin.exe` is not included in Windows installer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33418#issuecomment-3303375347)
Download and test this.
[9b80fc5ca322.zip](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/22388301/9b80fc5ca322.zip)

💬 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#issuecomment-3303403421)
Rebased on master @https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/2d6a0c4649 and refactored the based on suggestions from @achow101

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: control/optimize TxGraph memory usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33157#discussion_r2355828081)
Done. I've also refactored these asserts a bit, moving some of them from `*ClusterImpl::SanityCheck` to `TxGraphImpl::SanityCheck`, so duplication across the two implementations can be avoided.

✅ hebasto closed an issue: "`bitcoin.exe` is not included in Windows installer"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33418)