💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Alerting blockchain reorgs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14915#issuecomment-1573869821)
I think it's safe to close this as won't-fix for the reasons stated above. Pull requests are always welcome!

✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "Alerting blockchain reorgs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14915)

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "[NO MERGE] BIP331 Ancestor Package Relay":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27742#discussion_r1214486019)
Ah! Didn't put 2 and 2 together. Comment-worthy

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[wip] rng: adds support for x86 rdrand/rdseed instructions when building using MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22158#issuecomment-1573871155)
Closing for now. Feel free to ping for a reopen if/when you want to return to this.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "[wip] rng: adds support for x86 rdrand/rdseed instructions when building using MSVC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22158)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Drop IO priority to idle while reading blocks for peer requests and startup verification":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9245#issuecomment-1573874582)
Closing for now. Can be re-opened in future if/when above issues are going to be accounted for.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Drop IO priority to idle while reading blocks for peer requests and startup verification"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9245)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "[NO MERGE] BIP331 Ancestor Package Relay":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27742#discussion_r1214489207)
Ah yes, that's a bug! This `while` condition is very strange since one part applies to the unprotected orphanage and the other applies to the total orphanage. I think we should change the second condition to be on `m_total_unprotected_orphan_bytes`, yes.

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Processing of new blocks slower than necessary due to overly selective peer selection":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21803#issuecomment-1573877338)
@rebroad is this issue closed by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626 ?

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#issuecomment-1573877749)
@instagibbs does this close https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21803 ?

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "init: Error if ignored bitcoin.conf file is found":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27302#issuecomment-1573882102)
@ryanofsky does this close https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27246 ?

🤔 theStack reviewed a pull request: "test: add python implementation of Elligator swift"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24005#pullrequestreview-1457739415)
Maybe being overly pedantic, but would it make sense to explicitly unit-test for ellswift-decoding inputs that are considered undefined in the original SwiftEC paper (i.e. the ones that get remapped, namely: u = 0, t = 0, u^3 + t^2 + 7 = 0)? E.g.:
```diff
diff --git a/test/functional/test_framework/ellswift.py b/test/functional/test_framework/ellswift.py
index b84012052a..f015ecf5b8 100644
--- a/test/functional/test_framework/ellswift.py
+++ b/test/functional/test_framework/ellswift.py
@@
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "[NO MERGE] BIP331 Ancestor Package Relay":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27742#discussion_r1214497418)
Basically arbitrary. The relevance is basically which peer's message processing is blocked to process this, and would get a misbehaving score if the tx is invalid. Anyone who announced it is equally deserving of this burden imo. I suppose a more fair way to pick is uniformly randomly.

💬 instagibbs commented on issue "Processing of new blocks slower than necessary due to overly selective peer selection":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21803#issuecomment-1573888486)
I believe so. A headers peer announcing first doesn't preclude follow-on compact block messages anymore, within some limits of peer type.

💬 Harshil-Jani commented on issue "Log which peer sent us a header (first)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27744#issuecomment-1573894340)
Hey !! I am new into bitcoin developement and if no one is already working to do this change, I am willing to do this.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "test: cover addrv2 anchors by adding TorV3 to CAddress in messages.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27452#discussion_r1214502463)
We won't attempt an anchor connection to a host that doesn't have services:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/b22408df162a224d94ac54e8443b57ef3fd2ca72/src/net.cpp#L1813

In the test we don't actually bother setting up a listening node at the onion address we connect to with `block-relay-only` so the services remain null, even though we do still write the host information to anchors.dat

I use this hack to ensure that we attempt a connection, and the last assertion in the test will f
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Processing of new blocks slower than necessary due to overly selective peer selection":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21803#issuecomment-1573896728)
Sweet thanks. @rebroad feel free to comment if you think this is still an issue on master now, we can reopen if need be.

✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "Processing of new blocks slower than necessary due to overly selective peer selection"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21803)

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "test: cover addrv2 anchors by adding TorV3 to CAddress in messages.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27452#discussion_r1214507584)
thanks, fixed.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "refactor: rpc: Remove unnecessary uses of ParseNonRFCJSONValue() and rename it"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27256)