🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "RPC: add sendrawtransactiontopeer"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33507#pullrequestreview-3296600308)
`sendmsgtopeer` is a debug-only rpc originally meant only for tests. If we want it to be part of workflows from actual users, we should announce it in release notes (and maybe polish it up a bit).

📝 glozow opened a pull request: "wallet: don't consider unconfirmed TRUC coins with ancestors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33528)
Addresses https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33368#issuecomment-3319935660

There is not an explicit check that the to-be-created wallet transaction would be within the {TRUC, normal} ancestor limits. This means that the wallet may create a transaction that violates these limits, but fail to broadcast it in `CommitTransaction`.

This appears to be expected behavior for the normal ancestor limits (and any other situation in which the wallet creates a tx that was rejected by mempool) an
...

💬 glozow commented on issue "v30.0 Testing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33368#issuecomment-3363386699)
> If I create a tx3 that is a child of tx2 (all as v3 txs) the send command fails silently.

Thanks @monlovesmango!

Do you see this in your debug.log?
```
CommitTransaction(): Transaction cannot be broadcast immediately, TRUC-violation, tx <tx3> would have too many ancestors
```

If so, please see #33528

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "[29.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33474#pullrequestreview-3296841430)
ACK 2d7ebd2d913ea63c1a23fefa0a09ee06fb069161

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "RPC: add sendrawtransactiontopeer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33507#issuecomment-3363657228)
@mzumsande true.

Also I got some comments on X about it, proposing the new RPC call to recreate the whole `INV - GETDATA - TX` flow and not just send a `tx` message.

📝 uluba9 opened a pull request: "Update .gitattributes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33529)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

✅ uluba9 closed a pull request: "Update .gitattributes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33529)

⚠️ uluba9 opened an issue: "mini issue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33530)
code is too long

✅ uluba9 closed an issue: "mini issue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33530)

💬 uluba9 commented on issue "mini issue":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33530#issuecomment-3363732430)
fixed for me

📝 w0xlt opened a pull request: "[rpc] `gettxout`: array argument for bulk queries"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33531)
`gettxout` supports only a single outpoint per call, requiring multiple RPC round trips to inspect all inputs of a transaction.

This PR changes gettxout to accept an array of {txid, vout} objects, processing them in a single pass and returning results aligned to the inputs.

This reduces latency, avoids redundant lookups, and improves throughput for batch use cases (e.g. wallets, indexers, transaction verification).

For simplicity, the changes are not backward compatible, but this can b
...

💬 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#issuecomment-3363772867)
Added kernel notifications (thanks @ryanofsky) and improved crash resistance at the very last step (final rename back to old names) - try it out with `./build/bin/bitcoin-qt -reobfuscate-blocks -stopatheight=1`.
<img width=500 src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/95b72e06-63fe-4057-989d-24ab9e93bfac" />

👋 l0rinc's pull request is ready for review: "RFC: blocks: add `-reobfuscate-blocks` arg to xor existing blk/rev on startup"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33324)

🤔 yuvicc reviewed a pull request: "log: print every script verification state change"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33336#pullrequestreview-3297532271)
ACK 45bd8914658a675d00aa9c83373d6903a8a9ece8

Reviewed all commits.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "p2p: Use network-dependent timers for inbound inv scheduling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33464#issuecomment-3364509891)
reACK 0f7d4ee.

> Removed the atomic and guarded m_next_inv_to_inbounds_per_network_key by g_msgproc_mutex.

didn't notice any change in the rate at which `m_next_inv_send_time = NextInvToInbounds(..)` logs were printed after removing the atomic + no locking related calls in the assembly dump. would be curious as well to know what others think of [this diff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/beb75e48ae1d5771932f427a490c7e1b6c1720d3..0f7d4ee4e8281ed141a6ebb7e0edee7b864e4dcf).

👍 vasild approved a pull request: "Improve LastCommonAncestor performance + add tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33515#pullrequestreview-3298109883)
ACK 3635d62f5a935801e26a0d5fa2cb5e2dbbb42f9b

👍 vasild approved a pull request: "depends: Update URL for `qrencode` package source tarball"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33494#pullrequestreview-3298300084)
ACK 93a70a42d30fa2f9404b76d5bbdb5ea316fc1032

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[rpc] `gettxout`: array argument for bulk queries":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33531#issuecomment-3365140035)
Concept NACK, just use JSON-RPC batching

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[29.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33474#issuecomment-3365167848)
ACK 2d7ebd2d913ea63c1a23fefa0a09ee06fb069161

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "ci: remove 3rd party js from windows dll gha job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32513#issuecomment-3365168707)
Thanks @davidgumberg!

@hebasto should have addressed your comments.