🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "[29.x] Finalise 29.2rc2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33534#pullrequestreview-3299962725)
lgtm 513cef75ee06bc5d310a22d366a5f3c815aa1499. Got the same manpages, no changes to examples/bitcoin.conf or bips.md.

I think the release notes need to be updated

💬 glozow commented on pull request "[29.x] Finalise 29.2rc2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33534#discussion_r2402655206)
Need to update release notes for #33482, no?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "[29.x] Finalise 29.2rc2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33534#discussion_r2402669380)
I also don't see #32989

💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet: don't consider unconfirmed TRUC coins with ancestors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33528#issuecomment-3366489897)
> Is this going to be backported to 30.x?

I think that'd be best so that the behavior is consistent from v30 onwards.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[29.x] Finalise 29.2rc2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33534#discussion_r2402679207)
Added a commit.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "[29.x] Finalise 29.2rc2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33534#pullrequestreview-3300018391)
ACK d82fc69829cd8cabbaf2c3a969597b40c32edc86

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "[29.x] Finalise 29.2rc2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33534#issuecomment-3366521126)
reACK d82fc69

👍 darosior approved a pull request: "[29.x] Finalise 29.2rc2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33534#pullrequestreview-3300035989)
utACK 513cef75ee06bc5d310a22d366a5f3c815aa1499. Changes look good to me, but i have not been through the process of regenerating the doc myself.

👍 darosior approved a pull request: "[28.x] More backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33535#pullrequestreview-3300089164)
utACK 06fe49dc88638e2ad21f1b7d0dd87661de384517.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads >10% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132#issuecomment-3366595565)
Removed `m_batch_size`. Each thread now increments the atomic counter by 1.

🤔 danielabrozzoni reviewed a pull request: "test: addrman: check isTerrible when time is more than 10min in the future"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33533#pullrequestreview-3300148395)
tACK 8e47ed6906d5e381498681e2cab9f2e318597705

I verified that mutating the isTerrible condition did not cause any tests to fail on master, while this PR correctly triggers a test failure.

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#pullrequestreview-3299741455)
Code-review ACK 652424ad162b63d73ecb6bd65bd26946e90c617f :flags:

💬 theStack commented on pull request "Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#discussion_r2402803342)
nit: `operator<` would be sufficient (currently only needed in the transaction tests, where a [`std::set` of script flag combinations](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/86eaa4d6cd5c428f6635a8d44fa6b5a9545ea909/src/test/transaction_tests.cpp#L183) is used), I doubt that the other ones would ever have a use-case
```diff
diff --git a/src/script/verify_flags.h b/src/script/verify_flags.h
index 95a55d2c79..e14a329ace 100644
--- a/src/script/verify_flags.h
+++ b/src/script/verify_flags.h
@
...

💬 theStack commented on pull request "Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#discussion_r2402485646)
nit: while touching, could switch to the more modern `.contains`
```suggestion
if (!mapFlagNames.contains(word)) {
```

🤔 marcofleon reviewed a pull request: "test: addrman: check isTerrible when time is more than 10min in the future"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33533#pullrequestreview-3300206362)
Nice, code review ACK 8e47ed6906d5e381498681e2cab9f2e318597705

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "[29.x] Finalise 29.2rc2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33534)

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "test: fix p2p_leak_tx.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33121#issuecomment-3366820377)
reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/14ae71f323dd011c6d51470ea15cf00750970f65

🤔 marcofleon reviewed a pull request: "[30.x] Backports & rc3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33473#pullrequestreview-3300410005)
lgtm ACK 4e869a67aa7415f9c756bf6463e3437ae0a3ec44

The diff looks fine and I did a (light) code review of every PR commit.

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "Improve LastCommonAncestor performance + add tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33515#pullrequestreview-3300473697)
Code Review ACK 3635d62f5a935801e26a0d5fa2cb5e2dbbb42f9b
The added test is slightly faster with the changes.

> I expect this to be very rare in normal occurrences, but it seems nontrivial to reason about worst cases as it's accessible from several places in net_processing.

I think it would require really long forked chains for this to become relevant, so basically in consensus split scenarios?!

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "Improve LastCommonAncestor performance + add tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33515#discussion_r2403037390)
If I understand it correctly, we don't have to worry about dereferencing a `nullptr` here, because `pskip` is only `nullptr` for genesis, and if one of the blocks was genesis, we couldn't get to this spot.