✅ achow101 closed an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27816)

:lock: achow101 locked an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27816)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: produce a .zip for macOS distribution":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27099#issuecomment-1575514309)
> > Guix does not produce unsigned
>
> Fixed.

Now, it needs to be reproducible:

- build `#1`:
```
8f0fbd31364e2bc589be140372c56a71d8db0ccb06118923a8a6f461c65728ab guix-build-414e840c297f/output/arm64-apple-darwin/SHA256SUMS.part
8aa7c8fed1f8cc7f2d4735b87c4f57c6383191d71b10553729604863beda7e01 guix-build-414e840c297f/output/arm64-apple-darwin/bitcoin-414e840c297f-arm64-apple-darwin-unsigned.tar.gz
ea3f6623b130cf8da7d877e8828d607ca1a72654811da8fd3a840388e27cfe19 guix-build-414e840c
...

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "Provide `-fcf-protection=none` in `test-security-check.py` explicitly"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27819)
The `contrib/devtools/test-security-check.py` script is not robust enough to work not only in the well-predicted Guix environment but also in the wild.

For example, on Ubuntu 22.04, GCC has `-fcf-protection=full` by default. See:
```
gcc -E -dM - < /dev/null | grep CET
#define __CET__ 3
```

This PR explicitly provides `-fcf-protection=none` in cases where it is expected.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Provide `-fcf-protection=none` in `test-security-check.py` explicitly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27819#issuecomment-1575549761)
> is not robust enough to work not only in the well-predicted Guix environment but also in the wild.

It's not meant to be, and this isn't a design goal.

Concept NACK.

✅ hebasto closed a pull request: "Provide `-fcf-protection=none` in `test-security-check.py` explicitly"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27819)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Provide `-fcf-protection=none` in `test-security-check.py` explicitly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27819#issuecomment-1575555230)
> It's not meant to be, and this isn't a design goal.

I agree that `security-check.py` is supposed to be run in the Guix environment.

But I don't see the point of the same limits for `test-security-check.py`. Mind elaborating this "design goal"? Maybe document it?

Btw, for some other flags the same approach is used.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Network Watch tool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/444#issuecomment-1575558141)
Closing this due to lack of activity. Feel free to reopen.

✅ hebasto closed a pull request: "Network Watch tool"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/444)

📝 Brotcrunsher opened a pull request: "Sanitizing ports of -rpcconnect and -rpcport."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27820)
Previously, if they contained malformed ports they were silently interpreted as value%0xffff. Illegal ports now lead to an error. Additionally, if rpcconnect has a port and rpcport is set, a useful warning is now printed.

⚠️ wayudi208012 opened an issue: ""
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27821)
I tend to agree - base58 has so few stand-alone uses outside of bitcoin,
that including bechs32 functionality and making it a combined library makes
sense imo.

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018, 13:00 Luke Dashjr <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> Any thoughts, @CoperNick8 <https://github.com/CoperNick8> @holland01
> <https://github.com/holland01> @randolf <https://github.com/randolf> @sipa
> <https://github.com/sipa> @laanwj <https://github.com/laanwj> @e271828-
> <https://github.co
...

✅ fanquake closed an issue: ""
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27821)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: ""
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27821)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "indicate explicit to the user that the wallet balances shown is watch only.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/37#issuecomment-1575628144)
Concept ACK

I don't think this should be limited to just legacy wallets - descriptor wallets can have private keys disabled as well. This should probably apply to all wallets that have private keys disabled, as the the watch-only icon does.

📝 Brotcrunsher opened a pull request: "Renamed UniValue::__pushKV to UniValue::pushKVEnd."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27822)
Any identifier starting with 2 _ is reserved for the compiler and thus must not be used.

See: https://stackoverflow.com/a/228797/7130273

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Renamed UniValue::__pushKV to UniValue::pushKVEnd.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27822#issuecomment-1575641606)
See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/developer-notes.md#scripted-diffs for changes like this.

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: miner: add coverage for `-blockmintxfee` setting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27620#discussion_r1216930591)
Thanks, done.

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: miner: add coverage for `-blockmintxfee` setting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27620#issuecomment-1575651619)
Thanks for reviewing! Addressed the nit.

> Just a thought that came to my mind while reviewing it:
>
> * Seems like these test coverage uses just 1 node, if we'd stop node1 right before line 81, it wouldn't make the test to fail. So, it seems that `-minrelaytxfee=0` is just to make `send_self_transfer` - which calls `sendrawtransaction` - not fail (even if we might not have any connection).

Yes indeed, this sub-test works with a single node (it follows the design of previously introduce
...

💬 joostjager commented on issue "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet via local rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27768#issuecomment-1575661768)
For me the relevant part of this issue is enabling the annex, which is already discussed in several other places. Closing issue.

✅ joostjager closed an issue: "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet via local rpc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27768)