📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "ci: Work around GitHub rate limit on raw curl usage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33606)

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "refactor: Split multithreaded case out of CheckInputScripts"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32575)

📝 maflcko reopened a pull request: "refactor: Split multithreaded case out of CheckInputScripts"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32575)
This topic has been motivated by my work on batch validation and a related conversation just happened here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32467#discussion_r2098305199

`CheckInputScripts` currently only does what its name implies if there is no multithreading usage for validation. If there are worker threads available the function instead only creates the checks and puts them into a vector. Aside from some shared pre-checks the multithreaded code path is much simpler compared to the
...

💬 prusnak commented on pull request "contrib: Add bash completion for new bitcoin command":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33385#issuecomment-3396086143)
ISTM "bitcoin test" is not covered

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Use native platform for win-cross task":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33558#issuecomment-3396095171)
> > * Unlock the CI task to run on riscv64 at all
>
> Isn't this relevant to other tasks as well, for example, `ci/test/00_setup_env_arm.sh`?

That task requires the aarch64 architecture and is not a native task. Not sure if it matters much if qemu-aarch64 is running on x86 or riscv, but feel free to open a separate issue or pull request. The goal here is mainly to speed up the win-cross task for non-x86 arches. Being able to run it on riscv64 is a nice cherry on top.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Compilation failure with Clang SNAPSHOT":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33539#issuecomment-3396110134)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/163057

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Work around GitHub Recv failure on raw curl usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33606#issuecomment-3396208981)
The issue doesn't happen right now, so I am not sure how to test this pull here. Maybe re-open the next time the issue happens?

🤔 janb84 reviewed a pull request: "doc: archive release notes for v30.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33601#pullrequestreview-3330287799)
ACK 8d6e49158e3a1b3215484b5d139c5d8a3fffc4c9

Normal post-release cleanup pr, move the release-notes to the release-notes archive

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "[28.x] 28.3rc2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33557#pullrequestreview-3330359960)
ACK 8e4651bb33b8f97940bf2ad6a2f97932198f6765

💬 BenWestgate commented on pull request "[POC] wallet: Enable non-electronic (paper-based) wallet backup with codex32":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33043#issuecomment-3396349582)
> Because Bitcoin Core wallets currently do not store the seed material by default, this PR adds support for doing so, along with a new wallet flag to explicitly indicate when this feature is enabled.

Wallets would need to begin storing the seed by default for `exposesecret` to function.

This feature also should allow specifying the identifier for disambiguation and the threshold if secret sharing, possibly the number of shares as well, but that requires new entropy.

It may be simpler to init
...

💬 janb84 commented on pull request "ci: Work around GitHub Recv failure on raw curl usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33606#issuecomment-3396436570)
> The issue doesn't happen right now, so I am not sure how to test this pull here. Maybe re-open the next time the issue happens?

Think this is the best action for now.

If we are going to park this PR, maybe it's good to add a bit more context to the PR description (suggestion):

"
Attempt to work around https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33599 by using a filtered git clone instead of a simple raw curl.
Rationale:
The PR is based on a working theory that this workaround is ne
...

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "test: refactor mempool_accept_wtxid":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33067#discussion_r2425603366)
d1a2e27: it would be nice to have a more general interface where we can pass the parent + child amount and fees.

cc @vasild - you might be interested in this too. I hadn't considered passing both wallet and node as arguments to the function in #32385. there are other functions in util.py which do this too - ex: `create_lots_of_big_transactions`

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "test: refactor mempool_accept_wtxid":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33067#discussion_r2425605999)
d1a2e27: any reason for removing this line? (comment mentions submitting parent to mempool)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "multiprocess: Fix high overhead from message logging":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33517#issuecomment-3396502813)
CI doesn't look happy.

💬 alexanderwiederin commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-3396550023)
re-ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595/commits/81cec737e68b91f5edf90179b81aa620a5a68677

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#issuecomment-3396649526)
Rebased b27be6cb18dde53863d83d2f2f61d4c92916257b -> 9ce01e051bae5fb1d48d6d297eb011b13d20ec76 ([spendblock_12](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/spendblock_12) -> [spendblock_13](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/spendblock_13), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/spendblock_12..spendblock_13))

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "kernel: Introduce initial C header API"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#pullrequestreview-3330798092)
Code review ACK 81cec737e68b91f5edf90179b81aa620a5a68677 🥇

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "ci: Work around GitHub Recv failure on raw curl usage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33606)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Work around GitHub Recv failure on raw curl usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33606#issuecomment-3396767734)
> Maybe re-open the next time the issue happens?

I think so. Hopefully some followup from Cirrus in #33599.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: archive release notes for v30.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33601#discussion_r2425804500)
Thanks, however I wont be modifying the release notes further here.