💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "index: initial sync speedup, parallelize process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26966#issuecomment-3403469332)
what's the reason for the frequent pushes here recently?

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "multiprocess: Fix high overhead from message logging"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33517)

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "docs: add doc comment for SRD selection algorithm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33622#discussion_r2430345487)
Some of the other algorithms use that wording, for example see coin-grinder: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33622/files#diff-d473ed8396f9451afb848923cfcfaa630c9811a78e07f3ae1ffd3a65da218accR208. Therefore just copying a pattern that already exists. Do you not like that wording in coin-grinder also?

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "docs: add doc comment for SRD selection algorithm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33622#discussion_r2430361531)
There's not much presidence for this when looking at how the other algorithms are documented. coin-grinder seems to have it documented in both the headers file and the cpp file.

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675)

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "docs: add doc comment for SRD selection algorithm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33622#discussion_r2430363748)
I don't care much either way where the doc comments are, just that it exists someplace that is findable.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads >10% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132#issuecomment-3403508763)
> I noticed that for small dbcache it has a very noticeable effect, but for very high dbcache this seems to add an extra cost - since we already have everything in the cache, so it just does useless work.
I wonder if we could enable this fetching only after the very first time we [Flush](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/17372d788e6ca6f5a8452acf88d6b7db4221cb7e/src/coins.cpp#L251) and erase, since it cannot help in any way before that.

@l0rinc There is already quite a lot to review her
...

💬 waketraindev commented on pull request "Add reset button and console commands for clearing output/history":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/882#issuecomment-3403517787)
Rebased on current master.
Simplified to console commands only, dropped the keyboard shortcut and clear button (no new buttons added).
Added the clear-all command for completness and ease of use.

Tested all commands (clear, clear-all, history, history-clear) on Ubuntu 24.04 and Windows 11 -- all work as expected.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: ensure assumevalid is always used during reindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31615#discussion_r2430339233)
I think that this comment is misleading, the call is not only here for `-loadblock`.

This is (unless `-reindex` is used) the first and only time `ActivateBestChain()` is invoked as part of init. Even without `-reindex` and without `-loadblocks` it does important work: It connects the genesis block on first startup (without which init [cannot finish](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/db4bde0b0347f5141cd6721895e47400239a30e8/src/init.cpp#L1980-L1995)), and on later starts it will connect
...

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: ensure assumevalid is always used during reindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31615#discussion_r2430391932)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31615#discussion_r2430339233 is relevant to this, too. Basically, we want to connect blocks with the reindexing flag set during a reindex, but need a ABC call in the case of no `-reindex`.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "docs: add doc comment for SRD selection algorithm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33622#discussion_r2430410352)
I think coin grinder explanation is more complex, but anyway feel free to ignore it.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "docs: add doc comment for SRD selection algorithm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33622#discussion_r2430413199)
I think it's weird to have a documentation about the paratemers in `coinselection.h` and another documentation about the same parameters but with different wording/explanation in `coinselection.cpp`.

👋 waketraindev's pull request is ready for review: "qt: add console commands for clearing output and history"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/882)

💬 furszy commented on pull request "index: initial sync speedup, parallelize process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26966#issuecomment-3403556200)
> what's the reason for the frequent pushes here recently?

I wrote it above, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26966#issuecomment-3398073492. I'm working on a few changes that improves parallelism across indexes and the structure of the code, which work properly locally but are not stable on the CI yet. Will update the state with the modifications upon finishing.

💬 waketraindev commented on pull request "rpc: add optional peer_ids param to filter getpeerinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32741#issuecomment-3403571554)
Rebased on current master.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "http: Make server shutdown more robust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31929#issuecomment-3403587613)
Spent some time revisiting and polishing this since 24558c2cf18210f46d6e2fadf0c5c5912f4b8e10.
* Rebased on latest master.
* Dropped the comment changes from 1350087f9a as verifying them is added work and I'm not sure they were 100% correct.
* Dropped the introduction of our own request ids in 24558c2cf1.
* Merged the the remaining log message on HTTP connection close from 1350087f9a + now log request pointers instead of ids in 028301e775, "http: Include request ptr in initial message and log
...

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#pullrequestreview-3337389726)
Looks pretty good, just a few comments.

A nice-to-have: in the functional tests with multiple nodes, it would be a bit more realistic / interesting if the two forks were mined by different nodes.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#discussion_r2430392576)
nit or something to consider for the future: The style convention is to put them in alphabetical order on separate lines so that diffs are smaller/clearer when you add or remove. This change, for instance, changes a lot more lines than necessary.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#discussion_r2430443357)
There is still an `invalidateblock` in this test?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#discussion_r2430441287)
Seems strange to have them both submit the fork blocks. In a real reorg, node1 will receive the blocks from node0 and should process them in the same way. We should test that that's true.