💬 jonatack commented on pull request "doc: improve NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED documentation per BIP159":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31805#issuecomment-3433105081)
I have a wider update to this since March, with more doc sites fixed or improved. Need to convince myself that the improvements might be merged someday and to push them here, I suppose.

✅ jonatack closed a pull request: "doc: improve NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED documentation per BIP159"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31805)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "[p2p] Fix signed integer overflow in LocalServiceInfo::nScore":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33072#issuecomment-3433118417)
Closing this as it has not had any activity in a while. If you are interested in continuing work on this, please leave a comment so that it can be reopened.

Marking as up for grabs.

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "[p2p] Fix signed integer overflow in LocalServiceInfo::nScore"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33072)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "util: Abort on failing CHECK_NONFATAL in debug builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32588#issuecomment-3433129470)
rfm with two acks, or does this util-only change need more?

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "[POC] wallet: Add Support for BIP-353 DNS-Based Bitcoin Address via External Resolver"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "[POC] wallet: Add Support for BIP-353 DNS-Based Bitcoin Address via External Resolver":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33069#issuecomment-3433131337)
This PR does not seem to have attracted much attention from reviewers. As such, it does not seem important enough right now to keep it sitting idle in the list of open PRs.

Closing due to lack of interest.

✅ jonatack closed a pull request: "p2p: protect addnode peers during IBD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32051)

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: protect addnode peers during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32051#issuecomment-3433131562)
I supposed I need to convince myself that this might be merged, to work further on it. I'll re-open if I do.

📝 achow101 converted_to_draft a pull request: "BIP-348 (OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK) (regtest only)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32247)
This implements [BIP-348 (`OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK`)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0348.md), but only specifies a regtest deployment. There is no effective policy change, since the SCRIPT_VERIFY_* flags (as used) result in the same OP_SUCCESS-like behavior.

This change can be composed with other opcode specifications (e.g. CTV, see #31989) and bundled into the same deployment (yet to be specified).

I encourage more general, conceptual discussion to happen on [Delving Bitcoi
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "init: Improve -asmap option behavior and documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33632#issuecomment-3433144849)
I think this is ok to close, since my suggestion about improving the default behavior https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33631#issuecomment-3410302383 as a better alternative to that PR also seems like it could be a better alternative to this PR.

I do think the approach in the PR is reasonable, though. It could also be implemented by calling `InterpretBool("-asmap", false)` to detect the "1" value instead of hardcoding it into `GetPathArg` and affecting other users of `GetPathArg` which
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: add codex32 argument to addhdkey":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32652#issuecomment-3433180096)
I suppose NACK is a bit too strong.

While codex32 itself is interesting, it is not interesting enough that any contributors to this project is interested in reviewing PRs including it.

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "[Policy] Discourage Unsigned Annexes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32453)

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "miniscript: fixes #29098 by only use first k valid signatures"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31719)

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "doc: mention key removal in rpc interface modification":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32867#discussion_r2452645427)
Although putting it in the next sentence does reduce verbosity but by putting it there would give the impression that key removal is backward-compatible, which I don't think is correct?

💬 portlandhodl commented on pull request "Enhanced error messages for invalid network prefix during address parsing.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27260#issuecomment-3433346662)
Actually yes! Found some time this week. Please allow for a push today!

Thanks!

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "test: set number of RPC server threads to 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33679#issuecomment-3433459825)
ACK [e9cd45e](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33679/commits/e9cd45e3d3c7592265ebf67387090b3df1501df4)

as mentioned it is similar to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33485.

📝 jotapea opened a pull request: "More comprehensive datacarrier configuration"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33681)
This PR expands the control and testing of datacarrier transactions by decoupling the total bytes limit from the policy configuration.

---

While doing this, the historical **money-first** defaults for OP_RETURN outputs were reverted.

The [motivation](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33595) for this PR is to continue allowing each node to decide/signal their mempool relay (and mining) policy. However, the open-data relaying capacity of v30.0 is acknowledged and build upon.

Th
...

✅ jotapea closed a pull request: "More comprehensive datacarrier configuration"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33681)

💬 jotapea commented on pull request "More comprehensive datacarrier configuration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33681#issuecomment-3433469537)
Hmmm... something got messed up. Seeing unrelated code changes. Will close and try again.