💬 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.

📝 jotapea opened a pull request: "More comprehensive datacarrier configuration"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33682)
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 commented on pull request "More comprehensive datacarrier configuration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33682#discussion_r2452860094)
I must be missing something, because these added tests only work if any (2) previous tests are commented out. Getting the following error: bad-txns-inputs-missingorspent (-25).

💬 jotapea commented on pull request "More comprehensive datacarrier configuration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33682#discussion_r2452869582)
I must be missing something, because these added tests only work if any (2) previous tests are commented out. Getting the following error: bad-txns-inputs-missingorspent (-25).

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "ci: Retry image building once on failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33677#discussion_r2452929726)
Similar to this comment, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33639#discussion_r2448346644

maybe avoid using concats (e.g. via *list)

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "ci: Retry image building once on failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33677#discussion_r2452994242)
Doesn't this make more sense? And then you can change `*CI_BUILD_MOUNT` to `CI_BUILD_MOUNT`

```
CI_BUILD_MOUNT = []
...
CI_BUILD_MOUNT = f"--mount=type=bind,src={os.environ['BASE_BUILD_DIR']},dst={os.environ['BASE_BUILD_DIR']}"
```

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "ci: Retry image building once on failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33677#discussion_r2453051321)
Why add `check=False` for these commands when previously there was no `|| true` appended to the original statements

💬 ubbabeck commented on pull request "rest: allow reading partial block data from storage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33657#issuecomment-3433931938)
tACK 301116e855

What was done:
- functional test.
- unit test
- tested the new rest endpoint `rest/blockpart/<blockhash>.bin` manually with curl with different offsets and sizes.

If there are any additional test you'd like me to help with let me know.
I also did a perf dump, but I need some guidelines on what to measure/ grep for.

⚠️ JohnnyFFM opened an issue: "qt: Amount field too narrow on Windows in Send Coins dialog"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/906)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [x] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

On my Windows machine, the amount input field in the Send Coins dialog is extremely narrow (approximately 25 pixels wide). I can't see the amount I'm entering, see screenshot:

<img width="739" height="528" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1a36aed1-def6-4696-adc4-4d86f3f26a46" />

My Linux machine is not affected.

### Expected behaviour

The amount field should
...