💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: unify container presence checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33192#issuecomment-3437574910)
I like the changes, but I am not sure how hard it will be to rebase the conflicts. Maybe this can wait until they are merged, and then this one can go after?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: unify container presence checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33192#issuecomment-3437580103)
thanks, would it help if I reverted the conflicting line again?

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "Update about logo icon (colour) to denote the chain type of the QT instance in About/ Help Message Window/ Dialog":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/762#discussion_r2455573688)
What is the reason to skip this for `main`? It should always work, right?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: add Valgrind fuzz":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33461#issuecomment-3437618061)
I don't think it's clear that we should trade-off running more tests here (which are fast), when it results in slower total runtime on forks. Shouldn't we be optimising for more tests run in this repo (given the general workflow is just to open PRs directly to the repo).

💬 blckbx commented on issue "Seemingly second (very long) validation at the same height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33687#issuecomment-3437689704)
> Maybe it has something to do with a reorg, maybe this is normal behavior but I wanted to report it here just to be sure.

https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000000a0eb867d25dd2e5284750888c545607d30aecc48c691

There was a stale block which has been replaced.

📝 jotapea opened a pull request: "Datacarrier backwards compatibility and improved test coverage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33690)
This PR addresses the *"misalignments"* of [#33682](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33682).

> Summing up: The change which was brought with v30 was broadly discussed and deliberately chosen. I think that reverting the defaults now would be a bad idea. And even if, the path to do this should not be this PR and changing defaults should not be bundled with introducing a new knob.

@cedwies, this new PR keeps v30 defaults AND also removes the "public knob". It must definitely keep the n
...

💬 hMsats commented on issue "Seemingly second (very long) validation at the same height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33687#issuecomment-3437784836)
@blckbx great, thanks a lot. But why did the verification take so long? Is that because all the transactions were removed from the mempool when the first one was verified?

💬 instagibbs commented on issue "Seemingly second (very long) validation at the same height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33687#issuecomment-3437803357)
@hMsats It appears your peer was unable or unwilling to give the block for about 6 minutes.

Eventually the block was received and processed as usual. Taking a harder look at the scenario to see what we can do to overcome this during reorg scenarios.

⚠️ ajtowns opened an issue: "SENDTEMPLATE Tracking Issue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33691)
Plan:

* Protocol specification [BIN25-2](https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/binana/blob/master/2025/BIN-2025-0002.md) and [BIP153 PR#1937](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1937)
* Implementation:
* [PR#33191](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33191) - Providing templates to peers
* [sendtemplate3 branch](https://github.com/ajtowns/bitcoin/tree/202508-sendtemplate3) - Using templates from peers
* Live tests
* [x] signet: inquisition 29.x ([#96](https://github.com/bitcoi
...

💬 ubbabeck commented on pull request "rest: allow reading partial block data from storage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33657#issuecomment-3438168264)

> It would be interesting to compare the performance for single transaction fetching, similar to how it was done in [#32541 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541#issuecomment-2897330791), comparing `txindex`-based and `locationindex`-based queries.

Maybe not relevant to test, but fetching the whole block using blockpart.

`hey -c 1 -n 100000 http://localhost:8332/rest/blockpart/000000000000000000017bfd05b5fa367a424c4a565a4baf7950d9e8605df8ec.bin`

<details>

```
Su
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: optimize: avoid allocations in script & policy verification":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33645#issuecomment-3438881388)
Approach NACK, you're needlessly modifying critical code and needlessly duplicating existing tests for them.

🤔 spboy777 reviewed a pull request: "test: Update BIP324 test vectors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33688#pullrequestreview-3372468100)
1

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "doc: Add blockman param to GetTransaction doc comment":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33683#discussion_r2457206182)
yea I agree that this fits and looks better with the out as the last param. Maybe you can change the title and commit message to be `refactor/doc` since code refactoring is being done.

But that is a minor nit

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "ci: Retry image building once on failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33677#discussion_r2457371795)
yea maybe something like this? Let me know if this looks good or if there are any issues you see with it

https://github.com/kevkevinpal/bitcoin/pull/184/commits/558c116d3fa49e3a103d70e0c18c873c1d534ae8

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "ci: Retry image building once on failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33677#discussion_r2457374021)
yea maybe something like this? Let me know if this looks good or if there are any issues you see with it

https://github.com/kevkevinpal/bitcoin/pull/184/commits/558c116d3fa49e3a103d70e0c18c873c1d534ae8

💬 besoeasy commented on issue "Revert OP_RETURN Policy Changes in Bitcoin Core v0.30":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33619#issuecomment-3439500240)
@PlanetMacro they dont care bro

maybe FBI or CIA got some dirt on developers and they are forcing them to push some agenda

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Datacarrier backwards compatibility and improved test coverage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33690)

💬 jotapea commented on pull request "Datacarrier backwards compatibility and improved test coverage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33690#issuecomment-3439600982)
@fanquake Why are you closing this PR without any comment?

⚠️ brantonmulroney-sudo opened an issue: "COMMENT ON I NEED A HACKER TO RECOVER MONEY FROM BINARY TRADING. HIRE A CRYPTO RECOVERY EXPERT WIN TECH SECURITY."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33692)
I once lost my Bitcoin, worth $860,000, to a sophisticated cyber theft. It felt hopeless at first, but everything changed when I reached out to Win Tech Security. Their expert team carefully investigated the case, traced the stolen funds through blockchain analysis, and successfully recovered my entire amount. Their professionalism, transparency, and dedication truly impressed me. For anyone who has lost cryptocurrency to hackers or scams, I strongly recommend Win Tech Security they are trustwor
...

✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "COMMENT ON I NEED A HACKER TO RECOVER MONEY FROM BINARY TRADING. HIRE A CRYPTO RECOVERY EXPERT WIN TECH SECURITY."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33692)