💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629#discussion_r2450652757)
there's a single lasting reference to "package-mempool-limits" in the comment in this file

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "p2p: Drop unsolicited CMPCTBLOCK from non-HB peer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32606#discussion_r2470986340)
+1 to the way @instagibbs pointed out for honest peers sending unsolicited CMPCTBLOCK's making this a bad idea. And with this, any way now or in the future that you could trick a node into sending an unsolicited CMPCTBLOCK becomes an attack vector. Given that there is little an attacker could accomplish by sending us an unsolicited compact block if we drop unsolicited compact blocks on the ground, I think we don't gain much by marking them as misbehaving or disconnecting them.

💬 niteshbalusu11 commented on pull request "Remove unnecessary seed from chainparams.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3458426762)
I ran a test a few times, my results.

<img width="1416" height="505" alt="Screenshot 2025-10-28 at 4 47 44 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3bf09a9e-8132-4ac4-8198-b1687c7c4e69" />

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "p2p: Drop unsolicited CMPCTBLOCK from non-HB peer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32606#discussion_r2471008758)
@ajtowns I'm not sure which suggestion you mean, I missed the suggestion to drop the newline, but in the current branch (5caaefd8d4174cfc27d5538e7f2d3a1c2bdb77d8) this is a `CMPCTBLOCK` message and IP's are logged: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/5caaefd/src/net_processing.cpp#L2484

💬 onyxcoyote commented on pull request "Remove unnecessary seed from chainparams.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3458447799)
There is another important reason why I ACK this...

Separation of duties, which is both a best practice, and even legally required in some industries (like banks).

Any one individual should not cross over multiple checks and balances. For example, they should not be able to develop, test, review, and deploy code to production (or really any 2-3 of those things). It does not matter if they are a rockstar developer and 100% trusted, or even if it could offend them. In my previous life I rem
...

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "p2p: Drop unsolicited CMPCTBLOCK from non-HB peer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32606#discussion_r2471037172)
```
$ git rev-parse HEAD
5caaefd8d4174cfc27d5538e7f2d3a1c2bdb77d8
$ grep not.marked net_processing.cpp
4416: LogDebug(BCLog::NET, "Peer %d, not marked as high-bandwidth, sent us an unsolicited compact block!\n", pfrom.GetId());
```

💬 SatsAndSports commented on pull request "Remove unnecessary seed from chainparams.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3458485281)
Thanks @niteshbalusu11 and @john-moffett for your detailed breakdown of the versions. Can you share the code or system you used?

I just updated the description of this PR with a small script I made, with `dig` and `nmap`, also showing that recent versions are not represented in this seed. But it would be great to have your code and data described, as mine data is very basic

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Retry image building once on failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33677#issuecomment-3458487836)
> refactors with no behavior change, but those changes seem orthogonal to the PR title and linked issue and I think they would ideally be in a separate PR.

thx, i'll open a dedicated follow-up for the remaining refactors. Though, I'll leave this one as-is for now, as it already has 3 acks and seems rfm.

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "p2p: Drop unsolicited CMPCTBLOCK from non-HB peer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32606#discussion_r2471044173)
@ajtowns Sorry, my mistake, see my edit above.

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "p2p: Drop unsolicited CMPCTBLOCK from non-HB peer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32606#discussion_r2471047407)
I should've counted a few more Mississippi's before commenting 😁

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Modernize use of UTF-8 in Windows code":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32380#issuecomment-3458530990)
> Don't have access to a Windows device at the moment but I'll try and test this at some point, would there be a reasonable unit/functional test that `fsbridge::fopen` and argv can still handle non-ascii stuff on Windows? Might be nice to have, but not blocking by an means.

I believe it is handled by unit and functional tests:
```
$ git grep ₿_🏃
src/test/dbwrapper_tests.cpp: fs::path ph = m_args.GetDataDirBase() / "test_runner_₿_🏃_20191128_104644";
src/test/fs_tests.cpp: std::stri
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Modernize use of UTF-8 in Windows code":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32380#discussion_r2471072312)
Let me leave this change for a follow-up to avoid invalidating 3 acks.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: short read: expected xxxxxxxxx bytes but got xxxxxxxxx: unexpected EOF":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33640#issuecomment-3458556346)
I presume the same issue exists for the lint task. Though, the caching there does not seem to work at all. So it could make sense to make the caching work there, and then also add a retry loop there.


Otherwise, there could be Ubuntu APT timeouts like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/18861389218/job/53820273763?pr=33247#step:4:1053

💬 furszy commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#discussion_r2471097523)
Follow-up to this convo after some great back-and-forth via DM with Andrew.
Usually, RAII works best when we don’t care exactly when an object gets destroyed. In this case, though, we actually do care about that moment (or, in our terms, when it’s stopped), since it marks the point where there are no pending tasks and it’s safe to tear down the backend handlers.
If we don’t enforce that explicitly, the shutdown procedure could continue while workers are still active, leading them to access nul
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Log ZMQ bind error at Error level, abort startup on ZMQ init error (#33715)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33727#discussion_r2471102635)
pointers are nullable, so why wrap twice?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: use pycapnp 2.2.1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33693#issuecomment-3458604240)
lgtm ACK 53b34c80c631ee3f5ae652315592924f6935e0f1

📝 stringintech opened a pull request: "test: Add bitcoin-chainstate test for assumeutxo functionality"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33728)
This PR adds functional test coverage for the bitcoin-chainstate tool loading a datadir initialized with an assumeutxo snapshot.

The PR also includes:
- Fix for assertion crash in `ActivateExistingSnapshot()` when active chainstate has no initialized mempool (required for the test to pass)
- `-regtest` flag support for bitcoin-chainstate to enable the testing

This work started while experimenting with how the current state of the kernel API (#30595) behaves when loading a datadir contain
...

💬 niteshbalusu11 commented on pull request "Remove unnecessary seed from chainparams.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3458719646)
@SatsAndSports some basic python vibe coding. most of the code is to make it pretty looking, core logic is really small.

https://gist.github.com/niteshbalusu11/582f450104a0493ed78a0d0edb54a928

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: unify container presence checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33192#issuecomment-3458728275)
Thanks for the feedback, I have [reverted](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d870caca33ac9f0fdd76969a7341535c5722417e..9445f3955cefaaf7113eb520c5fa9ca905182450) the mining and mempool related coflicting changes and [rebased](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9445f3955cefaaf7113eb520c5fa9ca905182450..b97db6f06185a1d63828f958b33a7e6780aee73c) in a separate commit to simplify review.

I agree that these refactors shouldn't conflict with other important changes, it's why I have r
...

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "Modernize use of UTF-8 in Windows code":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32380#discussion_r2471194836)
Agreed