💬 frankomosh commented on pull request "test: Add bitcoin-chainstate test for assumeutxo functionality":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33728#discussion_r2471886228)
If user passes 3 args where `argv[2] != "-regtest"`(or generally malformed argument combinations), could it silently set `use_regtest = false` without warning?

If thats the case then I think there should atleast be a warning

💬 frankomosh commented on pull request "test: Add bitcoin-chainstate test for assumeutxo functionality":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33728#discussion_r2471889658)
Is this now weaker that the original assertion, because I think it will now silently accepts a null mempool pointer?

🤔 frankomosh reviewed a pull request: "test: Add bitcoin-chainstate test for assumeutxo functionality"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33728#pullrequestreview-3391873761)
Concept ACK
I think its a nice addition as it adds valuable functional coverage for bitcoin-chainstate.
Few nits and inquiries inline;

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "Fix formatting in windows-app.manifest.in"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33729)

💬 SatsAndSports commented on pull request "Remove unreliable seed from chainparams.cpp, and the associated README":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3460104641)
I've squashed the two commits into one, and made the commit text more accurate, as suggested by @davidgumberg

💬 purpleKarrot commented on pull request "ci, iwyu: Treat warnings as errors for `src/init` and `src/policy`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33725#discussion_r2472087236)
> but the benefit of including span, when span.h is included, seems limited.

That is not the right rationale. Since `span.h` may get phased out by future refactoring, it is advantageous to have an indicator at the top of the file whether `<span>` is used purely directly or directly and indirectly.

💬 wizkid057 commented on pull request "Remove unreliable seed from chainparams.cpp, and the associated README":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3460375147)
NACK

This is clearly a personal attack with zero technical merit, zero violation of any policy, and an overall just part of the continuing witch hunt of some vs Luke.

Regardless, I'd highly suggest waiting until @luke-jr can comment and weigh in on this directly before even considering hastily merging this. Doing so without that minimum courtesy seems quite unnecessary for something that couldn't possibly pose any risk whatsoever nor require such any haste.

https://x.com/LukeDashjr/stat
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "Remove unreliable seed from chainparams.cpp, and the associated README":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3460383320)
reACK b0c706795ce6a3a00bf068a81ee99fef2ee9bf7e

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci, iwyu: Treat warnings as errors for `src/init` and `src/policy`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33725#discussion_r2472147424)
Yeah, I can see it both ways. I think the possible harm from including span.h over span is limited with this trivial header. Just noting I did the same with the time.h include: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/3bb30658e631ed45b6c8609292facc7ae3dd0f61/src/util/time.h#L9

Also for the validation.h include: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/3bb30658e631ed45b6c8609292facc7ae3dd0f61/src/validation.h#L19. There, the harm could be larger, as the validation header is a bit larger than the
...

💬 delta1 commented on pull request "Remove unreliable seed from chainparams.cpp, and the associated README":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3460546599)
reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b0c706795ce6a3a00bf068a81ee99fef2ee9bf7e

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "Remove unreliable seed from chainparams.cpp, and the associated README"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#pullrequestreview-3392411168)
ACK b0c706795ce6a3a00bf068a81ee99fef2ee9bf7e

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: use pycapnp 2.2.1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33693)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "ci: short read: expected xxxxxxxxx bytes but got xxxxxxxxx: unexpected EOF"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33640)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: Retry image building once on failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33677)

💬 laisial commented on pull request "Remove unreliable seed from chainparams.cpp, and the associated README":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3460745709)
> I'd highly suggest waiting until @luke-jr can comment and weigh in on this directly before even considering hastily merging this.
> https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/1983322751747412327

he has commented in the post you shared. also, you did not provide any counterarguments. the policy is using an open standard, so any decision will be subjective and open to interpretation.

luke did say that he "Obviously" plans to add new versions in the future: https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/1983414007
...

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "ci: run native fuzz with MSAN job"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33626#pullrequestreview-3392578649)
utACK 362587409767eb349cd4f679db71a1e5bf407bb8

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "Remove unreliable seed from chainparams.cpp, and the associated README"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#pullrequestreview-3392582038)
re-ACK b0c706795ce6a3a00bf068a81ee99fef2ee9bf7e

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-3460824372)
Rebased 083814948d66aac49b6995de560a48c7889896cc -> 1ea43dc365c277f519f30f55dae6b0899e611765 ([kernelApi_77](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_77) -> [kernelApi_78](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi_78), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelApi_77..kernelApi_78))

* Fixed conflict with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32380
* Dropped the commit introducing utf8 string handling for windows, since that is now handled by
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: Use UCRT runtime for Windows release binaries":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33593#issuecomment-3460836590)
What is the plan for adding CI, as that blocks everything here?

📝 00w1 opened a pull request: "chainparams: remove *petertodd.net "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33730)
**Rationale**

https://agorism.dev/petertodd-emails.txt