💬 maflcko commented on pull request "net: Fix Discover() not running when using -bind=0.0.0.0:port":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32757#issuecomment-3461409851)
Are you still working on this?

💬 brunoerg commented on issue "RFC: Do we want to support fuzzing on MacOS?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33731#issuecomment-3461417256)
Concept ACK on option 2. I use macOS and I agree this is a pain -- The effort of updating the documentation is not worth it. The only downside of it would be not attracting macOS people to fuzzing development (?). But anyway, if someone really wants to get in fuzzing dev would have to have a linux at some point.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: run native fuzz with MSAN job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33626#discussion_r2472963951)
Pushed up `-md` for a look.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: Use UCRT runtime for Windows release binaries":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33593#discussion_r2473009165)
We cannot phase out the `with-winpthreads?` argument, as during the recursive invocation it is unset:https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/f380e6251021cc7aa0c47f564147abea922dc050/contrib/guix/manifest.scm#L154-L157

💬 trevarj commented on pull request "guix: Use UCRT runtime for Windows release binaries":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33593#discussion_r2473010211)
It should be possible to `inherit` the Guix package and then modify `arguments` to replace `"--with-default-msvcrt=msvcrt" with ""--with-default-msvcrt=ucrt"

```scheme
(use-modules
(guix packages)
(guix gexp)
(guix utils)
(gnu packages mingw)
(srfi srfi-1))

(define (override-mingw base-pkg)
(package
(inherit base-pkg)
(name "mingw-ucrt")
(arguments
(substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments base-pkg)
((#:configure-flags flags)
;; Force evaluation of
...

📝 maflcko converted_to_draft a pull request: "ci: Call docker exec from Python script to fix word splitting"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33732)
The remaining `ci/test/02_run_container.sh` is fine, but has a bunch of shellcheck SC2086 word splitting violations.

This is fine currently, because the only place that needed them had additional escaping, and all other commands happened to split fine on spaces.

However, this may change in the future. So fix it now, by rewriting it in Python, which is recommended in the dev notes.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: run native fuzz with MSAN job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33626#discussion_r2473028992)
on the slow GHA runners, the timeout is short a few minutes of being hit?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: run native fuzz with MSAN job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33626#discussion_r2473053980)
Ah, will bump this to ~150.

💬 glozow commented on issue "Batch tx broadcast RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33700#issuecomment-3461570152)
This definitely seems doable. A couple more API questions since you're here:
What would you prefer to happen if a transaction fails? Is it fine if we quit altogether or do you want the node to keep trying with everything else?
We currently just have an error message that's just passed/failed. Would this change work: all passed / some passed / you submitted invalid stuff / maxfeerate or maxburnamount exceeded ?
Are you ok with _some_ requirements, e.g. "your batch contains transactions that confl
...

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "random: scope environ extern to macOS, BSDs and Illumos"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33714#pullrequestreview-3393497979)
ACK fcdbce4a040e4a40aac9ed5ef8634b09d092063e.

🤔 jaonoctus reviewed a pull request: "chainparams: remove *petertodd.net"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33730#pullrequestreview-3393535153)
nACK

🤔 jaonoctus reviewed a pull request: "chainparams: remove dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes.us"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#pullrequestreview-3393546490)
ACK, I agree with @achow101 and @niteshbalusu11

💬 wizkid057 commented on pull request "chainparams: remove dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes.us":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3461632869)
> I'm not sure what is giving people the impression that we're not doing the same here

The pitchfork carrying mob seems to be out in force here, complete with some maintainers, on this nothingburger PR with 50+ comments in < 24 hrs... while there's other PRs (likely with actual merit) which don't even have a single comment from a maintainer... that's what's giving the impression.

> Luke has been pinged both on this PR and directly through other platforms.
> @luke-jr please update us here
...

⚠️ umrashrf opened an issue: "Can I compile on OSX Tahoe?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33733)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [x] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

I recently upgraded my OS to Max OSX Tahoe 26.0.1 (25A362)

Step 1: Success

```
git clone ssh://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git
```

Step 2: Success

```
cmake -B build -DENABLE_IPC=OFF -DBUILD_GUI=OFF -DWITH_QRENCODE=OFF
```

Step 3: Fails

```
cmake --build build
```

The default clang was from homebrew which also failed but then I switched to XCode clang and still fails :joy:

### Expec
...

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "wallet: Always rewrite tx records during migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32985#issuecomment-3461708059)
I'm assuming the PR description is referring to the changes `ReorderTransactions()` makes during `LoadWallet()`. If this is the case, these changes are persisted during `ReorderTransactions()`, so copying the records to the SQLite DB when we do `MigrateToSQLite` should already transfer the changes to the new DB. Why do we need to rewrite the TX records? What in-memory changes are we trying to persist to the new DB?

✅ pinheadmz closed a pull request: "chainparams: remove *petertodd.net"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33730)

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "chainparams: remove *petertodd.net":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33730#issuecomment-3461714689)
I'm closing this PR since it the author has not justified it with any technical explanation and as it is written it is just a personal attack, which violates moderation policy.

💬 kanzure commented on pull request "chainparams: remove dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes.us":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3461716939)
In the event that this DNS seed server is removed from the configuration, it's worth considering (or considering the effects of not) replacing it with another DNS seed node that implements a conservative strategy with regards to node versions. I also don't know if anyone has analyzed whether this heuristic has a protective or beneficial effect. Is there another seed that implements this behavior or is this the only one that publicly advertises that?

⚠️ glozow opened an issue: "dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes.us appears to be violating DNS seed policy"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33734)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [x] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

Bitcoin Core has a [DNS seed policy](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/dnsseed-policy.md).

There are concerns about @luke-jr's security practices and control over the server: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33723#issuecomment-3457730865

@luke-jr was hacked and posted on his [website](https://luke.dashjr.org/) that his server has been compromised. As of this morni
...

💬 00w1 commented on pull request "chainparams: remove *petertodd.net":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33730#issuecomment-3461781167)
> This PR description is unacceptable, please expand it with technical details or references to specific, documented project policy.

I have added the details.