💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "contrib: verify torrents with verify-binary.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27762#issuecomment-1583277887)
OK I implemented as you suggested @Sjors. It does seem like a win to get more signatures on balance.

If people feel the approach is OK, and that it belongs in this PR (and not it's own), I can probably tidy it up further as theres still some duplicated code which can probably be factored out.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "[POLICY] Ephemeral anchors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26403#discussion_r1223507389)
needs to return a code like `TX_LOW_FEE` from bip331 post-rebase

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "[POLICY] Ephemeral anchors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26403#discussion_r1223508972)
should return code like `TX_LOW_FEE` re:BIP331 to avoid blinding relay of an otherwise valid parent

📝 bufo24 opened a pull request: "contrib: docs fix --import-keys flag on verify.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27840)
When trying to run `./contrib/verify-binaries/verify.py` with the --import-keys flag, I figured that there was a little mistake in the docs. It stated that the `--import-keys` flag has to be provided after the arguments, instead of before. It was stated correctly in the rest of the README, but not in this particular case.

I tested this on macOS 13.4 as well as on Debian 10.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "Return EXIT_FAILURE on post-init fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27708#issuecomment-1583329813)
Reworked the diff a bit more [check](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b0267f23b1cb732693c485e9b242ff3b004804bd..500d3e901c146e3a2f6ef04456c53fe3a5302c11).

It's because `AppInit` can return true without initializing the shutdown pipe. e.g. when the user starts bitcoind with a `-h` or `-version`. Which leads to an assertion error at the `WaitForShutdown` call.

Probably we should refactor `AppInit` in the future, I liked where you were going.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Fee estimation: avoid serving stale fee estimate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27622#discussion_r1223602575)
I agree, fixed it.

⚠️ hazeycode opened an issue: "Stuck chainstate when utxo_snapshot.sh fails"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27841)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

IBD/chainstate gets stuck if utxo_snapshot.sh fails. No new blocks are downloaded. Restarting bitcoind does not help. Reindex is required to repair.

utxo_snapshot.sh output:
```
Rewinding chain back to height 788440 (by invalidating 000000000000000000052ac0ce9b8f1a2e7691771e6386f770432c9443dc2af7); this may take a while
Generating UTXO snapshot...
error code: -8
error message:
/ho
...

💬 hazeycode commented on pull request "assumeutxo (2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27596#issuecomment-1583637570)
Related issue https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27841

💬 hazeycode commented on issue "Stuck chainstate when utxo_snapshot.sh fails":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27841#issuecomment-1583653267)
Another way to repair is to run another snapshot at an earlier height.

👍 willcl-ark approved a pull request: "Fee estimation: avoid serving stale fee estimate"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27622#pullrequestreview-1471390869)
re-ACK efe5f373e1

Changes look good. Left a nit not to be addressed unless you re-touch :)

I also checked how much time the new tests were adding to feature_fee_estimation.py, as this is often one of the longest-running tests on my machine. It looks like it's <=1second, so that seems fine.

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Fee estimation: avoid serving stale fee estimate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27622#discussion_r1223942269)
clarity nit:

```suggestion
/** fee_estimates.dat that are more than 60 hours (2.5 days) will not be read,
```

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "contrib: docs fix --import-keys flag on verify.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27840#issuecomment-1584128546)
ACK ceb0168

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "doc: Clarify -datacarriersize, add -datacarriersize=2 tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27832#issuecomment-1584130903)
Rebased for green CI

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "p2p: Stop relaying non-mempool txs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27625#issuecomment-1584131245)
Rebased for green CI

⚠️ Dadudidas opened an issue: "Yeah, good point. I'll do a follow-up on this since it's out of scope for the already large change."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27842)
Yeah, good point. I'll do a follow-up on this since it's out of scope for the already large change.

_Originally posted by @jamesob in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24232#discussion_r923829116_

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Yeah, good point. I'll do a follow-up on this since it's out of scope for the already large change.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27842#issuecomment-1584164568)
Please try and open clear and descriptive issues, not like this.

If you want to open an issue that `PopulateAndValidateSnapshot()` should be better documented, then please feel free.

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "Yeah, good point. I'll do a follow-up on this since it's out of scope for the already large change."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27842)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "contrib: verify torrents with verify-binary.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27762#issuecomment-1584214045)
looks like the linter failed?

👋 willcl-ark's pull request is ready for review: "init: deduplicate added connections"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27804)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Yeah, good point. I'll do a follow-up on this since it's out of scope for the already large change."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27842)