🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "refactor: remove dead branches in `SingletonClusterImpl`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33768)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Add fast IWYU job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33810#discussion_r2502764382)
I think both CI tasks should use the same config (`debian:trixie`). Otherwise, if someone tries to reproduce the CI config, they two configs will contradict each other, which doesn't seem helpful?

Also, I find it confusing that one CI task is printing the iwyu errors and the other is printing the warnings. What is the goal here? It seems clearer to just print the errors and warnings in one task, like it was done before.

As mentioned previously, iwyu takes 9 minutes (https://github.com/bit
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: add cmake help option in Windows build docs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33789)

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-3501908260)
`ada059e714...e5e16de7b5`: do https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2501363004 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2493783865

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2502844387)
Added.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2502847950)
Extended the test with the above to cover the case where the transaction is already in the mempool.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Add fast IWYU job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33810#issuecomment-3501942613)
> providing convenient feedback to developers.

How can we improve the quality of the feedback (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33779#issuecomment-3496969502)? Getting it faster is nice, but if it can't be taken and applied directly without fixing the sorting, and the formatting, and in the worse case, changing headers entirely for `modernize-deprecated-headers`, then it doesn't seem that much more useful.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "fuzz: avoid returning non-conforming results from FuzzedSock::GetSockName()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32109)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "fuzz: avoid returning non-conforming results from FuzzedSock::GetSockName()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32109#issuecomment-3501954989)
Closing for now, as there doesn't seem to be agreement to do this. Any discussion can continue.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: move create_malleated_version() to messages.py for reuse"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33793)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Changing the rpcbind argument being ignored to a pop up warning, inst…":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33813#issuecomment-3501963024)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/19159736145/job/54788142845?pr=33813#step:5:171:
```bash
Duplicate include(s) in src/httpserver.cpp:
#include <node/interface_ui.h>
```

Can you also shorten the length of the commit title, and add a proper `prefix:`.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Add fast IWYU job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33810#issuecomment-3502001970)
> but if it can't be taken and applied directly without fixing the sorting, and the formatting, and in the worse case, changing headers entirely for `modernize-deprecated-headers`, then it doesn't seem that much more useful.

I disagree. In practice, when a developer works on changes that modify includes, the diff in the includes would typically be just a few lines. Using the diff from the CI job as a hint seems entirely reasonable. I don’t see a strong need to increase the script’s complexity
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Add fast IWYU job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33810#discussion_r2502986634)
Reworked into a single job.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on issue "Header-only support for waitNext()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33756#issuecomment-3502079264)
> I'd like to expand the `waitNext()` Mining IPC function to optionally (via `BlockWaitOptions`) return an (empty) new template as soon as we have a header with sufficient proof-of-work, pending block download and/or validation.

Why? you should expand on the motivations behind this and what exactly you aim to achieve with this feature.

> I suspect there’s little benefit if compact block reconstruction succeeds. And, if I understand correctly, we hold `cs_main` during this process anyway, so th
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: remove obsolete `get_{key,multisig}` helpers from wallet_util.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33782)

⚠️ alejandrothugs9119 opened an issue: "alexminer"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33815)
https://github.com/decoded-cipher/Colab-Crypto-Mining/commit/7dae0fdccaf4a39583cc0e3ccc7cdf1bf8c5c3c1

👍 maflcko approved a pull request: "ci: Add fast IWYU job"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33810#pullrequestreview-3433404478)
lgtm. Seems fine

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Add fast IWYU job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33810#discussion_r2503088962)
```suggestion
# Don't apply patches in the iwyu job, because it relies on the `git diff`
```

nit, if you re-touch

💬 maflcko commented on issue "alexminer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33815#issuecomment-3502188798)
@willcl-ark @pinheadmz Probably off-topic here, but I am thinking about just having those spam issues be auto-closed and locked by @DrahtBot . Any thoughts?

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "alexminer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33815#issuecomment-3502204812)
@maflcko yes ACK to that... can the bot edit title and description to null as well? (Will and I don't have permission)

Bot has been doing great with these heuristics auto closes. I just stroll by later and block the account if its total nonsense