💬 777genius commented on pull request "refactor: Remove redundant ternary operator in wallet HaveChain()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33835#issuecomment-3508667681)
Closing as this is a trivial one-line style change that doesn't provide clear benefit to warrant review effort. Per Bitcoin Core's CONTRIBUTING.md, 'Trivial pull requests may be immediately closed by the maintainers'. Will focus on more substantive contributions.

✅ 777genius closed a pull request: "refactor: Remove redundant ternary operator in wallet HaveChain()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33835)

💬 777genius commented on pull request "refactor: Remove redundant boolean comparisons across codebase":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33836#issuecomment-3508667766)
Closing as these are style-only changes across unrelated files without clear technical benefit. Per Bitcoin Core's guidelines, such changes should not be submitted as standalone PRs. Will focus on contributions with functional improvements.

✅ 777genius closed a pull request: "refactor: Remove redundant boolean comparisons across codebase"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33836)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: Remove redundant boolean comparisons in txgraph.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33834#issuecomment-3508671375)
Refactors are usually appreciated if they're a precursor to a bigger change with a generally desired outcome.
Doing changes just to satisfy Sonar or an IDE or an LLM without understanding the context is usually frowned upon - review takes up a lot of our time, it's hard to justify why we should spend it on checking subjective changes without an obvious advantage.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "validation: reduce persisted UTXO set size by prioritizing positive lookups (RFC)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33817#issuecomment-3508676223)
Thanks for the comments!
I'm still testing how this combines with other `LevelDB` options, and how it integrates with other changes such as https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132, which could benefit from faster reads (I'm getting mixed results on different systems for now), and how much memory is saved by skipping the filters (these are all really slow to measure reliably).
In the meantime please keep the conceptual reviews coming, appreciate the high-level context.

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "script: Remove dead nullptr check in VerifyScript"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33833)

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "refactor: Add missing include in util/result.h"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33832)

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "test: add case where `TOTAL_TRIES` is exceeded yet solution remains":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33701#discussion_r2508344842)
I like the idea, however the result returned is an error, not a result object. Therefore the error returned does not have a member `GetAlgoCompleted`. [Here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/ca1ce52a0f1eb9a9d73c21a64b76ef1276511e7d/src/wallet/coinselection.cpp#L517) is where the error is returned.

> It obviously doesn’t give a typed error enum(like the rust version), but I guess it is the best that can be done with the current C++ API without a larger refactor. ?

I'm not sure if it
...

💬 ecbrown commented on issue "guix: failure on Kubuntu 24-10: error: mount: mount "none" on "/tmp/guix-directory.VEMlin": Permission denied":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31202#issuecomment-3508996771)
In Ubuntu 26.04 LTS-alpha, I get permission denied on calling unshare. I have to add to /etc/sysctl.conf:

`
kernel.unprivileged_userns_clone=1
kernel.apparmor_restrict_unprivileged_userns=0
`

📝 glozow reopened a pull request: "net_processing: rename RelayTransaction to better describe what it does"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33565)
Rename `PeerManager::RelayTransaction()` to
`PeerManager::InitiateTxBroadcastToAll()`. The transaction is not relayed when the method returns. It is only scheduled for broadcasting at a later time. Also, there will be another method which only schedules for broadcast to Tor or I2P peers.

---

This is part of [#29415 Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415). Putting it in its own PR to reduce the size of #29415 an
...

⚠️ jaygta1989 opened an issue: "I am Satoshi"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33837)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

The quantum computer will be unveiled next year in Japan. Are you able to maintain and protect it now?

### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.

Quantum computers can destroy any digital wallet; other cryptocurrency wallets can also be cracked; banking system software can be cracked; and any online transaction system can be cracked.

### Describe the solution you'd like

_No response_

### Describe any alternat
...

⚠️ jaygta1989 opened an issue: "I am Satoshi Quantum computer coming in next year"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33838)
### Issues, reports or feature requests related to the GUI should be opened directly on the GUI repo

- [x] I still think this issue should be opened here

### Report

I am Satoshi i not Japan China UK US person I from Malaysia Real Name Chua Before helped me to written and replay code forum is halfinney, martti Miami and other Japan guy. It you don't believe can ask then . JAMES A DONALD is JPMorgan James dimon and him friend BlackRock larryfink know it him know my face before is kid 20 age

💬 frankomosh commented on pull request "doc: reference fuzz coverage steps in quick-start":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33536#discussion_r2508642020)
done. Thanks

💬 frankomosh commented on pull request "doc: reference fuzz coverage steps in quick-start":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33536#discussion_r2508643943)
I don't think they are super helpful. I just removed them in the new commit.

💬 danielabrozzoni commented on pull request "refactor: Header sync optimisations & simplifications":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32740#issuecomment-3509389963)
Thank you @hodlinator!

In my last push (184c54c):
- Push hodlinator's fix as a co-authored commit on top (I slightly changed the diff to align with the style of `HeadersGeneratorSetup`). I can squash the last two commits if that's preferred.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "refactor: Header sync optimisations & simplifications":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32740#issuecomment-3509899129)
> * Push hodlinator's fix as a co-authored commit on top (I slightly changed the diff to align with the style of `HeadersGeneratorSetup`). I can squash the last two commits if that's preferred.

Thanks for taking my change! Technically I think the repo policy is that every commit should build on all CI, see for example https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33785/commits/fae1d99651e29341e486a10e6340335c71a2144e which adds `const&` in the same change as disabling the errors, instead of doi
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "guix: build glibc with `--enable-static-pie`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33821#issuecomment-3510076340)
Looks like the error was:

```
...
The following derivations will be built:
/gnu/store/mv6c9hq3xpl208kwdj1akzy3md11fn8d-glibc-cross-riscv64-linux-gnu-2.31.drv
/gnu/store/q96z7xnxs4py883rasgyy6hxkcp11cdi-gcc-cross-riscv64-linux-gnu-13.3.0.drv
/gnu/store/ia37k6ramx87qg6vi2gffap5ikkzjhaj-riscv64-linux-gnu-toolchain-13.3.0.drv

building /gnu/store/mv6c9hq3xpl208kwdj1akzy3md11fn8d-glibc-cross-riscv64-linux-gnu-2.31.drv...
note: keeping build directory `/guix_temp_dir/guix-build-glibc-
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "malloc: Failed to allocate segment from range group - out of space":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33806#issuecomment-3510202526)
> Can somebody else reproduce this?

Does it only happen on macOS, or also on Linux?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "util: Allow `Assert` (et al.) in contexts without __func__":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33785#issuecomment-3510216185)
Is this rfm with 3 acks?