💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Cluster mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629#discussion_r2513201796)
Would extracting the txgraph for a cluster a reasonable thing for the RPC interface to support? Having all the info for a cluster available in one place, without having to find each tx's entry in getrawmempool's output seems like a nice-to-have. Can obviously be a followup.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Cluster mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629#discussion_r2513179750)
Wouldn't it be better to return the results by chunk instead of tx? eg:

```json
{
"vsize": 3500,
"txcount": 25,
"chunks": [
{
"chunk_fee": 0.00000143,
"chunk_vsize": 140,
"txs": [
"c2b9bd0493e4b919ee34710ed411144e5b296d2004434fd0f932b8f3bff93f74"
]
},
{
"chunk_fee": 0.00001001,
"chunk_vsize": 976,
"txs": [
"0ec3b21902ac9091311eb8e0db3533fb54990c6f9987adbc4015a0fc79136910",
"0dea2da2eaff995f546
...

💬 cobratbq commented on pull request "doc: update interface, --stdin flag, IPC-command signtx (#31005)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33765#discussion_r2515957358)
Makes sense. Will do.

💬 cobratbq commented on pull request "doc: update interface, --stdin flag, IPC-command signtx (#31005)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33765#discussion_r2515960152)
This is content that is written to stdout, thus piped to external-signer. This is not part of the commandline, such that a shell might interfere or otherwise preprocess. Thus quotes are passed on as any other byte. Consequently, probably better to mention this.

💬 cobratbq commented on pull request "doc: update interface, --stdin flag, IPC-command signtx (#31005)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33765#discussion_r2515963270)
Is your comment that the doc is wrong, or that you moved away from that solution long ago? I only recently got involved with this side of Bitcoin, so I am really only familiar with v27+.

I can drop the `signtransaction` shell command for the sake obsolescence regardless, but it would be nice to know.

💬 cobratbq commented on pull request "doc: update interface, --stdin flag, IPC-command signtx (#31005)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33765#issuecomment-3518901563)
> Good idea to update these docs.

Yes ... I was inspired by a certain https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31005#issuecomment-3144377397

💬 plebhash commented on issue "RFC: Cancelling waitNext calls in the IPC mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33575#issuecomment-3518915748)
hey @ryanofsky sorry for the delay

I compiled Bitcoin Core with the branch from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33676

then I removed the workarounds, saving the code here: https://github.com/plebhash/sv2-bitcoin-core/tree/2025-11-11-try-interrupt-await

I did some testing and everything seems to be working as expected... especially the usage of the new `interruptWait` interface, introduced by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33676

💬 rahmatshahfarooqee1122-dev commented on pull request "net, init: derive default onion port if a user specified a -port":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31223#issuecomment-3519083364)
Send me many from jalalabad Afghanistan all this account 257427052021105841

💬 rahmatshahfarooqee1122-dev commented on pull request "net, init: derive default onion port if a user specified a -port":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31223#issuecomment-3519084572)
257427052021105841

💬 kevkevinpal commented on issue "`test_kernel` fails to build on Ubuntu 22.04":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33846#issuecomment-3519093351)
> An alternative could be to use an lvalue. However, I am not sure if this is worth it:

I think it might make most sense to continue with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33842 and to bump the min version of g++ to 12 and above as you mentioned

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Cluster mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629#discussion_r2516214890)
> I don't think a virtual move assignment would actually help

Yeah. What about dropping it entirely? I think if the fuzz test is changed something like this:

```diff
--- a/src/test/fuzz/txgraph.cpp
+++ b/src/test/fuzz/txgraph.cpp
@@ -138,14 +138,14 @@ struct SimTxGraph
}

/** Add a new transaction to the simulation. */
- TxGraph::Ref* AddTransaction(const FeePerWeight& feerate)
+ TxGraph::Ref* AddTransaction(TxGraph::Ref&& ref, const FeePerWeight& feerate)
{

...

📝 frankomosh opened a pull request: "test: add unit test coverage for the empty leaves path in MerkleComputation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33858)
As noted in [#32243 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32243#issuecomment-2988854482), the early return inside `MerkleComputation` when `leaves.size() == 0` was only exercised by fuzz tests.

The existing `merkle_test_empty_block` calls `BlockMerkleRoot`, which uses `ComputeMerkleRoot`, but does not exercise the `TransactionMerklePath` → `ComputeMerklePath` → `MerkleComputation` code path.

Coverage before adding test:
<img width="2459" height="66" alt="before" src="https:
...

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Cluster mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629#discussion_r2516439828)
Fixed in 607b61c8b186

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Cluster mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629#discussion_r2516441074)
Done.

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Cluster mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629#discussion_r2516441785)
Done in da5ddd2002bfe46f56c45b260ebda226c2fd45ee

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Cluster mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629#discussion_r2516442549)
Done in da5ddd2002bf

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Cluster mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629#discussion_r2516444966)
Incorporated in 017b21286a30374fc8ed21c3b8b92239c6cff55a

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Cluster mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629#discussion_r2516450486)
Done, and I also fixed `feature_dbcrash.py`.

Note that in `wallet_basic.py`, the usage of `-limitancestorcount` does have an effect on how the wallet will select inputs when constructing transactions.

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Cluster mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629#discussion_r2516451323)
I took this change, thanks.

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "Cluster mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33629#discussion_r2516463003)
I think generally you know what the txid is already, either because you would have queried for the mempool entry by txid, or because in the output of `getrawmempool` the results are keyed on txid? Is there a situation where we'd output a mempool entry and the user wouldn't know the txid?