💬 epiccurious commented on issue "error: timeout on transient error: Could not connect to the server 127.0.0.1:8333 (error code 1 - "EOF reached")":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27121#issuecomment-1586134099)
Adding more context to this closed issue in case other people stumble on it too.

I was able to reproduce this error with a script running Bitcoin Core 25.0 and 24.0.1 (x86_64-linux-gnu on Ubuntu).

Steps to reproduce:
1. Delete the data directory.
2. Launch `bitcoin-qt --server`.
3. Immediately check the chain state with `bitcoin-qt getblockchaininfo`.

The RPC server doesn't have enough time to initialize, so the call to port 8333 fails.

Fixed the issue by using the rpcwait option:
`bitcoin-c
...

👍 andrewtoth approved a pull request: "rest: bugfix, fix crash error when calling `/deploymentinfo`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27853#pullrequestreview-1473702598)
ACK b550e9a12de97f4f682d1ed019dbc72f901dcbe5

💬 Ayush170-Future commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for `fees`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27647#discussion_r1225834088)
Yes, I agree that `fuzz/util/mempool.h` is not required here. I think we need to include `validation.h` for the `ActiveChainstate` method.

The reason this does not result in a compilation error is that 'fuzz/util/mempool.h' includes the 'validation.h' file.

📝 crparse opened a pull request: "Master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27855)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27855)

💬 crparse commented on pull request "Master":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27855#issuecomment-1586193703)
The MakeBlockInfoRecursive function is introduced, which serves as the entry point for creating the BlockInfo object recursively.

A helper function, GetPreviousHash, is defined to recursively obtain the previous hash. It takes a CBlockIndex pointer as a parameter and returns a const uint256*.

Inside MakeBlockInfoRecursive, the GetPreviousHash function is called to obtain the previous hash instead of using a ternary operator directly. The GetPreviousHash function handles the recursion to obtain
...

📝 crparse opened a pull request: "Made change in chain.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27856)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Made change in chain.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27856)

💬 kallerosenbaum commented on issue "Can't start bitcoin-qt by double-click on Debian 11":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/730#issuecomment-1586233045)
@MarcoFalke I just upgraded to Debian 12, and it works fine here. Good stuff.

💬 Giszmo commented on issue "Indefinite "Bitcoin Core is shutting down..."":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27848#issuecomment-1586235914)
If you tell me what to do, I'll do it here but your last comment only calls vague memories of using gdb 10 years ago.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "Add unit & functional test coverage for blockstore":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27850#discussion_r1225636430)
In 77bf6172:
nit: Could use the existent test params:
```suggestion
const auto& params = Params();
```

💬 furszy commented on pull request "Add unit & functional test coverage for blockstore":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27850#discussion_r1225864826)
Do you know why the node is flushing stuff to disk when nothing happened?

💬 mbed101 commented on issue "Indefinite "Bitcoin Core is shutting down..."":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27848#issuecomment-1586244842)
@Giszmo is it happening like this all the time? or is it random like sometimes only happening?

💬 mbed101 commented on issue "Indefinite "Bitcoin Core is shutting down..."":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27848#issuecomment-1586245678)
i think once you requested shutdown, the "CheckForStaleTipAndEvictPeers()" function should not be scheduled to happen because core is shutting down.. so stale tip checking should be stopped immediately after requesting shutdown

📝 pinheadmz converted_to_draft a pull request: "Add unit & functional test coverage for blockstore"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27850)
This PR adds unit and functional tests to cover the behavior described in #2039. In particular, that bitcoind will crash on startup if a reindex is requested but the `blk` files are read-only. Eventually this behavior can be updated with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039. This PR just commits the test coverage from #27039 as suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039#issuecomment-1584915782

🤔 fjahr reviewed a pull request: "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#pullrequestreview-1465458909)
Still gathering more context but leaving some first comments.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1225867669)
I understand the rationale, but it seems dangerous to skip validation steps in special cases because of expected checks happening later in another scope (that's how I understand it). Such things can lead to nasty errors down the line.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1219838215)
How about actually checking the result here?

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1225870352)
Kind of confusing and `grep` unfriendly that this test helper has the exact same name as that `Package` method. Maybe call it `TestAncestorPackage` or so?

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1225898875)
Just checking the last tx doesn't guarantee this alone. Maybe mention here that this works because subpackages are being evaluated by themselves as well?