⚠️ gabriellina752-max opened an issue: "Hire the Best Crypto Recovery Experts for Fast Recovery in 2025 HIRE META TECH RECOVERY PRO"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33895)
I just wanted to share this review with everyone who can come across it. Everyone reading this on this platform, and a great thanks to the admin who made this medium a lively one, where everyone can share their opinions. I am Mrs. Gabriel Lina, from New York, United States, and a retired nurse. I was bedridden for 8 months to get back on my feet. During this period, I came across an ad with numerous positive reviews on a trading broker platform. I was very interested, so I decided to contact the
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "precalculate SipHash constant salt XORs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30442#issuecomment-3544671520)
ACK 89bbbbd257063118e6968c409e52632835b76ce8

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "precalculate SipHash constant salt XORs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30442#issuecomment-3544694241)
Seems to be a compile failure with clang:

```
/usr/bin/../lib64/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/15.2.1/../../../../include/c++/15.2.1/bits/hashtable_policy.h:1056:70: error: chosen constructor is explicit in copy-initialization
1056 | [[__no_unique_address__]] _Hashtable_ebo_helper<_Hash> _M_hash{};
| ^
/usr/bin/../lib64/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/15.2.1/../../../../include/c++/15.2.1/bits/hashtable_policy.h:1062:7: no
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "init: completely remove `-maxorphantx` option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33872#issuecomment-3544705489)
ACK 0aebdac95da9a7d476264424c0107bd806ce5362

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "init: completely remove `-maxorphantx` option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33872)

💬 yuvicc commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#issuecomment-3544786316)
Friendly ping @instagibbs @glozow! in [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#discussion_r2430443357), I think we are testing the prioritization feature so its fine if we use `invalidateblock` here. We would only want to replace `invalidateblock` during re-org testing to use fork based approach.

Why invalidateblock is OK here? It's just a test utility mechanism to quickly return a mined transaction to the mempool to verify prioritization settings persist.

Line 183 - 188:
...

💬 ajtowns commented on issue "Standardness policy rules for legacy Multisig script is incoherent":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33882#issuecomment-3544844062)
> Yeah, I meant to say "less than or equal to". However, AFAICT this inequality is only enforced in standardness, not solvability.

`Solver()` calls `MatchMultisig()` which invokes `num_keys = GetScriptNuymber(opcode, data, required_sigs, MAX_PUBKEYS_PER_MULTISIG)` which returns nullopt if the CScriptNum isn't minimal and between `required_sigs` and `MAX_PUBKEYS_..`, so I believe it's enforced in both places.

> Just to be clear, we cannot allow hybrid pubkeys to be processed by `CHECKMULTISIG`
...

💬 yuvicc commented on pull request "test: Fix reorg patterns in tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#issuecomment-3544897954)
Thanks @theStack, Fixed `create_empty_fork` in `mempool_updatefromblock.py` moving from second commit to first.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "ArgsManager: support subcommand-specific options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28802#discussion_r2536251389)
Placement doesn't matter, but I don't think moving closer to COMMANDS, REGISTER_COMMANDS or CLI_COMMANDS really makes sense -- COMMAND_OPTIONS relates to `argsman.AddCommand()` commands (used by bitcoin-wallet and bitcoin-util), which differ from `COMMANDS` (used by bitcoin-tx), `REGISTER_COMMANDS` (also used by bitcoin-tx), and `CLI_COMMANDS` (used by bitcoin-cli for its non-rpc commands, `-generate`, `-netinfo`, `-addrinfo`, `-getinfo`).

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "ArgsManager: support subcommand-specific options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28802#discussion_r2536254793)
It's a docstring, so shows up in the doxygen docs https://doxygen.bitcoincore.org/class_args_manager.html#ab71d531303f7e6fe3bbf67683a414a2e ; maybe it's not that useful, but doesn't seem worth removing outright

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "ArgsManager: support subcommand-specific options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28802#discussion_r2536256619)
It's looked up by the key in `CheckCommandOptions`, so sorting seems fine to me?

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "ArgsManager: support subcommand-specific options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28802#discussion_r2536272651)
`FormatParagraph()` only indenting when it sees a `\n` seems plausible for dealing with an indented continuation (ie, `"Hello " + FormatParagraph("world!\n", 79, 4)`) and the current behaviour is tested, so I'd rather not touch that.

💬 lovepamthailand1672538 commented on issue "[`v30.0rc3`]`bitcoin-node` aborts with mining IPC interface usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33554#issuecomment-3545028414)
bc1qnppvarg8f0gzcfhmytuky0l5ncc90e5kyuxl8q

💬 lovepamthailand1672538 commented on issue "`bitcoin-node` is unkillable after mining IPC connection is established":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33463#issuecomment-3545029569)
bc1qnppvarg8f0gzcfhmytuky0l5ncc90e5kyuxl8q

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "ArgsManager: support subcommand-specific options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28802#discussion_r2536361107)
Not currently, I think

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "ArgsManager: support subcommand-specific options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28802#discussion_r2536364679)
Added some unit test coverage

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "ArgsManager: support subcommand-specific options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28802#issuecomment-3545163344)
> If you can, I would appreciate adding slightly more context to the PR description and the commit messages.

Sorry, these seem completely self-explanatory to me, so I don't see what to add. Happy to answer questions or take suggestions though.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "mining: add getCoinbase()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#issuecomment-3545336207)
> Unless we overhaul the sv2 [NewTemplate message](https://stratumprotocol.org/specification/07-Template-Distribution-Protocol/#72-newtemplate-server-client) it doesn't help

Yes, I'm saying I think `NewTemplate` (and `CoinbaseOutputConstraints`) should be overhauled, to avoid sv2 software generating or modifying the coinbase, beyond adjusting the values in a reserved extranonce area of known/fixed size. (Parsing the coinbase tx is still necessary for the pool to determine whether to accept a
...

💬 yuvicc commented on pull request "kernel: Expose reusable `PrecomputedTransactionData` in script validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33891#issuecomment-3545630672)
Concept ACK

[Wrote](https://github.com/yuvicc/test-bitcoinkernel/blob/master/context_free.c) a small program to test `btck_PrecomputedTransactionData`.

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "precalculate SipHash constant salt XORs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30442)