🚀 hebasto merged a pull request: "Remove HD seed reference from blank wallet tooltip"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/908)
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/908)
👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "Added test coverage for qt gui#901 console history filter"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/910#pullrequestreview-3480059403)
ACK 310e4979b36cbcf1e9e01dd90c14e2e9997343a0, tested on Fedora 42 by reverting 4e352efa2ce756c668664486c99d003eef530e0c.
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/910#pullrequestreview-3480059403)
ACK 310e4979b36cbcf1e9e01dd90c14e2e9997343a0, tested on Fedora 42 by reverting 4e352efa2ce756c668664486c99d003eef530e0c.
🚀 hebasto merged a pull request: "Added test coverage for qt gui#901 console history filter"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/910)
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/910)
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test, refactor: Embedded ASMap [1/3]: Selected minor preparatory work":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33026#discussion_r2539937445)
I will address this if I have to retouch
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33026#discussion_r2539937445)
I will address this if I have to retouch
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "rpcconsole: display signet challenge":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/896#issuecomment-3549873074)
@RandyMcMillan
The PR description is currently empty. Could you please add the motivation for this change, along with a few example use cases?
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/896#issuecomment-3549873074)
@RandyMcMillan
The PR description is currently empty. Could you please add the motivation for this change, along with a few example use cases?
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Add console commands for clearing output and history":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/882#issuecomment-3549889257)
From https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/897#issuecomment-3335194642, it appears that this PR is intended to address https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/897.
Is this right?
If so, is this change still necessary given that https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/897 has since been closed?
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/882#issuecomment-3549889257)
From https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/897#issuecomment-3335194642, it appears that this PR is intended to address https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/897.
Is this right?
If so, is this change still necessary given that https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/897 has since been closed?
📝 w0xlt opened a pull request: "kernel: add context‑free block validation API (`btck_check_block_context_free`) with POW/Merkle flags"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33908)
This PR exposes Bitcoin Core’s context‑free block checks to library users via a new C API entry point, `btck_check_block_context_free`.
Callers can validate a block’s structure (size/weight, coinbase rules, per‑tx context‑free checks) and optionally re‑run Proof‑of‑Work and Merkle‑root verification without touching chainstate, the block index, or the UTXO set.
Rationale
Clients embedding the kernel need a pure block sanity check without requiring node state or disk writes (candidate blo
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33908)
This PR exposes Bitcoin Core’s context‑free block checks to library users via a new C API entry point, `btck_check_block_context_free`.
Callers can validate a block’s structure (size/weight, coinbase rules, per‑tx context‑free checks) and optionally re‑run Proof‑of‑Work and Merkle‑root verification without touching chainstate, the block index, or the UTXO set.
Rationale
Clients embedding the kernel need a pure block sanity check without requiring node state or disk writes (candidate blo
...
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Prevent re-execution of sensitive commands from console history":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/909#issuecomment-3549895592)
Please rebase.
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/909#issuecomment-3549895592)
Please rebase.
💬 kallewoof commented on pull request "BIP-322 basic support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24058#issuecomment-3549901786)
If no one is actively looking into this at the moment, I will see about restoring (probably rewriting from scratch) this PR.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24058#issuecomment-3549901786)
If no one is actively looking into this at the moment, I will see about restoring (probably rewriting from scratch) this PR.
💬 waketraindev commented on pull request "Add console commands for clearing output and history":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/882#issuecomment-3549905223)
> From [#897 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/897#issuecomment-3335194642), it appears that this PR is intended to address #897.
>
> Is this right?
>
> If so, is this change still necessary given that #897 has since been closed?
Hey,
I closed the issue because I have this PR open. I find the ability to clear input history necessary and I use it all the time in my builds.
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/882#issuecomment-3549905223)
> From [#897 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/897#issuecomment-3335194642), it appears that this PR is intended to address #897.
>
> Is this right?
>
> If so, is this change still necessary given that #897 has since been closed?
Hey,
I closed the issue because I have this PR open. I find the ability to clear input history necessary and I use it all the time in my builds.
💬 waketraindev commented on pull request "Prevent re-execution of sensitive commands from console history":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/909#issuecomment-3549922600)
> Please rebase.
Rebased on top of master
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/909#issuecomment-3549922600)
> Please rebase.
Rebased on top of master
✅ hebasto closed a pull request: "Dialog for allowing the user to choose the change output when bumping a tx"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/700)
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/700)
📝 hebasto reopened a pull request: "Dialog for allowing the user to choose the change output when bumping a tx"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/700)
Based on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26467
Implements a GUI dialog for allowing the user to choose the output to reduce when bumping a transaction. This adds the functionality that was added to the RPC.
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/700)
Based on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26467
Implements a GUI dialog for allowing the user to choose the output to reduce when bumping a transaction. This adds the functionality that was added to the RPC.
💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2539959279)
The last part fails for me intermittently when I run it locally:
```
2025-11-18T23:32:22.558603Z TestFramework (INFO): Trying to send a transaction when none of Tor or I2P is reachable
2025-11-18T23:32:22.559372Z TestFramework.socks5 (ERROR): socks5 request handling failed.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "XXX/29415_tor_tx/test/functional/test_framework/socks5.py", line 139, in handle
ver = recvall(self.conn, 1)[0]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "XXX/29415_tor_tx/t
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2539959279)
The last part fails for me intermittently when I run it locally:
```
2025-11-18T23:32:22.558603Z TestFramework (INFO): Trying to send a transaction when none of Tor or I2P is reachable
2025-11-18T23:32:22.559372Z TestFramework.socks5 (ERROR): socks5 request handling failed.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "XXX/29415_tor_tx/test/functional/test_framework/socks5.py", line 139, in handle
ver = recvall(self.conn, 1)[0]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "XXX/29415_tor_tx/t
...
💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2539928309)
I wonder if this logic could be made more modular/generic, with parts of it being in the test framework instead of just this file.
It seems very useful in general to have functionality that will let the node make actual automatic connections with the possibility to redirect them to `P2PInterface()` or `P2PDataStore()` objects depending on the test, so that we don't have to actively call `add_outbound_p2p_connection` but let the node handle it itself.
For example I am currently working on a
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2539928309)
I wonder if this logic could be made more modular/generic, with parts of it being in the test framework instead of just this file.
It seems very useful in general to have functionality that will let the node make actual automatic connections with the possibility to redirect them to `P2PInterface()` or `P2PDataStore()` objects depending on the test, so that we don't have to actively call `add_outbound_p2p_connection` but let the node handle it itself.
For example I am currently working on a
...
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test, refactor: Embedded ASMap [1/3]: Selected minor preparatory work":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33026#issuecomment-3549949721)
> I think the `AutoFile::size` implementation and the subsequent refactoring would fit better in their own dedicated refactoring PR, or in a PR where they're actually required. They don't seem to be needed by either of the other two commits (the `LogWarning` change in `asmap.cpp` or the newly added test vectors in `netbase_tests.cpp`).
Most of our refactoring commits are not "actually required", strictly speaking. We still do them for a variety of reasons. In this case, I was working on the a
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33026#issuecomment-3549949721)
> I think the `AutoFile::size` implementation and the subsequent refactoring would fit better in their own dedicated refactoring PR, or in a PR where they're actually required. They don't seem to be needed by either of the other two commits (the `LogWarning` change in `asmap.cpp` or the newly added test vectors in `netbase_tests.cpp`).
Most of our refactoring commits are not "actually required", strictly speaking. We still do them for a variety of reasons. In this case, I was working on the a
...
💬 hebasto commented on issue "Bitcoin Core-[test] : Text overflows during the sync process.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/847#issuecomment-3549973100)
> The text showing the status of progress during the inital sync process overflows on Bitcoin Core
Does increasing the Bitcoin Core window size help?
> Bitcoin Core version v27.0.0
Did you try the latest [release](https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/)?
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/847#issuecomment-3549973100)
> The text showing the status of progress during the inital sync process overflows on Bitcoin Core
Does increasing the Bitcoin Core window size help?
> Bitcoin Core version v27.0.0
Did you try the latest [release](https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/)?
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor, docs: Embedded ASMap [2/3]: Refactor asmap internals and add documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#issuecomment-3549979018)
> > The first three PRs were already part of #28792, the others are new.
>
> i'm sure you mean the first three _commits_? 😄
Yepp, fixed :)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#issuecomment-3549979018)
> > The first three PRs were already part of #28792, the others are new.
>
> i'm sure you mean the first three _commits_? 😄
Yepp, fixed :)
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor, docs: Embedded ASMap [2/3]: Refactor asmap internals and add documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2540013317)
The commit is here because this PR depends on #33026 and the commit is coming from there, so the discussion on these commits should be held there. I just responded there, so marking this as resolved here.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2540013317)
The commit is here because this PR depends on #33026 and the commit is coming from there, so the discussion on these commits should be held there. I just responded there, so marking this as resolved here.
🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "kernel: Expose reusable `PrecomputedTransactionData` in script validation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33891#pullrequestreview-3480249411)
Concept ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33891#pullrequestreview-3480249411)
Concept ACK