📝 willcl-ark reopened a pull request: "Clear out space on CentOS, depends, gui GHA job"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33514)
Fixes #33293

Clear out space on jobs running on GHA by deleteing unnecessary files.

Raised in #33293 which pointed to a solution like https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/commit/b7f04d782277638a67bc44865de445977eed4708 which is adapted slightly here.

Only runs when cache provider (runner) is `gha`.

~~A run on my fork can be seen here: https://github.com/willcl-ark/bitcoin/actions/runs/18130629028/job/51596196163#step:6:2~~

A run applying to all jobs when using GHA can be seen here:
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Clear out space on CentOS, depends, gui GHA job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33514#issuecomment-3559986128)
> Hitting this again on my and @TheCharlatan's fork: [m3dwards/bitcoin/actions/runs/19539048875/job/55940226257](https://github.com/m3dwards/bitcoin/actions/runs/19539048875/job/55940226257)

Re-opening based on above report, can close again if someone else has another approach they would prefer.

💬 Christewart commented on pull request "Relax standardness rules regarding CHECKMULTISIG":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33755#issuecomment-3560024890)
> It would be good to add a test case that demonstrates scriptPubKeys of this form (baremultisig and possible multisig in p2sh, with valid key push prior to invalid key) are spendable.

Hi AJ, are these the test vectors you had in mind?

```
[
"0 0x47 0x3044022044dc17b0887c161bb67ba9635bf758735bdde503e4b0a0987f587f14a4e1143d022009a215772d49a85dae40d8ca03955af26ad3978a0ff965faa12915e9586249a501",
"1 0 0x21 0x02865c40293a680cb9c020e7b1e106d8c1916d3cef99aa431a56d253e69256dac0 2 CHEC
...

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "test: Retry download in get_previous_releases.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33915#pullrequestreview-3489961023)
ACK fad06f3bb436a97683e8248bfda1bd0d9998c899

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "clang-format: Set PackConstructorInitializers: CurrentLine"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33912#pullrequestreview-3489975713)
ACK fad0c76d0a109ab7b063f0d405588cf1e6c15e4d

💬 maflcko commented on issue "RFC: Do we want to support fuzzing on MacOS?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33731#issuecomment-3560092109)
> > a dev with the latest macOS can just update the docs
>
> Should I revive [#32084](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32084)?

I think you found that it doesn't work reliably. If there truly is no single way to get fuzzing to work fully reliably on macOS, it seems best to remove the docs temporarily.

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "ci: Run GUI unit tests in cross-Windows task"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33919)
Most users of the cross-compiled releases for Windows will most likely pick the GUI, so running the cross-compiled GUI unit tests on a real Windows seems desirable.

💬 l0rinc commented on issue "RFC: Do we want to support fuzzing on MacOS?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33731#issuecomment-3560177532)
Fuzzing works, I just have to disable the sanitizers, since they disable exception support - and the fuzzer halts at the very first throw.

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "clang-format: Set PackConstructorInitializers: CurrentLine"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33912#pullrequestreview-3490063992)
ACK fad0c76d0a109ab7b063f0d405588cf1e6c15e4d.

🚀 hebasto merged a pull request: "clang-format: Set PackConstructorInitializers: CurrentLine"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33912)

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "docs: clarify RPC credentials security boundary":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33196#discussion_r2547793630)
I think the existing docs make it pretty clear that other processes/users with access to the machine can comprise the node, but I think what is not obvious in the existing docs is that the other direction is true as well, someone with RPC access can probably compromise the machine the `bitcoind` node is running on.

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "log: avoid collecting `GetSerializeSize` data when compact block logging is disabled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33738#issuecomment-3560241264)
crACK 10e0e96e703a40b298b8

Lightly tested running on mainnet, logs for receiving look good:

```
2025-11-20T21:56:39.778340Z [cmpctblock] Successfully reconstructed block 000000000000000000004152f92a1ec0a2f2e4356264001b11361f35247f641d with 1 txn prefilled, 3940 txn from mempool (incl at least 6 from extra pool) and 141 txn (64021 bytes) requested
```

Haven't received a `GETBLOCKTXN` request yet.

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#pullrequestreview-3490160325)
Code Review ACK 55c6a69f777ac08a14e61b98efea00e5c8f98a5f

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Run GUI unit tests in cross-Windows task":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33919#issuecomment-3560370955)
Hmm, the CI did not fail, but I also do not see the expected output `********* Start testing of AppTests *********...` etc, so I am not sure if everything worked here.

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "argsman, cli: GNU-style command-line option parsing (allows options after non-option arguments)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33540#pullrequestreview-3490254189)
This command works on master but not in this PR:
`./build/bin/bitcoin-cli --datadir=/tmp/btc1 --signet getblockhash 1000`

Could it be related to GetCommandArgs()?

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "test: spurious failure in p2p_leak_tx.py --v1transport":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33090#issuecomment-3560395768)
I think this can be closed after merge of #3312. Even though (as discussed there) the test can still fail with a very low probability, the fix should have lowered this probability more.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "RFC: Do we want to support fuzzing on MacOS?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33731#issuecomment-3560406701)
If `--preset=libfuzzer-nosan` is the only thing that works reliably, then only that should be mentioned. And possibly mention the option to reproduce existing fuzz inputs with a sanitizer, without libfuzzer.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends, doc: Learn `x86_64-w64-mingw32ucrt` host and document it":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33857#discussion_r2547912404)
Thanks! Dropped.

💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "net: Provide block templates to peers on request":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33191#discussion_r2547912908)
It could also be done with standard txns: if there are 25 txn's each 320KWU, it's also not possible to split.

I guess I'm wondering how this protocol should handle not being able to split an 8MWU template into two chunks? It could split it into three or give up if these witness-heavy cases are pathological.

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "test: spurious failure in p2p_leak_tx.py --v1transport"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33090)