👍 ismaelsadeeq approved a pull request: "fuzz: gate mempool entry based on weight"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33985#pullrequestreview-3530516004)
utACK 804329400a73df00dfd7a5209c659d4a22b9ce47

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "depends: Propagate native C compiler to `sqlite` package"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33995)
This PR:

1. Ensures that autosetup can build the local bootstrap `jimsh0` when neither `jimsh` nor `tclsh` is available on the system.

2. Removes the `tcl` package from the Guix manifest.

This is an alternative to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33975.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends, doc: Add `tcl` as build dependency for `sqlite` package":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33975#issuecomment-3602441211)
> Can we just pass the compiler through?

See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33995.

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "fuzz: gate mempool entry based on weight"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33985#pullrequestreview-3530571242)
utACK 804329400a73df00dfd7a5209c659d4a22b9ce47

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "integer overflow in FUZZ=package_rbf"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33981)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: gate mempool entry based on weight"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33985)

💬 Sjors commented on issue "Mining IPC `createNewBlock` should not return before IBD is over":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33994#issuecomment-3602538081)
Makes sense. We'll have to find another method of preventing a burst of new templates while the node churns through the last day worth of blocks.

The Template Provider client could simply wait 1 minute at startup if IBD was initially true and changed to false. In practice that only happens after the _node_ restarts (we wouldn't want to waste one minute each time the TP restarts).

💬 plebhash commented on issue "Mining IPC `createNewBlock` should not return before IBD is over":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33994#issuecomment-3602551596)
> Can you please provide the logs and setups accessible in a text file and not a discord link I think some people might not have discord.

yeah sorry I was in a hurry for the workshop, indeed pasting Discord links is not ideal

this is what @jbesraa said:
> I think handling IBD and other initialization aspects is critical when working in production env.
> As these two services need to set on the same machine you usually deploy them through the same "task" and I think they should wait for each o
...

💬 roconnor-blockstream commented on issue "Standardness policy rules for legacy Multisig script is incoherent":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33882#issuecomment-3602626488)
> I think I disagree with this -- we allow spends of fairly arbitrary p2sh scripts, but limit legacy spends to only a few known templates. That's a good thing because it reserves a lot of space for upgrade hooks, which have been used for p2sh, segwit and taproot.

One thing I suggested to @151henry151 was to not only limit the number of checksig operations but to require at least one checksig operation. Does that make you more comfortable?

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#issuecomment-3602628277)
re-ACK cb7d5bfe4a59d6034e3a77486cbd423e1a3bfa44

Confirmed the changes were addressing comments and a rebase.

💬 plebhash commented on issue "Mining IPC `createNewBlock` should not return before IBD is over":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33994#issuecomment-3602646676)
> `IsInitialBlockDownload()` is essentially this very conservative check. Only if you're really behind it'll say true.

how far behind? are we talking ~2, ~20 or ~200 blocks behind?

💬 sipa commented on issue "Mining IPC `createNewBlock` should not return before IBD is over":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33994#issuecomment-3602654786)
> how far behind? are we talking ~2, ~20 or ~200 blocks behind?

A day.

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "mining: add getCoinbase()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#pullrequestreview-3527399289)
Code review ACK 73553c809ef6517839c4d1b02b657e6fa401f8a8. I left some minor suggestions below but they are not important. Thanks for responding to all the previous ones.

AJ's bigger suggestions https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#issuecomment-3539952304 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#issuecomment-3545336207 definitely make a lot of sense to me, and would seem be a simpler & more future-proof direction to go in. They seem directionally compatible with this change, th
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "mining: add getCoinbase()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#discussion_r2581603580)
In commit "mining: add getCoinbase()" (73553c809ef6517839c4d1b02b657e6fa401f8a8)

Not important, but it would be nice if fields were extracted in same order they are declared: version, sequence, script_sig, etc.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "mining: add getCoinbase()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#discussion_r2581576868)
In commit "mining: add getCoinbase()" (73553c809ef6517839c4d1b02b657e6fa401f8a8)

Was it intentional not to include the "note deprecated: use getCoinbase()" comment on this method? Would be good to include if not.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "mining: add getCoinbase()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#discussion_r2579000680)
In commit "mining: add getCoinbase()" (73553c809ef6517839c4d1b02b657e6fa401f8a8)

Instead of having a warning here it would seem better to document the compatibility concern directly in the code generating the scriptsig. This way, a potentially breaking change would be obvious just looking at this code and not rely on noticing a warning elsewhere. Also it would seem more future-proof for IPC documentation to just say that the final scriptsig needs to be <= 100 bytes, instead of trying to guara
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "mining: add getCoinbase()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#discussion_r2581511244)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#discussion_r2514301870

> As a progression towards `getCoinbase` & deprecation, this implementation could internally also do what is suggested in the deprecation node: invoke `ExtractCoinbaseTemplate`, scan outputs for the SegWit marker, and return the index.

I don't see a clean way to get the index from ExtractCoinbaseTemplate, but even if there were, calling `GetWitnessCommitmentIndex` seems like the simplest implementation of this method.
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "mining: add getCoinbase()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#discussion_r2581564930)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#discussion_r2533740877

> I added documentation there, but we also need it here. The `output` field is not limited to `OP_RETURN`, that's just a heuristic used by `ExtractCoinbaseTemplate`.

Seem like with latest update, this comment is no longer accurate and should be removed? I guess still I don't understand why it would be important to document the outputs field in this function declaration instead of only in the struct definition, but may
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "mining: add getCoinbase()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#discussion_r2579049804)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#discussion_r2533690075


> The BIP says:
>
> > For backward compatibility, the `Hash(new commitment|witness reserved value)` will go to the coinbase witness, and the witness reserved value will be recorded in another location specified by the future softfork. Any number of new commitment could be added in this way.
>
> So we provide clients with the coinbase witness, which is not necessarily the "witness reserved value".

Wow, I see. S
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "mining: add getCoinbase()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#discussion_r2581390462)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33819#discussion_r2533772625

Thanks for spelling out the hypothetical here. The new comments are also nice and make intent more clear.