💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "mining: fix -blockreservedweight shadows IPC option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33965#discussion_r2586171036)
In commit "mining: fix -blockreservedweight shadows IPC option" (4d686142e079765cd31851481deb70659a9e9376)

Note: I guess if it did timeout you would get a confusing server error about trying to call a method on a null capability, so this error should be clearer

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "mining: fix -blockreservedweight shadows IPC option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33965#discussion_r2586089447)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33965#discussion_r2582425482

Yes that makes sense. I completely agree `MiningArgs` in #33966 should not use `std::optional` and that PR is correctly applying `DEFAULT_BLOCK_RESERVED_WEIGHT` in one place at the `ArgsMan` level, not the mining interface level.

I just don't think the implementation of this PR should be muddled in anticipation of #33966 before `MiningArgs` is introduced. In this PR, it makes sense to apply `DEFAULT_BLOCK_RESERVED_WEI
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "mining: fix -blockreservedweight shadows IPC option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33965#discussion_r2586111251)
In commit "mining: fix -blockreservedweight shadows IPC option" (4d686142e079765cd31851481deb70659a9e9376)

Maybe update the comment to say this is being set to a high value to confirm that the -blockreservedweight option has no effect (IIUC). Current comment raises question of why the test is going out of its way to set an option that has no effect.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: use GCC 14.3.0 over 13.3.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33775#issuecomment-3608239216)
The non-determinism also goes away if you build with `_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2` instead of `_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3`. The difference there should be that the headers are using `__builtin_dynamic_object_size` in the `=3` case, instead of `__builtin_object_size`.

💬 romanz commented on pull request "rest: allow reading partial block data from storage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33657#discussion_r2586259538)
Looks good, thanks!
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f07c765aa6bdba2511ceec56aa7f9755fa29a81e..d2f4bccbf70031b84b6af1a6c8480c4b3071bfd7

💬 romanz commented on pull request "rest: allow reading partial block data from storage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33657#discussion_r2586262733)
Thanks!
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f07c765aa6bdba2511ceec56aa7f9755fa29a81e..d2f4bccbf70031b84b6af1a6c8480c4b3071bfd7

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "p2p: reduce false-positives in addr rate-limiting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33699#issuecomment-3608377779)
> Ignoring self-announcements seems to occur only in the time between our inbound peer (outbound from their perspective) 1) calling `SetupAddressRelay` when receiving version, and 2) receiving verack where it will set `fSuccessfullyConnected = true` and call `SendMessages` followed by `MaybeSendAddr`. The address entries are sent in order of insert, but then shuffled before processing since #22387 ([see rationale](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22387#discussion_r664238361)). If they wer
...

🤔 marcofleon reviewed a pull request: "Replace cluster linearization algorithm with SFL"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32545#pullrequestreview-3536407029)
Did a first pass of the changes in `cluster_linearize.h`, left a couple small comments. I'm running a few of the fuzz targets, including the new one, and I'll leave those going for a while.

Still need to look at the tests thoroughly. Let me know if there's anything specfic you think reviewers can do that would be useful.

💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "Replace cluster linearization algorithm with SFL":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32545#discussion_r2586214542)
```suggestion
SetInfo operator-(const SetInfo& other) const noexcept
```

💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "Replace cluster linearization algorithm with SFL":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32545#discussion_r2586249205)
nit: Is there a reason we recalculate here vs just using `chunk_rep` from the line above?

Also additional nit: The local `chunk_rep` is named the same as the function parameter and both are `TxIdx` I believe. Could be worth having different names?

👍 hodlinator approved a pull request: "rest: allow reading partial block data from storage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33657#pullrequestreview-3536580365)
re-ACK d2f4bccbf70031b84b6af1a6c8480c4b3071bfd7

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: replace manual promise with SyncWithValidationInterfaceQueue":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33962#discussion_r2586340053)
> in an `if` block above that doesn't do anything else now seemed unnecessary to me.

What the if-else block does is explained right after the `if`:

```cpp
if (auto mempool_tx = node.mempool->get(txid); mempool_tx) {
// There's already a transaction in the mempool with this txid.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "refactor: replace manual promise with SyncWithValidationInterfaceQueue":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33962#discussion_r2586371586)
Ah, there's another `if` above on line 66: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/9a29b2d331eed5b4cbd6922f63e397b68ff12447/src/node/transaction.cpp#L66

I had missed that, good catch. I see now what you mean.

Setting `callback_set` in the `else` block seems reasonable. This suggestion can be reverted: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33962#discussion_r2571218739.

💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "http: replace WorkQueue and single threads handling for ThreadPool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689#issuecomment-3608532244)
> I don’t think this is an issue. You’re just massively oversubscribing the CPU and lowering the timeout to the point where all the context switching triggers it. Switching to notify_all() only forces all workers awake on every submission, which masks the OS scheduler starvation you get in this kind of extreme setup.

I've been playing with the fuzz test and found that this fixes it for me:

```c++
ThreadPool g_pool{"fuzz"};
size_t g_num_workers = 3;
std::atomic<bool> g_pool_started{false
...

👍 sedited approved a pull request: "rest: allow reading partial block data from storage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33657#pullrequestreview-3536659569)
Re-ACK d2f4bccbf70031b84b6af1a6c8480c4b3071bfd7

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "wallet: don't consider unconfirmed TRUC coins with ancestors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33528#issuecomment-3608602721)
> Open/closed to re-run CI, and it seems to have the same issue.

Is it fixed now?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `maxfeerate` wallet startup option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#issuecomment-3608605508)
Could turn into draft, while ci is red?

💬 darosior commented on issue "ASN-based bucketing of the network nodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16599#issuecomment-3608666477)
Thanks for the data @virtu. I think it's important to make a compelling case that switching to ASmap by default won't lead to a degraded network that would take a long time to fix due to the slow take-up on new releases.

Regarding your minor concern, i previously [asked](https://btctranscripts.com/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2025-02/asmap) about this and got back that the half-life of a map should be around 5 years. So it should always be better than the current method. And i guess it's always possib
...

⚠️ Sreejitroy opened an issue: "Request to help mining two Nonstandard UTXO which fails cleanstack"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/34002)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

I have 2 anybody can spend UTXO which fails cleanstack validation which says non-mandatory script verify flag(Stack size must be exactly one after execution) for P2SH, the script passes consensus perfectly as top item is true but get problem here even if it ends with 2 elements gives the same error. Requesting you to at least make it 5 elements max on the stack .

### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.

_No re
...

💬 romanz commented on pull request "rest: allow reading partial block data from storage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33657#discussion_r2586531856)
Split into 3 commits:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d2f4bccbf70031b84b6af1a6c8480c4b3071bfd7..e6eb4a57df9f0379550358e4362729bfe5953007