💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1253424884)
In 0f6c13665c4ab7d4928ff0fa63c4e755667f7fd6 "Amend bumpfee for inputs with overlapping ancestry"

`GetBumpFeeDiscount` is only used here. It doesn't seem like it's useful to require the caller to calculate the final bumpfee rather than having `SelectionResult` just do that when the the discount is applied and have a single method to return the bumpfees required for a particular selection.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1253427785)
In 0f6c13665c4ab7d4928ff0fa63c4e755667f7fd6 "Amend bumpfee for inputs with overlapping ancestry"

nit: this comment seems to be misplaced?

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "test: miner: add coverage for `-blockmintxfee` setting"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27620#pullrequestreview-1515040415)
reACK 7286efece4442c5afe4e19fa6a7d2420444c904c

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "test: cover addrv2 anchors by adding TorV3 to CAddress in messages.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27452#discussion_r1253443914)
oh sweet! awesome, i'll remove the socks5.py commit and apply this instead

💬 sipa commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#issuecomment-1622227095)
@ajtowns Yes, I don't think we have any requirement or even strong desire to go beyond ancestor-set-based linearization quality (= sufficient for single child pay for parent) in general, so anything beyond that would be "extra". Just trying ancestor sets of consecutive linearization elements (whenever their joint feerate is high enough) sounds sufficient to me, but I'm still wondering about:
* whether something simpler is possible that's equally good.
* whether there is a more general way to t
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "test: cover addrv2 anchors by adding TorV3 to CAddress in messages.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27452#discussion_r1253455657)
update: no longer needed

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1253447995)
In 232edb7e5d630d9d687ba3089aa4028f8e0380a4 " Bump unconfirmed parent txs to target feerate "

Not directly related to this PR, but it would be helpful to write a comment about how the second `COutput` constructor (beneath this one) is only used in tests.

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1235758654)
In 232edb7e5d630d9d687ba3089aa4028f8e0380a4 " Bump unconfirmed parent txs to target feerate "

Why was this added?

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1235753039)
It would be good to have a test for the application of ancestor bump fees with external pre-selected inputs.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "test: cover addrv2 anchors by adding TorV3 to CAddress in messages.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27452#discussion_r1253478816)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5531648075235328?logs=ci#L4421

Actually there is still a race condition there. I think the keep_alive is necessary for bitcoind to even acknowledge the blocks only peer exists. We can use debug log or getpeerinfo but seems like either way the socks proxy is closing too soon

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "net: call getaddrinfo() in detachable thread to prevent stalling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27557#discussion_r1253502850)
Yep you are absoutley right, I'll remove.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "net: call getaddrinfo() in detachable thread to prevent stalling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27557#discussion_r1253521412)
I added a log message but not sure what else to do. The problem is that `getaddrinfo()` is blocking and `getaddrinfo_a()` segfaults 😭 As long as the DNS request resolves *eventually* the thread will close, even if bitcoind has given up and detached the thread. If `getaddrinfo()` hangs forever then yes you're right that is a leak, but the user also has a serious networking issue.

💬 Brotcrunsher commented on pull request "DRAFT: Checking for multi/single-value types in UniValue.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27994#issuecomment-1622330328)
Closing. Although this might be valid, I currently lack the time to check this in detail. If I find the time to properly check it all, I might reopen it.

✅ Brotcrunsher closed a pull request: "DRAFT: Checking for multi/single-value types in UniValue."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27994)

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "wallet: Add wallet method to detect if a key is "active"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27216#issuecomment-1622332067)
> I don't mind the new field, but it's not correct to say users should be discouraged from using any key they import...

@luke-jr Fair point, I updated the OP (no code changes needed)

> legacy wallet support may be dropped in the next couple releases.

@jonatack It may take about that long for this PR to get merged anyway 🤣. So, I can remove the legacy stuff from this PR right now and only descriptor wallet users can enjoy the feature, OR, we can keep `isactive` in there for now and th
...

📝 kibnakamoto opened a pull request: "Gitignore auto-generated Secp256k1 files"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28032)
After syncing the repo and compiling, three new automatically generated files were not ignored by git.
```
src/secp256k1/src/libsecp256k1-config.h
src/secp256k1/src/libsecp256k1-config.h.in
src/secp256k1/src/stamp-h1
```
I added them to gitignore.

💬 kristapsk commented on pull request "Gitignore auto-generated Secp256k1 files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28032#issuecomment-1622387611)
I have even some more files after building.
```
Untracked files:
(use "git add <file>..." to include in what will be committed)
nodes_main.txt
seeds_main.txt
src/secp256k1/src/libsecp256k1-config.h
src/secp256k1/src/libsecp256k1-config.h.in
src/secp256k1/src/stamp-h1
src/univalue/build-aux/
src/univalue/test/no_nul
```

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Gitignore auto-generated Secp256k1 files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28032#issuecomment-1622390337)
These files are not generated anymore; they're probably from an earlier compilation before the secp256k1 subtree was updated to a version that no longer uses the config file.

👍 pinheadmz approved a pull request: "test: refactor: deduplicate legacy ECDSA signing for tx inputs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28025#pullrequestreview-1515259415)
ACK 5cf44275c8ca8c32d238f37f717d78e9823f44c2

Reviewed all code. Built and ran tests locally. Nice clean up!

Also - do you think we need a segwitV0 function like this as well? As far as I can grep there's only 2 such signing operations in `p2p_segwit.py` so maybe that's more work than its worth.

<details><summary>Show Signature</summary>

```
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

ACK 5cf44275c8ca8c32d238f37f717d78e9823f44c2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCAAdF
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "test: refactor: deduplicate legacy ECDSA signing for tx inputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28025#discussion_r1253580835)
Is it worth checking things like the input index exists and sighash is only one byte?