💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: miner: add coverage for `-blockmintxfee` setting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27620#discussion_r1255855976)
Nice idea, done.

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: miner: add coverage for `-blockmintxfee` setting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27620#discussion_r1255856084)
Agree, done. Note that I had to trigger an UTXO set rescan for MiniWallet after restart, otherwise it would sometimes try to spend UTXOs from mempool transactions (which are now not available anymore).

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: miner: add coverage for `-blockmintxfee` setting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27620#discussion_r1255856373)
You're right. I think the "disabled" string originated from sloppily copy/pasting the test loop structure from mempool_dust.py. Replaced by "zero" now.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: miner: add coverage for `-blockmintxfee` setting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27620#discussion_r1255860737)
Ah good thinking!

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: miner: add coverage for `-blockmintxfee` setting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27620#discussion_r1255861498)
The idea was to check that in both RPC code-paths that result in assembling blocks (`generateto*` and `getblocktemplate`, AFAICT there aren't any others), the setting has the same effect. Happy to remove one of them though, if that's seen as redundant.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: miner: add coverage for `-blockmintxfee` setting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27620#discussion_r1255862835)
No need for this condition anymore
```suggestion
assert tx_below_min_feerate['txid'] not in block_template_txids
assert tx_below_min_feerate['txid'] not in block_txids
```

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: miner: add coverage for `-blockmintxfee` setting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27620#discussion_r1255865677)
Oh right, done 👌

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: miner: add coverage for `-blockmintxfee` setting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27620#discussion_r1255867530)
No need to remove, I was just wondering

💬 furszy commented on pull request "test: indexes, fix on error infinite loop":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28044#discussion_r1255877236)
pushed.

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "rfc: Nuke getblocks message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28045#issuecomment-1625470129)
I have a `-peerbloomfilters=1` node that receives a few `getblocks` messages per minute. The peers have `/BitcoinKit:0.1.0/`, /WalletKit:0.1.0/`, `/bread:2.1/` as user-agents.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: indexes, fix on error infinite loop":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28044#issuecomment-1625471588)
Nice, thank you.

lgtm ACK 4b405318d4c476351cccc30588f9126edd94cc35

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "rfc: Nuke getblocks message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28045#issuecomment-1625478134)
> I have a -peerbloomfilters=1 node that receives a few getblocks messages per minute.

Alright closing.

✅ dergoegge closed a pull request: "rfc: Nuke getblocks message"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28045)

💬 theuni commented on pull request "wallet: don't include bdb files from our headers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28039#discussion_r1255896389)
Nice catch. Fixed.

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "wallet: don't include bdb files from our headers"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28039#pullrequestreview-1519034588)
ACK 8b5397c00e821d7eaab22f512e9d71a1a0392ebf

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "rfc: Nuke getblocks message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28045#issuecomment-1625488424)
It may be good to add basic tests for this feature, otherwise the risk is that it will break eventually and no one noticing for a long time, since there are only few users and existing nodes will continue to reply to messages for the time they are still running?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "wallet: address book migration bug fixes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28038#issuecomment-1625494895)
@achow101 do you want these backported for 25.1?

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "Rebased cmake-staging branch (post PR#15)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28046)
This is the [cmake-staging](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/tree/cmake-staging) branch rebased on the recent [bitcoin/master](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/d908877c4774c2456eed09167a5f382758e4a8a6) one with squashed "FIXUP" commits.

Rebase phase: [`cmake-staging/pr16-init`](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/commits/cmake-staging/pr16-init) --> [`cmake-staging/pr16-rebased`](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/commits/cmake-staging/pr16-rebased).

Squash phase: [`cmake-staging
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "test: Add unit & functional test coverage for blockstore":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27850#issuecomment-1625497339)
> 🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and [needs rebase](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#rebasing-changes).

Thanks handsome bot! 🍦

💬 theuni commented on pull request "wallet: don't include bdb files from our headers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28039#issuecomment-1625499989)
@hebasto I'm ~0 on doing either/none of those changes. Happy to make a change if you or @achow101 or @MarcoFalke have a strong preference, otherwise I'll leave it as-is.