💬 ItIsOHM commented on pull request "[WIP] rpc: doc: Added `longpollid` and `data` params to `template_request` #27998":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28056#issuecomment-1627802501)
> This doesn't compile. Ideally, you compile and test any changes locally before opening a pull request.

Hey so I was trying to build it after adding the changes you suggested, but i'm getting this error in VS, as I'm building on Windows 11. Can you please help what this means?

I followed [this](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/build_msvc/README.md) guide and opened `bitcoin.s
...

💬 sipa commented on pull request "[WIP] rpc: doc: Added `longpollid` and `data` params to `template_request` #27998":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28056#issuecomment-1627806159)
I strongly recommend not building in Windows/MSVC, as it's a venture on its own to get that to work. In a Linux VM, or WSL2, it should be fairly straightforward.

💬 ItIsOHM commented on pull request "[WIP] rpc: doc: Added `longpollid` and `data` params to `template_request` #27998":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28056#issuecomment-1627807815)
> I strongly recommend not building in Windows/MSVC, as it's a venture on its own to get that to work. In a Linux VM, or WSL2, it should be fairly straightforward.

Ohh I see! Then I'll install WSL2 and try building it from there. I suppose [this](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/build-windows.md) guide should be enough to get it working?

💬 techy2 commented on pull request "fix: delay in TimeOffset applied to AdjustedTime caused by send/receive message queues, correct pointer alignment issue":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28010#issuecomment-1627833757)
Hola Marco
Sorry, I've been away for a while. Please continue discussion as required

📝 Dindin1992 opened a pull request: "Dindin"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28058)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

✅ Dindin1992 closed a pull request: "Dindin"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28058)

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "Dindin"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28058)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

💬 denavila commented on pull request "wallet: Deniability API (Unilateral Transaction Meta-Privacy)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27792#issuecomment-1628080840)
Hi @ishaanam and thank you for looking at my PR.
I do agree the implementation can be improved and your feedback helps me greatly.

Here are my thoughts regarding your concerns:
1) I thought about this problem too and indeed spending deniabilized outputs is somewhat challenging.
Obviously, if the user just HODLs, or spends less than a deniabilized UTXO, then all is good.
However if they spend larger amounts, more than one UTXOs would get picked up and that would reveal that they belong
...

🤔 www222fff reviewed a pull request: "test: Ignore UTF-8 errors in assert_debug_log"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28035#pullrequestreview-1521251349)
Does this fix applied to both version for python2 and python3?

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "refactor: Make more transaction size variables `int32_t`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28059)
This PR is a continuation of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23962.

It gets rid of two static casts and is useful for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25972, see the failed ARM and multiprocess CI jobs.

📝 hebasto converted_to_draft a pull request: "refactor: Make more transaction size variables `int32_t`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28059)
This PR is a continuation of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23962.

It gets rid of two static casts and is useful for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25972, see the failed ARM and multiprocess CI jobs.

💬 S3RK commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1257771285)
ah, yes, you're right

👋 hebasto's pull request is ready for review: "refactor: Make more transaction size variables `int32_t`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28059)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: Make more transaction size variables `int32_t`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28059#issuecomment-1628328861)
Not sure. The other types are 64 bit, so this will overflow eventually

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "fuzz: Modify tx_pool_standard target to test package processing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25778#issuecomment-1628332846)
Closing for now. Maybe this can be picked up as part of one of the package relay PRs.

✅ MarcoFalke closed a pull request: "fuzz: Modify tx_pool_standard target to test package processing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25778)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: make assumeUTXO test capture the expected fatal error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28050#issuecomment-1628345098)
Also it may be good to name the commit that introduced the bug. Otherwise it will be harder for reviewers to see if there was a bug in that commit or if the change was intentional. Also, reviewers will be missing context.

💬 russeree commented on pull request "Enhanced error messages for invalid network prefix during address parsing.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27260#discussion_r1257799964)
8f2e548f6276386c27a60336cf12665d5e316fb7 solves this via the addition of a function to deterministically calculate the range set of encoded base58 prefixes that result from a version byte(s). The requirements are the length of bytes that are encoded and the desired prefix bytes as a vector.

As a side note thanks for suggesting this a review item, it was quite a fun problem to think about and implement a solution for.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/8f2e548f6276386c27a60336cf12665d
...

💬 russeree commented on pull request "Enhanced error messages for invalid network prefix during address parsing.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27260#issuecomment-1628375439)
This PR has had some substantial updates applied since it's first inception.

1. Deterministically calculated base58 prefixes

2. This PR now greatly improves the accuracy of error reporting as seen in the updates to 3d0a5c37e9ccedfa4ecfaa48eeeca1ada5b4eec1 where many valid bech32 tests are fed through the base58 section of the `DecodeDestination` function. This line gives a great example of how this PR addresses this from the current
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/79e8247ddb166f9
...

💬 S3RK commented on pull request "test: Fixes and updates to wallet_backwards_compatibility.py for 25.0 and descriptor wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28027#discussion_r1257851249)
v0.16 is different in many regards, does it make sense to have a separate test to check incompatibility?