💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276856178)
I'm not sure this paragraph is an improvement; it seems a little less easy to read and more verbose.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276856597)
Not sure this is clearer.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276859281)
Could also mention the productivity notes in doc/. I like the original text better, however, as the links docs don't contain "all" about contributing.

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "rpc: add 'getnetmsgstats', new rpc to view network message statistics":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27534#issuecomment-1654647616)
Is there a use case for this, for the typical user? If not, maybe it should be optional and disabled by default?

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654647719)
Suggest running `test/lint/lint-whitespace.py` on this change to appease the lint CI.

🤔 brunoerg reviewed a pull request: "test, rpc: invalid sighashtype coverage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28166#pullrequestreview-1550910355)
light crACK 90c8f79e945863f3818748b86572948d1558aec3

💬 aureleoules commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#issuecomment-1654657160)
Thanks @jonatack, I addressed your suggestions and rolled back some of my changes.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276879626)
FWIW it looks like this section dates back to 2012 or earlier!

```
Testing and code review is the bottleneck for development; we get more
pull requests than we can review and test. Please be patient and help
out, and remember this is a security-critical project where any
mistake might cost people lots of money.
```

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Silent Payments: send and receive":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27827#issuecomment-1654676047)
>Can you explain your reasoning for wanting to split it up? I'd prefer to keep them together only because I see no reason to merge sending without receiving support in Bitcoin Core.

1. The sooner sending is supported everywhere, the sooner it is *practical* for people to use it for receiving. Might as well get that ball rolling ASAP.
2. Sending support means the BIP isn't going to change under me (and break compatibility / risk coin loss) if I merge things in Knots first.
3. Core refuses t
...

🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#pullrequestreview-1550942991)
A few more suggestions.

Just one opinion: in dark mode, which I use exclusively, I find the emojis are large and highly distracting from the text. If others agree, maybe remove them or make them smaller.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276887186)
```suggestion
We use the https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui repository solely for GUI development. Its master branch serves as a clone in all monotree repositories. It doesn't have release branches and tags, so it's only useful to fork it for development purposes.
```
or just s/tags there,/tags,/

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276886210)
```suggestion
Curious to know more? Find further details in [doc folder](/doc).
```

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "docs: Rewrite README to make it more appealing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28174#discussion_r1276888844)
Suggest dropping either "Important:" or "Please note," -- both seem to be too much.

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276896030)
We don't typically refer to "Bitcoind" like this

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276895712)
Probably should be called `-stratumv2port`, unless it supports specifying an IP to bind to (probably a good idea)

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276896582)
Should be added to the port number check earlier

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276897878)
Code readability is more important than "less code"...

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#discussion_r1276896935)
Rather than prefixing with "sv2:", suggest a new log category.

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "init: changing -torcontrol help to specify that a default port is used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28101#discussion_r1276902524)
>I used chatgpt to refine the sentence a bit more to this

Please redo this without ChatGPT involved. LLMs do not have a clear copyright status.

📝 luke-jr opened a pull request: "CONTRIBUTING: Caution against using AI/LLMs (ChatGPT, Copilot, etc)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175)
There's been at least a few instances where someone tried to contribute LLM-generated content, but such content has a dubious copyright status.

Our contributing policy already implicitly rules out such contributions, but being more explicit here might help.