💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "util: Remove DirIsWritable, GetUniquePath":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28075#discussion_r1277284113)
Correct. Or you can disable the settings feature.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "util: Remove DirIsWritable, GetUniquePath":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28075#discussion_r1277286108)
I don't think there is a difference, at least when the wallets are placed inside the datadir. Maybe for wallets outside the datadir this is different? In any case, it seems unrelated, as this pull is not changing any behavior.

🤔 aureleoules reviewed a pull request: "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#pullrequestreview-1550940798)
Left some comments. I will review further later.

💬 aureleoules commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1276888369)
65b2dec1e39ea4efb327457563d2b18d49b4bc4c: Could use structured binding

💬 aureleoules commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1276883646)
56882622faf469b6f948f79a69c3c8ddbde92ff8
```suggestion
static CPubKey Combine(const std::vector<CPubKey> &pubkeys);
```

💬 aureleoules commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1276888579)
65b2dec1e39ea4efb327457563d2b18d49b4bc4c: Could use an initializer list

💬 aureleoules commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1276890488)
65b2dec1e39ea4efb327457563d2b18d49b4bc4c: Could use structured binding
```suggestion
for (const auto& [pubkey, amount]: m_recipient.m_outputs) {
```

💬 aureleoules commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1276885882)
65b2dec1e39ea4efb327457563d2b18d49b4bc4c: Use an initializer list for data members

💬 aureleoules commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1276891288)
65b2dec1e39ea4efb327457563d2b18d49b4bc4c: Could use structured binding

🤔 darosior reviewed a pull request: "fuzz: Generate with random libFuzzer settings"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28178#pullrequestreview-1551671337)
Concept ACK.

> Also, randomize -mutate_depth, for fun.

Could you expand?

💬 darosior commented on pull request "fuzz: Generate with random libFuzzer settings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28178#discussion_r1277296384)
If we are going to set `max_len`, should we also set `len_control`?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "fuzz: Generate with random libFuzzer settings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28178#discussion_r1277303930)
The default of `-len_control=100` seems fine and applicable to all values of `-max_len`, no?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "fuzz: Generate with random libFuzzer settings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28178#issuecomment-1655335044)
> Concept ACK.
>
> > Also, randomize -mutate_depth, for fun.
>
> Could you expand?

Not sure. I am happy to drop this, but it was part of https://www.github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20752/commits/1ff0dc525f051bbc7a93312dd622340ca8f4f52c, which is why I picked it up.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "fuzz: Generate with random libFuzzer settings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28178#issuecomment-1655353550)
> Not sure. I am happy to drop this

No, i was just curious about the rationale. I guess i've a mild preference for sticking to defaults if there isn't any, but i don't think it hurts either.
------- Original Message -------
On Friday, July 28th, 2023 at 11:07 AM, MacrabFalke ***@***.***> wrote:

>> Concept ACK.
>>
>>> Also, randomize -mutate_depth, for fun.
>>
>> Could you expand?
>
> Not sure. I am happy to drop this, but it was part of https://www.github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20752/commits
...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "fuzz: Generate with random libFuzzer settings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28178#discussion_r1277316390)
Yes, i guess 100 minutes is long enough for the fuzzer to eventually get to try larger inputs.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "fuzz: Test headers pre-sync through p2p interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28043#discussion_r1273466446)
How is this different from CallOneOf?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "fuzz: use `ConnmanTestMsg` in `connman`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28091#issuecomment-1655402712)
review ACK ecfe507e07e9bdab210e04ebd3fc3b8ae9d6a094

Didn't test anything nor compile

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "test: Add SyncWithValidationInterfaceQueue to mockscheduler RPC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28118#pullrequestreview-1551760387)
ACK fabef121b0cdfac6ec1985f6c08c5685a886ba5a

Seems like the correct thing to do here anyway. Also reproduced the `feature_fee_estimation` behavior change.

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "refactor: Remove unused raw-pointer read helper from univalue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28168#pullrequestreview-1551784192)
tACK fa940f41eaffa4b2a28c465a10a4c12d4b8976b8

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Fuzz: a more efficient descriptor parsing target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27888#discussion_r1277370453)


Funny how `-only_ascii=1` performs worse than `-only_ascii=0`.