💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mempool: Persist with XOR":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28207#discussion_r1282947793)
Will previous versions be able to read the mempool dump version 2? `mempool.dat` suppose to be both backward and forward-compatible between versions

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: sending":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28201#issuecomment-1663670668)
> Maybe add a quick summary in the description with the main implementation differences relative to #24897. It seems a big one is that this doesn't require an index!

updated! I added the summary in #27827 and added links back to the parent PR in each of the child PRs.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "lint: remove pkg_resources usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28208#issuecomment-1663679742)
I guess `packages_distributions` isn't actually available until 3.10. Will ignore and come back to this later.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "lint: remove pkg_resources usage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28208)

📝 fanquake converted_to_draft 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.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1282961735)
I've updated the BIP to recommend upping the character limit to 1023, as having a limit of 117 would cause issues with forward compatibility with future silent payment addresses. I've also removed regtest from the BIP, as I don't think it's correct to define Bitcoin Core specific conventions in BIPs. Regarding "tsp" vs "sprt", I don't really have a strong opinion here, but would prefer to follow the convention in Bitcoin Core. If we end up moving Bitcoin Core to use the same HRP for all networks
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "CONTRIBUTING: Caution against using AI/LLMs (ChatGPT, Copilot, etc)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175#issuecomment-1663685355)
Moved to draft for now, as there's not consensus to merge as-is, and in any case, this is waiting on further legal opinions.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "mempool: Persist with XOR":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28207#discussion_r1282968177)
See my previous comment: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28207#issuecomment-1663626986

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "mempool: Persist with XOR":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28207#discussion_r1282970013)
Obviously, no existing software that can only read version `1`, can thus not read version `2`.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: tx orphan handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28199#discussion_r1282831868)
removed comment block

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: tx orphan handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28199#discussion_r1282832651)
Done

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: tx orphan handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28199#discussion_r1282920253)
Sure, changed.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: tx orphan handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28199#discussion_r1282889026)
Added

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: tx orphan handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28199#discussion_r1282853373)
added

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: tx orphan handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28199#discussion_r1282834565)
Done, and renamed to `assert_no_immediate_response`

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: tx orphan handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28199#discussion_r1282919246)
changed so we grab the utxos before making any transactions, so they all have to be confirmed and not related

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: tx orphan handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28199#discussion_r1282837698)
added

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: tx orphan handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28199#discussion_r1282850596)
Edited the comments.

Without delays and filtering right before sending, I figured you could query whether `tx_real` has arrived in the node's mempool yet by sending a fake orphan that spends from it (if the node requests `tx_real` they don't have it yet, if they don't request it then it's already in mempool/seen). Hence "reveal." But you can only know whether `tx_real` arrived in the last ~2-4 seconds.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: tx orphan handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28199#discussion_r1282862310)
True this could be combined. The main idea for this test is that this transaction's failure propagates all the way to the grandchild.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "refactor: Remove unused includes from wallet.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28200#issuecomment-1663715708)
> Created in the context of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28109, but I don't think it is enough to actually fix this problem.

It's a step in the right direction, we're now failing on `45934` sections, compared to `46006` in #28109. However we're still a long way north of the limit, which as I understand it, is `32768`.