💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: Implement independent BDB parser":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26606#issuecomment-1664347932)
> Not entirely sure how to handle that since we don't care about fuzzing BDB itself.

Indeed, @MarcoFalke any idea on how to make the fuzzer ignore that?

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: a target for the block index database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28209#discussion_r1283499741)
In 8a0cb8b2147e852ac80d2030057272bdb59a83f2: Instead of using `ConsumeDeserializable`, couldn't we have a function to create a `CBlockFileInfo`? E.g.:

```diff
diff --git a/src/test/fuzz/block_index.cpp b/src/test/fuzz/block_index.cpp
index b5b25fcbc7..528c2fae9f 100644
--- a/src/test/fuzz/block_index.cpp
+++ b/src/test/fuzz/block_index.cpp
@@ -37,6 +37,19 @@ void init_block_index()
SelectParams(ChainType::MAIN);
}

+CBlockFileInfo CreateCBlockFileInfo(FuzzedDataProvider& fuzze
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "refactor: serialization simplifications":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28203#issuecomment-1664388165)
ACK f054bd072afb72d8dae7adc521ce15c13b236700

👍 theuni approved a pull request: "ci: Integrate `bitcoin-tidy` clang-tidy plugin"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#pullrequestreview-1561610579)
ACK 1c976c691cc4b20f43071aabf36c7afed1571057

💬 Ayush170-Future commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for `Crypter`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28074#issuecomment-1664431299)
Thank you for pointing this up, @dergoegge. Actually, I thought it was just a one-line change and became overly relaxed about it. But I'm sorry, and from now on I'll compile before pushing every time.

I also address your style nits in the recent push.

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "mempool: Persist with XOR":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28207#issuecomment-1664441492)
Concept ACK. I opened issue https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16721 a while ago but closed it as it didn't get much attention back then.

> I am not aware of anyone reading the `mempool.dat`, is there?

I've written a mempool.dat parser a few years ago for fun. However, as you said, the RPCs are powerful enough and if someone really really wants to read the file, they can implement XOR functionality. Similar to block0000.dat files, these files are not something considered an interf
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "refactor: use string_view for passing string literals to Parse{Hash,Hex}":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28172#discussion_r1283579011)
done

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "refactor: use string_view for passing string literals to Parse{Hash,Hex}":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28172#discussion_r1283579212)
done

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1283582108)
updated the commit message and incorporated brace initialization in latest push

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1283584387)
updated in latest push. no longer any references to the bundling in the commit messages

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "refactor: use string_view for passing string literals to Parse{Hash,Hex}":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28172#issuecomment-1664459802)
Updated the pull description and repushed to take @MarcoFalke's review feedback (thanks!)

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1283585262)
updated in latest push. I think I caught them all

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: verify spend from 999-of-999 taproot multisig wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28212#discussion_r1283587279)
`assert_raises_rpc_error` is probably what you want

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1283594372)
updated to an `std:array` in the latest push

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1283595087)
incorporated here in latest push

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1283596113)
done in latest push

💬 eriknylund commented on pull request "test: verify spend from 999-of-999 taproot multisig wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28212#discussion_r1283597304)
@paplorinc I like the second approach, it seems a bit cleaner and clearer to me. However, it doesn't seem to be used in other functional tests so maybe the first approach is better to be more consistent?

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1283599071)
added the network to print statement

💬 eriknylund commented on pull request "test: verify spend from 999-of-999 taproot multisig wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28212#discussion_r1283599461)
@instagibbs Thanks! I was looking at that option too, however I couldn't see a way to use it in this context without having to change a lot of the code, but maybe I'm missing something obvious? 🤔

💬 sipa commented on pull request "net: transport abstraction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28165#discussion_r1283605312)
We can - In fact the handshake itself is sent this way (that's the nice part about this abstraction, the caller doesn't know or care whether bytes being sent are on behalf of a message we're trying to send or something else).