👋 MarcoFalke's pull request is ready for review: "mempool: Persist with XOR"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28207)

👍 MarcoFalke approved a pull request: "ci: Integrate `bitcoin-tidy` clang-tidy plugin"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#pullrequestreview-1562333801)
re-ACK 1c976c691cc4b20f43071aabf36c7afed1571057 👠

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: re-ACK 1c976c691cc4b20f430
...

👍 vasild approved a pull request: "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#pullrequestreview-1562352316)
ACK 1b52d16d07be3b5d968157913f04d9cd1e2d3678

💬 vasild commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1284103954)
changed back to array and this was not added back but it is not needed because the array is default-initialized: `std::array<...> foo = {};`

💬 vasild commented on pull request "rpc: add 'getnetmsgstats', new rpc to view network message statistics":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27534#issuecomment-1665196395)
@luke-jr, for sure there will be people that don't need this. But it is just an extra RPC, if somebody does not need it, then he/she will not call it. Similar stats are already provided in the `getpeerinfo` RPC output.

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#issuecomment-1665223818)
ACK 1e65aae806

Updates shown by `git range-diff 1e65aae806...1b52d16` look correct to me and glad to get the nits in this initial pull.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#issuecomment-1665228548)
> All other comments are to be addressed shortly.

Are you still working on this? Apart from a squash and addressing the 4 review comments this is rfm, no?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Use qemu-user through container engine":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28087#issuecomment-1665232531)
Rebased, and added one more line of documentation

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#issuecomment-1665233643)
> > All other comments are to be addressed shortly.
>
> Are you still working on this?

I am. My apologies for a delay.

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#issuecomment-1665244546)
ACK 1b52d16d07be3b5d968157913f04d9cd1e2d3678

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "p2p: Drop m_recently_announced_invs bloom filter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675#discussion_r1284155363)
1e9684f39fba909b3501e9402d5b61f4bf744ff2
"w hether"

👍 naumenkogs approved a pull request: "p2p: Drop m_recently_announced_invs bloom filter"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675#pullrequestreview-1562445761)
ACK 1e9684f39fba909b3501e9402d5b61f4bf744ff2

💬 ChrisCho-H commented on pull request "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#discussion_r1284186407)
I understand what you intended but it does not seem to be interpreted in that way for `pop two top stack items`. `pop pop add push` is more confusing to me. I appreciate your feedback

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "net: transport abstraction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28165#discussion_r1284194811)
I guess it's not entirely clear to me whose responsibility it is to ensure the handshake has been done: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28165#discussion_r1283674053 (I assume it will be in the main PR)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#discussion_r1284195974)
I hope that at some point, GitHub Actions will host `arm64` macOS runners, enabling us to test both architectures.

Maybe leave both files for now?

💬 darosior commented on pull request "fuzz: a target for the block index database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28209#discussion_r1284198100)
Good call, i've adopted this approach for both the `CBlockFile`s and the `CBlockHeader`s.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "test: verify spend from 999-of-999 taproot multisig wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28212#discussion_r1284204363)
Maybe keep it simple and just test 1 of 1000.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "test: verify spend from 999-of-999 taproot multisig wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28212#discussion_r1284205838)
Why are you changing the fee rate?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#discussion_r1284207518)
Does apple still ship Intel silicon for new macOS machines? Regardless, I don't really see a benefit in running the same task twice when there is no reason to believe it will find more bugs or is even useful in the long term.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "test: verify spend from 999-of-999 taproot multisig wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28212#discussion_r1284212036)
I understand descriptors, but Python less well :-) What is this function trying to do?