💬 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?

💬 ChrisCho-H commented on pull request "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#issuecomment-1665337473)
Seems no one's against @vostrnad suggestion, I convert all single lines to block comments, add textual description with notation and reference for OP_SUCCESS opcodes in case of tapscript.
I didn't include history much. In my opinion, description only for function itself looks clean and explicit which fits with main purpose of this.

📝 MarcoFalke opened a pull request: "ci: Move tidy and macOS-cross to persistent workers"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28214)
Cirrus CI will be capping the free compute soon. For now, switch more tasks to persistent worker, as recommended by Cirrus CI.

(See slightly related discussion in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28098)

Also, add more docs.

💬 eriknylund commented on pull request "test: verify spend from 999-of-999 taproot multisig wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28212#discussion_r1284233075)
If I didn't bump the fee rate I would run into the two error codes mentioned in the PR message:
```
Had to bump fee rate to resolve assertions in sendtoaddress and psbt methods:

code -5: assert rpc_online.gettransaction(txid)["confirmations"] > 0
code -26: min relay fee not met
```

The previous `fee_rate = 200` limit seems to be sufficient up until `n ~ 500`. I assume this is because the script size increases with higher numbers of `n`.