💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Move tidy to persistent worker":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28214#issuecomment-1671188144)
I'll create a separate pull/thread for macOS-cross next week, so that it can be discussed.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "doc: use llvm-config for bitcoin-tidy example"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28245)
An LLVM installation will have `llvm-config` available to query for info. Ask it for the `--libdir`, and use that in our bitcoin-tidy example, rather than listing multiple different (potential) paths per distro/OS etc.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Integrate `bitcoin-tidy` clang-tidy plugin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#discussion_r1288382739)
Done in #28245.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "util: Type-safe transaction identifiers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28107#discussion_r1288386480)
Yea I think this makes sense while we are converting, otherwise I suspect there'll be more churn (similar to the comparisons).

But how would you suggest to forbid this?

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "doc: use llvm-config for bitcoin-tidy example"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28245#pullrequestreview-1569411388)
ACK 8651b998ffc80b2a1b79a47b47f2b54924db0512

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Silent Payments: receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28202#discussion_r1288398953)
This looks in the UTXO set but is called on a transaction that has already been verified and so therefore it's inputs are no longer in the UTXO set. This results in the `Coin` being uninitialized which causes later `Solver` calls to fail unexpectedly.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Silent Payments: receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28202#discussion_r1288396529)
Should recurse on `SCRIPTHASH` instead of assuming.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "net processing: clamp PeerManager::Options user input"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28149#pullrequestreview-1569427500)
reACK 547fa52443cbb5e8ccfee993486f5ced8cdbb33b

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "net processing: clamp PeerManager::Options user input"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28149)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Break up script/standard.{h/cpp}":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28244#discussion_r1288431124)
```bash
src/script/solver.h seems to be missing the expected include guard:
#ifndef BITCOIN_SCRIPT_SOLVER_H
#define BITCOIN_SCRIPT_SOLVER_H
...
#endif // BITCOIN_SCRIPT_SOLVER_H
```

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Silent Payments: receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28202#discussion_r1288438010)
As discussed offline, we shouldn't use any view of the UTXO set. Rather we should use the undo data when receiving a `blockConnected`, and modify `TransactionAddedToMempool` to include the previous outputs. This lets us avoid any race conditions with the state of the UTXO set and guarantees that the previous output data will always be available for the silent payments calculations.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "ci: Integrate `bitcoin-tidy` clang-tidy plugin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26296#issuecomment-1671279124)
Yep, will do. I was just waiting for the others to settle.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "rpc: Add importmempool RPC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27460#pullrequestreview-1569495734)
reACK fa776e61cd64a5ffd9a4be589ab8efeb5421861a

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1288452570)
Ah! Might be worth being overly explanatory here.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Break up script/standard.{h/cpp}":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28244#discussion_r1288456318)
Done

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1288488390)
Seperated sanitzing checks and str->octal converstion in b4b0d2adc9

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1288489583)
b4b0d2adc9 now handles optional special mode bit

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "doc: Improve documentation of rpcallowip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27480#discussion_r1288530860)
Took your suggestion here @pinheadmz

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "doc: Improve documentation of rpcallowip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27480#issuecomment-1671383317)
> There hasn't been much activity lately. What is the status here?

Happy to close this, if we also close the corresponding issue #21070. But I think it's preferable to keep this open, and merge it to close the issue (and improve the docs).

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Use shared_ptr for CNode inside CConnman":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28222#issuecomment-1671392361)
@dergoegge Thanks for the ping.

> makes operations such as deleting them from multiple threads difficult

Why is this a goal?

I'm quite nervous about these changes. I've spoken with @dergoegge about this a few times now, but I'm afraid my information and opinions on the code involved are quite dated at this point (2017 to be exact :), so I haven't had much to contribute.

I'll say though, any changes or refactors for future changes to the threading model should be very well justified
...