💬 fjahr commented on pull request "assumeutxo (2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27596#discussion_r1291431562)
Doesn't `std::find_if` work for this?

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "assumeutxo (2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27596#discussion_r1291670706)
A bit simpler approach for this RPC would be to return to the user that the headers are not synced yet immediately and tell them they should try again when the headers are fully synced. I would be interested if others favor this approach as well.

💬 russeree commented on pull request "Break up script/standard.{h/cpp}":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28244#issuecomment-1675558474)
Tested ACK - Using ```checklevel of 4```, ```assume valid=0```, ```reindex=1``` I was able to sync to the chain tip. This doesn't guarantee future consensus conflicts but should prove that there are not conflicts validating the 'main' chain. Testnet also validated successfully.

Full Settings
```
server=1
dbcache=16384
par=16
rpcthreads=8
rpcuser=bitcoin
rpcpassword=bitcoin
checkblocks=1
reindex=1
assumevalid=0
checklevel=4
maxconnections=0
listen=0
blocksonly=1
port=23766
rpc
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27213#discussion_r1291926369)
> Do we have any risk of TOR and I2P peers bouncing each other forever?

I added logging and have been testing this, and haven't seen that occur thanks to the eviction protection as mentioned by AJ.

However, the observation and testing did find not-yet connected addnode peers being connected to as full outbound peers by the new logic.

It might be good not to do that, in order to avoid using our limited outbound slots for addnode peers, and to ensure that the peers a user selects to be ad
...

👍 jonatack approved a pull request: "bitcoin-tidy: fix macOS build"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28258#pullrequestreview-1574720222)
ACK bb3263d3e3d9f9d4db86dde679f469e7278bf737 tested with arm64 macos 13.5, llvm 16.0.6 and cmake 3.27.2

Did not test with cmake earlier than 3.27.

Note to testers, see the `/contrib/devtools/bitcoin-tidy/README` on current master at 3654d84c6f5 for the updated example usage docs.

```bash
jon|(bb3263d3e3d...):~/bitcoin/bitcoin/contrib/devtools/bitcoin-tidy$ cmake --version
cmake version 3.27.2

CMake suite maintained
...

💬 ariard commented on pull request "policy: make unstructured annex standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27926#issuecomment-1675665941)
Chain backup servicing as a safety net definitely is interesting for witness and chain of transactions state or scarce collectible, when the value of the coins locked or “digital items” is worth more than a range of block miners fees. At least in term of Bitcoin crypto-economics IMHO, the good equilibrium with full-nodes resources I don’t know.

💬 ariard commented on pull request "policy: make unstructured annex standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27926#issuecomment-1675667304)
@fanquake If you can reference this PR and this mailing list thread: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-June/thread.html started by the author of this PR in #28130 as I think the conversation is capturing good technical insights in practical ways to improve data carriage and archiving in the Bitcoin ecosystem. I was thinking to do it in #28130 though you locked the PR before.

💬 ariard commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1675711759)
More than 2 years ago, the liquidity griefing provoked by RBF opt-out of a counterparty contributing to a multi-party transaction (splicing / dual-funding) was brought on the mailing list in a post intitled [“On Mempool Funny Games against Multi-Party Funded Transactions” ](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-May/003033.html) and it was the main motivation behind the introduction of `mempoolfullrbf` with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25353.

Since then the
...

📝 Doodoobrown23 opened a pull request: "Shit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28261)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

✅ willcl-ark closed a pull request: "Shit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28261)

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "doc: Use GitHub's "Alert" markdown syntax":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28243#issuecomment-1675792914)
> this would mess up the rendering in every markdown renderer except on Github, example:

Yes I was aware of this and noted the tradefoff in OP:

> The format is relatively backwards-compatible (i.e outside of GH), as the syntax is effectively a multi-block quotation, where the first line includes the alert type. This means the text still renders fine outside of GH, but is improved on GH.

Closing for now due to lack of interest

✅ willcl-ark closed a pull request: "doc: Use GitHub's "Alert" markdown syntax"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28243)

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Run sanity checks on context construction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28228#issuecomment-1675799551)
Thank you for the comments @theuni

Updated 3c1c434ae0f1e9649949a1bb27ea14c1dbad06cc -> b333faac2199086b87b38371cfef5ae0f663e391 ([contextSanityChecks_1](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/contextSanityChecks_1) -> [contextSanityChecks_2](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/contextSanityChecks_2), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/contextSanityChecks_1..contextSanityChecks_2))

* Added check and precondition docs for the global kernel context.
*
...

👋 TheCharlatan's pull request is ready for review: "kernel: Run sanity checks on context construction"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28228)

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28261)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "Improves addnode / m_added_nodes logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28155#issuecomment-1675962127)
Concept ACK. I've been looking at this code lately as well, e.g. a bug fix (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28248/commits/7f3573fd94fa22704cb24e5fe835a66e30ed9f6d) and logging (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28248/commits/09b7f9c0919e4385819439283a0f94ca460bb27d) and agree with the issues you report. Will review soon.

⚠️ samyan opened an issue: "Regtest mode loses unspents after day"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

Testing in regtest mode, I have noticed that after 1 day of after send some funds from A wallet to B, the unspent inputs disappear from wallet B.

**bitcoin.conf**

```bash
# Generated by https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-core-config-generator/

# This config should be placed in following path:
# ~/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf

# [chain]
# Run this node on its own independent test networ
...

💬 vincenzopalazzo commented on pull request "net: transport abstraction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28165#discussion_r1292498404)
Mh looks like that `header` is no longer used?

💬 zkfrio commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1676104981)
> More than 2 years ago, the liquidity griefing provoked by RBF opt-out of a counterparty contributing to a multi-party transaction (splicing / dual-funding) was brought on the mailing list in a post intitled [“On Mempool Funny Games against Multi-Party Funded Transactions” ](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-May/003033.html) and it was the main motivation behind the introduction of `mempoolfullrbf` with #25353.
>
> Since then the liquidity griefing concern in the
...

🤔 vincenzopalazzo reviewed a pull request: "net: transport abstraction"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28165#pullrequestreview-1575433253)
Concept ACK till https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28165/commits/1937a5fcf795149c44b7f4f016c05000ac3adaf9

I will continue later on it