📝 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

📝 stratospher opened a pull request: "Add fuzz test for FSChaCha20Poly1305, AEADChacha20Poly1305"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28263)
follow-up for #28008.

This PR adds fuzz tests for `AEADChaCha20Poly1305` and `FSChaCha20Poly1305` introduced in #28008.
Also addresses some review suggestions from there.

Run using:
```
$ FUZZ=crypto_aeadchacha20poly1305 src/test/fuzz/fuzz
$ FUZZ=crypto_fschacha20poly1305 src/test/fuzz/fuzz
```

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "BIP324 ciphersuite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#issuecomment-1676256553)
we'd want fuzz tests for `AEADChaCha20Poly1305` and `FSChaCha20Poly1305` right?
wrote one in #28263 and picked up some review suggestions from here in case it helps.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "BIP324 ciphersuite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1292692090)
done in #28263.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "BIP324 ciphersuite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1292692145)
done in #28263.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "BIP324 ciphersuite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1292692237)
done in #28263.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "BIP324 ciphersuite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008#discussion_r1292692263)
done in #28263.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1676305796)
Please keep discussion here civil and on topic. Ad hominems are neither useful nor productive.

📝 theStack opened a pull request: "test: refactor: support sending funds with outpoint result"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28264)
In wallet-related functional tests we often want to send funds to an address and use the resulting (non-change) UTXO directly after as input for another transaction. Doing that is currently tedious, as it involves finding the index part of the outpoint manually by calling helpers like `find_vout_for_address` or `find_output` first. This results in two different txid/vout variables which then again have to be combined to a single dictionary `{"txid": ..., "vout": ...}` in order to be specified
...