💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1677624891)
@Retropex Are you still working on this? If yes, it would be good to include a *technical* summary of the discussion here, including how it affects other software/BIPs. Ideally, also mention raw p2pk in your summary and present real-world data points.

The current description "This would strengthen the Bitcoin ecosystem by encouraging the use of compliant transactions." appears to be non-technical, personal opinion.

If you are no loner working on this, it would be good to close this pull re
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Drop no longer needed `macos_sdk_cache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28269#issuecomment-1677625620)
lgtm ACK c2a87bd302585c242d0d66db72c6ce6c60f81b78

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#issuecomment-1677633291)
@achow101 @fanquake Anything left to be done here? The "macOS 13 native arm64" Cirrus task will stop working in two weeks, so it would be good to do something about it. If you disagree with this change, it would be good to leave a comment.

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Make it very obvious to the new people that the Bitcoin Core program first needs to be installed and run on the "C" drive. ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28268#issuecomment-1677637498)
> I guess your issue is about the GUI choose-direcory dialog?

FWIW, this dialog is enabled by default during the first run of the Bitcoin Core GUI.

💬 samyan commented on issue "Regtest mode loses unspents after day":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1677666102)
> What are the exact steps to reproduce with mocktime?

Sincerely I don't know I understood you correctly, but these were my steps:

**Set system time:**

`bitcoin-core.cli setmocktime 0`

Then

`bitcoin-core.cli listunspent 0 9999999 [\"bcrt1qnh6pt6ztvsz93u95drnwxlk452kfhc5ad9uk6z\"]`

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Move tidy to persistent worker":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28214#issuecomment-1677693482)
> > One question below and also I'm wondering if the output of "include-what-you-use" is used at all? It makes a lot of suggestions but none of that counts as errors?
>
> Yeah, that is on purpose and unchanged in this pull. Currently iwyu still has bugs (_false_ negatives and _false_ positives) and there are also trillion _true_ positives and the _true_ negatives sometimes lead to compile errors down the line in other modules.
>
> I think for now it is best to check the iwyu output during
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Use shared_ptr for CNode inside CConnman":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28222#issuecomment-1677719961)
What about calling `FinalizeNode()` from the destructor of `CNode`? This ensures it will be called exactly once by some thread after no other threads are referencing it. Is this not what we want?

<details>
<summary>[patch] FinalizeNode() from ~CNode()</summary>

```diff
diff --git i/src/net.h w/src/net.h
index 1ea0ad868a..587d907c3a 100644
--- i/src/net.h
+++ w/src/net.h
@@ -412,13 +412,12 @@ public:
/** fSuccessfullyConnected is set to true on receiving VERACK from the peer. */
...

💬 sipa commented on issue "Regtest mode loses unspents after day":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1677748686)
Do you have 100 blocks on top of the one that created your UTXO? Without that it'll be immature, and possibly not listed.

💬 samyan commented on issue "Regtest mode loses unspents after day":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1677757108)
> Do you have 100 blocks on top of the one that created your UTXO? Without that it'll be immature, and possibly not listed.

It has nothing to do because as I said above, after moving the funds and executing the **listunspent** command, it returns the inputs perfectly. After a day, I run the **listunspent** command again and I get empty.

💬 vasild commented on issue "Auto detect IPv6 connectivity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28061#issuecomment-1677758907)
That is the case currently as well: `ifconfig eth0 up/down` and IPv4 or IPv6 connectivity comes and goes. Tor or I2P or CJDNS router restart - same, at runtime.

💬 sipa commented on issue "Regtest mode loses unspents after day":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1677761038)
Apologies, I should have read more. If something actually disappears from `listunspent` (without being reorged out), that sounds like a bug.

💬 samyan commented on issue "Regtest mode loses unspents after day":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28262#issuecomment-1677768605)
> Apologies, I should have read more. If something actually disappears from `listunspent` (without being reorged out), that sounds like a bug.

Don't worry. I also think it seems to be a bug but I don't know... So I will continue to do more tests.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: more `Span<std::byte>` modernization & follow-ups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28100#issuecomment-1677780358)
> @sipa could you update the PR dscription in regards to this, now that https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008 has been merged.

@fanquake Done.

⚠️ zydjohnHotmail opened an issue: "Any JavaScript functional test for this repo?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28270)
### Motivation

Hi,
I am learning Bitcoin using this repo, and I have some experience with JavaScript, but my level with Python is very limited. I want to run some tests using JavaScript, but I found that all the functional tests are in Python. I want to know if it is possible to have the same functional tests in JavaScript.
Or give me some ideas on how can I do this with JavaScript?
For example for test_node.py and test_framework.py; if I want to use JavaScript with Bitcoin-core npm packag
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1677815858)
I think this change would also need a release note, though it could be done in a follow-up pull.

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1677834108)
@iBeizsley
> If 37% of hash rate is mining full RBF, enabling full RBF is (currently) a move away from mempool consistency with majority hash rate.

You are mistaken. Think about this in terms of information: the purpose of a Bitcoin node is to widely distribute information in the form of transactions and blocks.

Full-RBF miners want to learn about full-RBF replacements. Non-full-RBF miners don't care about full-RBF replacements. But it does the no harm to receive that information: they ju
...

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: refactor: support sending funds with outpoint result":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28264#discussion_r1293818111)
Thanks, done.

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: refactor: support sending funds with outpoint result":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28264#discussion_r1293818657)
Creating two different txs is intentional here, as otherwise the "Update psbts, should only have data for one input and not the other" test below would fail (if both inputs are part of the same tx, all data is available to both nodes). Added a comment to clarify.

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "net: transport abstraction"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28165#pullrequestreview-1573562580)
Concept ACK

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "net: transport abstraction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28165#discussion_r1291310726)
commit 8f5c65a464b7ed47939a055a4b65286d20a5b126:
Could rename to `Complete()` to `DeserComplete()`, `DoneReceivingMessage()` or somthing similar to make it clearer that this function refers to deserialization side, now that both direction are in one class.