💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Use CTxDestination in CRecipient instead of just scriptPubKey":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28246#discussion_r1294012514)
Should be fixed.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1678144469)
Please see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/developer-notes.md#release-notes for how release notes should be added for a PR.

💬 iBeizsley commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1678145113)
> You're arguing a logical fallacy here. You might as well argue that the vast majority of people don't even run nodes, so there's no reason for any node to distribute any transactions or blocks at all.

Not at all. I'm arguing that

> the purpose of a Bitcoin node is to relay transactions

Is false. It's one job of some nodes, but it's optional, and which transactions get relayed is dependent on all kinds of things, including whether your mempool is currently full. I could shrink my mempool to
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "test doc: tests `acceptstalefeeestimates` option is only supported on regtest chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28157#discussion_r1294018470)
Thanks for looking into it! Running the updated test with mainnet/testnet3/signet nodes running, the mainnet test passed. However, it still fails for the testnet3 and signet cases.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#discussion_r1294027661)
The note should probably refer to the `-permitbaremultisig` configuration option.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#pullrequestreview-1577754051)
Rebased on top of #28251 (which also knocked out 2 commits) and addressed comments

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1294031657)
Added that to the comment :+1:

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1294032183)
Yeah agreed, makes it much more important that there isn't e.g. a crash bug in there somewhere, and if anything goes wrong we should quit gracefully and default to topo sort.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1294039201)
Added comment

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1294039095)
Imo it's fine, since we don't really do anything with it.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1294038854)
Renamed to `FilteredAncestorSet` and `FilteredAncestorFeeAndVsize`

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1294033483)
Fixed

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1294039773)
Added to the comment

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1294039154)
Refined the comment

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1294033351)
Done

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1294044001)
comment has been removed

💬 Retropex commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#discussion_r1294052366)
Updated.

💬 Retropex commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1678214325)
@MarcoFalke I will try to make a summary shortly.

💬 Rlavington 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-1678258651)
> > 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.

Yes, it does. However, I made the mistake of having the Bitcoincore Program on the HDD itself.

When it should have been on the "C" drive of the computer, with the OS as well.

Then I have the option of syncing the Bitcoin data onto another drive. So that I'm not using up all of the space on the "C" drive.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: improve `coinselection`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27585#discussion_r1294081372)
Nice, will leave it running tonight with some values (1000, 5000, etc) to check it as well.