💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: verify spend from 999-of-999 taproot multisig wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28212#discussion_r1296928288)
```suggestion
assert_raises_rpc_error,
```

style-nit: Add the missing comma here? Otherwise someone will have to touch this line again when appending something.

A (force) push should also make CI less red.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: label docker images and prune dangling images selectively":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27793#issuecomment-1681938003)
Could rebase for green CI, if still relevant?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "indexes: Stop using node internal types and locking cs_main, improve sync logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24230#issuecomment-1681939421)
Maybe a silent merge conflict in a functional test, see CI?

```
�[0m�[0;31mfeature_index_prune.py | ✖ Failed | 2401 s

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Handle CJDNS from LookupSubNet()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27071#issuecomment-1681940885)
Could rebase for green CI, if still relevant?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test doc: tests `acceptstalefeeestimates` option is only supported on regtest chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28157#issuecomment-1681941214)
Could rebase for green CI, if still relevant?

💬 RicYashiroLee commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1681944080)
> This should summarize this whole debate which started from `laser-eyed maxis` Twitter accounts virtue signaling on Twitter and calling for miners to not mine ordinal transactions in Q1-Q2 this year.
>
> `Bitcoin for me, but not for thee`. Respectfully, anyone who wants to dictate the `right` use of bitcoin for what I call frankly, the Church of Satoshi... needs to go and _kindly_... **fuck off**.
>
> You are turning out to be no better than the central bankers you demonize in the process
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#issuecomment-1681944567)
Needs rebase, if still relevant.

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217)
The default activation of the `permitbaremultisig=0` option proposes an enhancement for the Bitcoin network. By refusing non-P2SH multisignature transactions from the outset, this modification would contribute to reducing spam attempts and maintaining a healthy decentralization by discouraging undesirable activities.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#discussion_r1296940262)
GHActions have no such a feature by default. It should be a separated workflow that processes [`pull_request.synchronize`](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/events-that-trigger-workflows#pull_request) event and terminates other workflows. However, I'm not sure about the exact implementation for now.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Refactor: Remove CI_USE_APT_INSTALL":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28278#issuecomment-1681955501)
Maybe also address the following comments:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#discussion_r1294434738
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#discussion_r1294895367

in this PR?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#discussion_r1296945030)
So if someone (honestly) pushes to a pull request a few times in a few minutes, it will block CI progress on all other pulls, assuming a few more tasks are run on GHA and the "free" limit is reached?

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Fix potential network stalling bug":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27981#issuecomment-1681958726)
ACK 3388e523a129ad9c7aef418c9f57491f8c2d9df8

Test case looks good; seems reasonable to do the `sendmsgtopeer` change in a separate PR though.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#issuecomment-1681962937)
`ae75114975...d31cb74c44`: rebase for CI

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Handle CJDNS from LookupSubNet()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27071#issuecomment-1681971680)
`be7ae7b1ec...e92b7dee6d`: rebase for CI

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "p2p: Drop m_recently_announced_invs bloom filter"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#discussion_r1296986807)
> Yea, looks like caching doesn't work at all here?

It [works](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/5878420889/job/15940465042).

> I think it works when there are no pull requests. It should be possible to fix this in a follow-up.

Yes, pull requests should not create their own caches. Going to address this issue shortly.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#issuecomment-1681991436)
Looks like it is now even harder to re-run tasks, if there is an intermittent network issue (for example if GH or GHA is down, which happens ~daily).

At least, all I can do is download the log, whereas on Cirrus, I can re-run my own pull.


💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#issuecomment-1681993763)
> Looks like it is now even harder to re-run tasks,

So there is no way for developers to re-run there own PRs at all, with GitHub Actions? Other than I assume force pushing?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "net processing: avoid serving non-announced txs as a result of a MEMPOOL message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27602#issuecomment-1681999949)
Are you still working on this?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#issuecomment-1682003373)
> > Looks like it is now even harder to re-run tasks,
>
> So there is no way for developers to re-run there own PRs at all, with GitHub Actions? Other than I assume force pushing?

Docs are not super clear about that: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/managing-workflow-runs/re-running-workflows-and-jobs.