💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets and request reconciliation (Erlay)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26283#issuecomment-1788633580)
I decided to split this off into #28765.

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "Fix crash on selecting "Mask values" in transaction view"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/774#pullrequestreview-1707876119)
ACK e26e665f9f64a962dd56053be817cc953e714847, tested on Ubuntu 22.04.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Fix crash on selecting "Mask values" in transaction view":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/774#issuecomment-1788686965)
Will backport this once merged.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Fix crash on selecting "Mask values" in transaction view":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/774#issuecomment-1788687291)
> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/blob/3c0b66c2ece7695ab59f466d7b4d81a4c18ffd76/src/qt/transactionview.cpp#L532-L533
>
> The last one (#L533) was added by the #708 (merged in v25 - I wanted to say I'm innocent but no haha), so another way to solve this issue is just by removing #L532, which I've tested and works fine.

It will still allow to grow the size of `m_opened_dialogs` unbounded.

The current PR branch tackles with `m_opened_dialogs` size, which is optimum solution.

🚀 hebasto merged a pull request: "Fix crash on selecting "Mask values" in transaction view"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/774)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Fix crash on selecting "Mask values" in transaction view":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/774#issuecomment-1788699281)
Added to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28754 for 26.x.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "Fuzz: Check individual and package transaction invariants":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28764#discussion_r1378603808)
```suggestion
std::optional<std::string> CheckPackageMempoolAcceptResult(const Package& txns, const PackageMempoolAcceptResult& result, bool expect_valid,
const CTxMemPool* mempool);
```

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "[26.x] Backports for rc2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28754#pullrequestreview-1707905519)
re-ACK e4e84790f62990f31a519f1ec0e8cc16e93a3c3b, only a backport of https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/774 added.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "build: remove duplicate `-lminiupnpc` linking"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28755)

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "[26.x] Backports for rc2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28754#pullrequestreview-1707914636)
Re-ACK e4e84790f62990f31a519f1ec0e8cc16e93a3c3b

💬 josibake commented on pull request "[26.x] Backports for rc2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28754#issuecomment-1788725154)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e4e84790f62990f31a519f1ec0e8cc16e93a3c3b

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "addrman: log AS only when using asmap"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28729)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "rpc: distinguish between vsize and sigop-adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27591#discussion_r1378636536)
IIUC the suggestion is:
- Add docs for where vsize is sigop-adjusted and where it isn't.
- Add some doc/policy/?.md describing feerate, vsize, mining score
- Add an optional "sigopsize" result for `getrawtransaction` and the mempool RPCs when we're able to provide it

Will work on this

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: make python p2p not send getaddr on incoming connections"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28632)

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "build: Windows SSP roundup"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28461)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "[26.x] Backports for rc2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28754)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Windows SSP roundup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28461#issuecomment-1788752667)
cc @TheCharlatan

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "refactors for subpackage evaluation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28758#discussion_r1378636413)
nit: the naming is slightly inconsistent now, it would be nicer if all the function are either `IsPackage*` or `Is*Package` instead of a mix. Would also not be opposed to turning `Package` into a class and have these be member functions.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "refactors for subpackage evaluation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28758#discussion_r1378645903)
```suggestion
CMutableTransaction dup_tx;
dup_tx.vin.emplace_back(uint256{}, 0);
dup_tx.vin.emplace_back(uint256{}, 0);
Package package_with_dup_tx{MakeTransactionRef(dup_tx)};
BOOST_CHECK(IsConsistentPackage(package_with_dup_tx));
package_with_dup_tx.emplace_back(create_placeholder_tx(1, 1));
BOOST_CHECK(IsConsistentPackage(package_with_dup_tx));
```

`dup_tx` is otherwise unused and does not conflict with itself.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "refactors for subpackage evaluation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28758#discussion_r1378634066)
This can be dropped from the header, nothing is using it externally.