💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: Flatten miniwallet array and remove random fee in longpoll":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26996#discussion_r1128202898)
Thanks, dropped the commit

👋 Sjors's pull request is ready for review: "wallet: 26032 followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27180)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: 26032 followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27180#issuecomment-1458502104)
Not really I guess...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Potential data race on fHavePruned flag":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21627#issuecomment-1458503844)
The variable was only renamed, so the issue may still exist.

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "invalidateblock when processing blocks on disk":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18978#issuecomment-1458530587)
@mrbianchi is this still an issue for you? I'm curious why you would want to cancel reindex? What can you do with your node in that state?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "invalidateblock when processing blocks on disk":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18978#issuecomment-1458545863)
Closing for now

✅ MarcoFalke closed an issue: "invalidateblock when processing blocks on disk"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18978)

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "bench: update logging benchmarks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26957#discussion_r1128257451)
Done, thank you @MarcoFalke and @LarryRuane.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "bench: update logging benchmarks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26957#discussion_r1128257756)
Done, thank you @fanquake, the diffs are much smaller now.

(Also dropped the category change, as it didn't make sense with an unordered map.)

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214#discussion_r1128258413)
Interesting, perhaps #26261 would be a good fit :)

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "wallet: Turn `destdata` entries into `CAddressBookData` fields":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27215#discussion_r1128178482)
In commit "wallet: Store "receive requests" as its own member" (2e7751def15fe430daf6c8bea7fca31ff49f71d9)

Does this work? It seems possibly broken because it will only erase keys that are literally the string "rr", not receive requests that begin with `"rr"` and are followed by a request id

In 7a05b1dee2fa68b32bfb19e273fb55a5b3836a3e from #18608 I had to deal with this problem by creating an `ErasePrefix` function, and I also added unit tests to verify the code worked.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "wallet: Turn `destdata` entries into `CAddressBookData` fields":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27215#discussion_r1128208503)
In commit "wallet: Replace "used" destdata with its own member variable" (861e7f949bb0d94f0ff59c7b74a1b10c85b4a08e)

This comment seems a little crazy because the code is literally reading and writing the "used" record with `LoadDestData` `WriteDestData` `EraseDestData` functions. So saying that the field is not stored in destdata would seem to describe the exact opposite of what the code is doing.

I guess the comment is trying to say that the record is no longer added to the `CAddressBookD
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "bench: update logging benchmarks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26957#issuecomment-1458550061)
> consider adding a comment at the top of the file probably, stating the expected results

Good idea @LarryRuane (thanks!). Done.

📝 johnny9 opened a pull request: "Update chainparams for 25.x"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27223)

Update chain parameters for upcoming major release. See [doc/release-process.md](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-process.md) for review instructions. Followed instructions from #24418 closely as well.

- `m_assumed_blockchain_size`, `m_assumed_chain_state_size`:

mainnet
```
.bitcoin$ du -h --exclude=signet --exclude=testnet3 .
0 ./wallets
117M ./blocks/index
489G ./blocks
4.9G ./chainstate
494G .
.bitcoin$ python3
Python 3.11.1 (main,
...

💬 johnny9 commented on pull request "Update chainparams for 25.x":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27223#issuecomment-1458585212)
Might have jumped the gun on this. Says "Before branch-off"

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Deduplicate bitcoind and bitcoin-qt init code":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27150#issuecomment-1458593730)
ACK 802cc1ef536e11944608fe9ab782d3e962037703

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "Deduplicate bitcoind and bitcoin-qt init code"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27150)

💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "bench: update logging benchmarks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26957#issuecomment-1458622474)
ACK 8c47d599b87d6b2d43e7d37ce0aaf4f541535bb9
The commits are very clean.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1128354369)
You're right. Considering it comes from GUI, it's better to check whether it has value. Addressed it!

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#issuecomment-1458628670)
Force-pushed addressing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1127278080