📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "build: remove `-bind_at_load` usage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28783)
This is deprecated on macOS:
```bash
ld: warning: -bind_at_load is deprecated on macOS
```
and likely redundant anyways, given the behaviour of dyld3.

Unfortunately libtool is still injecting a `-bind_at_load`, because it's version check is broken:
```bash
# Don't allow lazy linking, it breaks C++ global constructors
# But is supposedly fixed on 10.4 or later (yay!).
if test CXX = "$tagname"; then
case ${MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET-10.0} in
10.[0123])
func_append com
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: remove `-bind_at_load` usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28783#issuecomment-1792622714)
@theuni @TheCharlatan you might have some libtool ideas? Couldn't see too anything obvious to prune this out.

💬 kristapsk commented on pull request "depends: Allow PATH with spaces in directory names.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28733#issuecomment-1792625547)
Concept ACK

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: call lookup functions before calling `Ban`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27935#discussion_r1381846491)
> but those functions should return valid/sensible values.

I think it is good to offer a path for the fuzz engine to produce an invalid value. Otherwise, it can miss bugs that only happen when an invalid value is passed.

📝 romanz opened a pull request: "rpc: keep .cookie if it was not generated"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28784)
Otherwise, starting bitcoind twice may cause the `.cookie` file generated by the first instance to be deleted by the second instance shutdown (after failing to obtain a lock).

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "depends: Bump to capnproto-c++-1.0.1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28735#issuecomment-1792658631)
Given that their CI uses cmake (and passes), maybe an alternative could be to try that?

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Simplify CTxMempool/BlockAssembler fields, remove some external mapTx access":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28391#issuecomment-1792665279)
Rebased 65839d6267af1f5e0e04aded72cbfa23b56a1237 -> fc5e4dea6ffa21191e852a79103a2dfc9c241df1 ([simplifyMemPoolInteractions_5](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/simplifyMemPoolInteractions_5) -> [simplifyMemPoolInteractions_6](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/simplifyMemPoolInteractions_6), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/simplifyMemPoolInteractions_5..simplifyMemPoolInteractions_6))

* Dropped the commit that was integrated in #28762 e3b2e630b2
...

💬 romanz commented on pull request "rpc: keep .cookie if it was not generated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28784#issuecomment-1792671356)
The bug can be reproduced manually by starting `bitcoind` twice, resulting in a missing `.cookie` file:
```
$ bitcoind -signet &
...
2023-11-03T15:38:09Z Using random cookie authentication.
2023-11-03T15:38:09Z Generated RPC authentication cookie /home/user/.bitcoin/signet/.cookie
...

$ ls ~/.bitcoin/signet/.cookie
/home/user/.bitcoin/signet/.cookie

$ bitcoind -signet
Error: Cannot obtain a lock on data directory /home/user/.bitcoin/signet. Bitcoin Core is probably already running
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: Bump to capnproto-c++-1.0.1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28735#issuecomment-1792674010)
> maybe an alternative could be to try that?

I don't think so? What they are doing only (genearting MinGW Makefiles) only works if you're running on Windows, as far as I can tell. That CI job is running on `Microsoft Windows Server 2022`, from what I can see.

🤔 murchandamus reviewed a pull request: "MiniMiner changes for package linearization"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#pullrequestreview-1712833868)
I guess now post-merge ACK d9cc99d04e813caed51c5f7b6ebdc4c39c8823c9

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "MiniMiner changes for package linearization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#discussion_r1381775670)
Would it be possible for these parameters to be in the same order as the assignments below?

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "MiniMiner changes for package linearization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#discussion_r1381839339)
It took me until the commit `[MiniMiner] track inclusion order and add Linearize() function` until I understood what this PR was aiming to achieve. Perhaps you could add another sentence to the PR description about the goal of this PR.

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "MiniMiner changes for package linearization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#discussion_r1381902909)
Isn’t it the parent that is fee-bumping?

```suggestion
// 3 pairs of grandparent + fee-bumping parent, plus 1 low-feerate child.
```

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "MiniMiner changes for package linearization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#discussion_r1381893848)
Do we not know any outpoints or do we just not know whether the ancestor transactions of the submitted set are confirmed?

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "MiniMiner changes for package linearization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#discussion_r1381826714)
I also found `manual_entries` vs `m_entries` make me check back a couple times. My understanding is that the `manual_entries` are just fully specified rather than read from the mempool. Would maybe `manually_submitted_entries` fit the bill?

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "MiniMiner changes for package linearization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28762#discussion_r1381819567)
Is it important that these descendants are cached? Could they maybe just be `descendants`? The `cached_descendants` vs `descendant_caches` is a bit confusing.

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#pullrequestreview-1713009811)
Code review ACK dfb58e4

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1381905163)
In 97de2a4af:
A note explaining why this is not needed would be nice.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1381885030)
nit:
Could also check that all active descriptors have this new xprv.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "build: remove `-bind_at_load` usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28783#issuecomment-1792745633)
Yuck. The only thing I can think of is a sledgehammer hack similar to this ancient one:
a98356fee8a44d7d1cb37f22c876fff8f244365e