💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validation: return more helpful results for reconsiderable fee failures and skipped transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28785#discussion_r1382138716)
```suggestion
// Failed for fee reasons. Provide the effective feerate and which txn was included.
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validation: return more helpful results for reconsiderable fee failures and skipped transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28785#discussion_r1382126634)
Might make sense to add a comment to the effect that we don't want to reject fetching this same tx in a future package

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Fuzz: Check individual and package transaction invariants":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28764#discussion_r1382150706)
missing some `return` statements in this function

📝 instagibbs opened a pull request: "test: bugfix CheckPackageMempoolAcceptResult return all error strings"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28788)
Noticed on follow-up testing work https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28764/files#r1382150706

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1382141691)
In 770a73c66a48434fa48f594709dbbf5831dc1d5d "wallet: track mempool conflicts"

nit: `snake_case` for member variables.

Additionally, this is tracking these conflicts at the `CWallet` level. However I wonder if it might be better to track it on a transaction level, i.e. have `CWalletTx` have the set of txids.

💬 ariard commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1793036667)
I think it’s good to communicate on the mailing list in which version (27.0 or 28.0) full-rbf might be turn on by default. I advocated such setting in the past as early as 0.24, though at the time some 0-conf transactions applications and services were migrating their stuff in consequence.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "doc: Add offline signing tutorial":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28363#issuecomment-1793039287)
ACK 3c208cc05ea9efb145c956e70f80efd8b027ff33

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "fuzz: Avoid utxo_total_supply timeout (take 2)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28789)
Looks like this still may take a long time to run large fuzz inputs. Thus, reduce it further, but still allow it to catch the regression, if re-introduced:

```diff
diff --git a/src/consensus/tx_check.cpp b/src/consensus/tx_check.cpp
index f949655909..4bdd15c5ee 100644
--- a/src/consensus/tx_check.cpp
+++ b/src/consensus/tx_check.cpp
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ bool CheckTransaction(const CTransaction& tx, TxValidationState& state)
std::set<COutPoint> vInOutPoints;
for (const auto& txin
...

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1793068038)
Well it's certainly not going to be in 26, as we're releasing it now.

If we actually merge this soonish I'll make a post saying it will come out in 27.0. I can also write some release notes if people want them.

Right now Antpool is the largest pool, and it's still mining full-rbf, along with all the others mentioned above. (Luxor recently turned it back on; as Nick alluded to, looks like they unintentionally had it turned off) So IIRC we're at ~40% of hash power mining it.

On November
...

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1793071684)
Conveniently, here's an example of Luxor mining a full-rbf double spend 20 minutes ago: https://mempool.space/tx/8c2a54f92237a66662083fdd3a85d4d7b1399f9301edf434eaf72219b8440f82

On November 3, 2023 5:12:32 PM GMT-03:00, Antoine Riard ***@***.***> wrote:
>I think it’s good to communicate on the mailing list in which version (27.0 or 28.0) full-rbf might be turn on by default. I advocated such setting in the past as early as 0.24, though at the time some 0-conf transactions applications and se
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#issuecomment-1793371057)
```
test/functional/wallet_backwards_compatibility.py:29:1: F401 'test_framework.wallet_util.WalletUnlock' imported but unused

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#issuecomment-1793371211)
```
test/net_msg_tests.cpp:70:48: error: ‘WithParams’ was not declared in this scope;

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: add end-to-end tests for CConnman and PeerManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812#issuecomment-1793371342)
```
test/i2p_tests.cpp:162:79: error: no matching function for call to ‘i2p::sam::Session::Session(const fs::path&, CService, CThreadInterrupt*)’

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "net: support unix domain sockets for -proxy and -onion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27375#issuecomment-1793371393)
```
test/i2p_tests.cpp:162:79: error: no matching function for call to ‘i2p::sam::Session::Session(const fs::path&, CService, CThreadInterrupt*)’

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "build: Windows SSP roundup"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28461#pullrequestreview-1713746582)
Approach ACK on stack smashing protection stuff.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Windows SSP roundup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28461#discussion_r1382375025)
How does this affect binaries? Aren't position independent executables an ELF thing, not PE?

💬 Ayush170-Future commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for Spend":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28236#issuecomment-1793499068)
- Force pushed rebasing on current master branch.

👍 Ayush170-Future approved a pull request: "fuzz: add target for `DescriptorScriptPubKeyMan`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28578#pullrequestreview-1713827504)
ACK

Reviewed the whole code. Looks great to me!

⚠️ Gitsarry opened an issue: "Possibility to dump all runtime parameter values"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28790)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

I would like to be able to see all parameters and it's values that bitcoind "knows" when it is running.
That are at least those parameters you can set in `bitcoin.conf` file, e.g. `upnp`, `disablewallet` etc.

My use case is with bitcoind `v26.0.0rc2` I want to test enabling v2 transport with `v2transport=1`.

Since I have since then not one v2 connection (which is perfectly reasonable, I guess, since it is a new feature disabled by
...

💬 kashifs commented on pull request "net: improves addnode / m_added_nodes logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28155#issuecomment-1793511504)
> > tACK [0420f9](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/0420f99f429ce2382057e101859067f40de47be0)
>
>
>
> Thanks for reviewing! Would you mind sharing what did you test and how?
>
>
>
> @vasild would you mind re-acking this when you have some time?

I pulled the branch, compiled from source on my Mac, and ran:

./src/test/test_bitcoin -t net_peer_connection_tests -l message -- -printtoconsole=1

and

`./src/test/test_bitcoin -t net_peer_connection_tests -l all -- -printtoconsole=1`

I
...