💬 leotese commented on pull request "fuzz: Avoid timeout and bloat in fuzz targets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28815#issuecomment-1800349248)
Testing

💬 jkyiv commented on issue "doc: Explain what the wallet password does":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18085#issuecomment-1800350253)
Where in the existing documentation can one read about bitcoin core's use of keypools? That's the one part of the story scenarios (@jonasschnelli 2nd story) that I don't yet understand. Thanks!

💬 leotese commented on pull request "Wallet: Functions to enable adding used balance to GUI overview page":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28776#issuecomment-1800350436)
Cool!

📝 achow101 opened a pull request: "tests: Increase wallet_miniscript.py rpc timeout to 90 seconds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28820)
The signing test for the large miniscript can sometimes take longer than the 30 second timeout, depending on the load on my system. Increasing it to 90 seconds seems to be good enough.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "snapshots: don't core dump when running -checkblockindex after `loadtxoutset`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28791#issuecomment-1800634060)
I'll check this soon.

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "tests: Increase wallet_miniscript.py rpc timeout to 90 seconds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28820#issuecomment-1800823676)
looks like the default is 60 seconds according to this
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py#L103

but increasing seems fine ACK [6559e4d](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28820/commits/6559e4d27ac9e8344d1211239cffab427b94bc23)

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "log: torcontrol opt checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28780#issuecomment-1800844121)
looks like automated tests are failing

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24748#issuecomment-1801073913)
Updated since #28374 is merged.

👋 stratospher's pull request is ready for review: "test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24748)

💬 kouloumos commented on issue "doc: Explain what the wallet password does":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18085#issuecomment-1801253405)
> Where in the existing documentation can one read about bitcoin core's use of keypools? That's the one part of the story scenarios (@jonasschnelli 2nd story) that I don't yet understand. Thanks!

The comments at the relevant class provide context about keypools
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/82ea4e787c791acbc85fd3043dd6bae038cba4f2/src/wallet/scriptpubkeyman.h#L55-L108

Also, if you want to get a quick understanding of the wallet's inner workings (including encryption, use of pass
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "tests: Increase wallet_miniscript.py rpc timeout to 90 seconds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28820#issuecomment-1801255879)
lgtm ACK 6559e4d27ac9e8344d1211239cffab427b94bc23

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: Avoid timeout and bloat in fuzz targets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28815#issuecomment-1801265842)
> Question: What is the difference compared to #27552 ("partial" fuzzers)?

As I said on that pull request, it needs benchmarks and review on a case-by-case basis to check whether it is useful for a specific fuzz target. If someone wants to do those benchmarks on the fuzz targets touched in this pull request, and finds a positive outcome, nothing is holding anyone back from applying the concept.

The goal of this pull request is to prevent the fuzz engine from exploring invalid serialization
...

👍 ismaelsadeeq approved a pull request: "validation: return more helpful results for reconsiderable fee failures and skipped transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28785#pullrequestreview-1719641686)
ACK 1147e00e59e47f27024ec96629993c66a3ce4ef0

looks good to me.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "sanitizer: symbolizer improvements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28814#issuecomment-1801296876)
Missing test prefix in pull title?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: call lookup functions before calling `Ban`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27935#issuecomment-1801300389)
Are you still working on this?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: Avoid timeout and bloat in fuzz targets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28815#issuecomment-1801380939)
Did the same for coins_view, because it followed the same pattern, even though a timeout is currently not reported by Oss-Fuzz.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: call lookup functions before calling `Ban`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27935#issuecomment-1801397067)
> Are you still working on this?

Yes

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24748#issuecomment-1801417208)
CI:

```
�[0m�[0;31mp2p_v2_earlykeyresponse.py | ✖ Failed | 1 s

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: symbolizer improvements"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28814)

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "init: completely remove `-zapwallettxes` (remaining hidden option)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28787#pullrequestreview-1719838322)
ACK 5039c346ca87d6112ea1eb124bdc622ba9e9a513