💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "util: Replace std::filesystem with util/fs.h":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28076#issuecomment-1808599588)
This remains NACK'd and should not have been merged. Please revert it ASAP.

💬 Riahiamirreza commented on pull request "rpc: show P2(W)SH redeemScript in getrawtransaction #27637":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27638#discussion_r1391415349)
@sipa Do you think this is a proper way of accessing the last push of the `scriptSig`? Or there are utilities in the codebase to do this for me?
```c++
while (true) {
if (txin.scriptSig.GetOp(pc, opcode, vch))
break;
}
```

💬 Ayush170-Future commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for Spend":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28236#discussion_r1391438669)
Yeah, this should make it more deterministic. As you said, it's causing some compilation errors with other code. I'll force-push once I've fixed them.

💬 Ayush170-Future commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for `Crypter`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28074#discussion_r1391440365)
Yes, I'm on it. Will try to reproduce it once again and create an issue then.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[WIP] test: migrate to some per-symbol ubsan suppressions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28865)
Now that the symbolizer should be hanging around (#28814), migrate some file-wide suppressions to be symbol specific. Should assist in catching new issues that may otherwise go unnoticed due to file-wide suppression.

Only tested (so far) on aarch64 using the native ASAN & FUZZ CI.

💬 Riahiamirreza commented on pull request "rpc: show P2(W)SH redeemScript in getrawtransaction #27637":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27638#discussion_r1391468842)
@sipa How can I access the `CTxout` from the `COutPoint`? For a given `CTxIn` I want to reach the `scriptPubKey` of its output. The `COutPoint` only has transaction hash and index of that specific output in the `vout`. I don't know how can I reach a transaction output using `COutPoint`. Should I use `CCoinsViewDB::GetCoin`? Does it contains all the transactions? (not only mempool transactions)
```cpp
bool GetCoin(const COutPoint &outpoint, Coin &coin) const override;
```

💬 sipa commented on pull request "rpc: show P2(W)SH redeemScript in getrawtransaction #27637":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27638#discussion_r1391472823)
You can't use the UTXO set for this as I pointed out elsewhere. The spent UTXO is however in the undo data that's passed to TxToUniv.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "bugfix, Change up submitpackage results to return results for all transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28848#discussion_r1391493778)
I think the check would be for `Txid` since different witness isn't considered a failure? added

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "bugfix, Change up submitpackage results to return results for all transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28848#discussion_r1391493855)
From my understanding: The current behavior in master is to re-broadcast anything in our mempool provided the txid matches something in the proposed package. If something in our mempool matches the `txid`, we (re)`BroadcastTransaction`. If it's not in our mempool, it means it was rejected, and we don't want to re-validate one by one.

I think this is the behavior we want.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "bugfix, Change up submitpackage results to return results for all transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28848#discussion_r1391493917)
fixed

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "bugfix, Change up submitpackage results to return results for all transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28848#discussion_r1391493972)
removed the cruft

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "bugfix, Change up submitpackage results to return results for all transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28848#discussion_r1391494055)
done

💬 Riahiamirreza commented on pull request "rpc: show P2(W)SH redeemScript in getrawtransaction #27637":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27638#discussion_r1391510409)
@sipa The undo data contains Coins, which only have amount and scriptPubKey. The Txins' outpoint have tx hash and index of vout. My problem is how to identify which one of Coins in the undo data match to a given txin's prevout.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "rpc: show P2(W)SH redeemScript in getrawtransaction #27637":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27638#discussion_r1391514253)
`txundo->vprevout[txin.prevout.n].scriptPubKey` is the scriptPubKey you want.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "bugfix, Change up submitpackage results to return results for all transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28848#discussion_r1391519236)
yeah makes sense

⚠️ m3dwards opened an issue: "25.0 RC Testing Guide Feedback"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28866)
This issue is to discuss the [26.0 Release Candidate Testing Guide](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/26.0-Release-Candidate-Testing-Guide). If you have any issues with or feedback on the document, please leave a comment here.

Note: this is for feedback on the document, not on Bitcoin Core or on the 26.0 changes. Please see the https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28718 for instructions on how to report bug/results.

Thank you for your feedback

💬 theuni commented on pull request "guix: update time-machine":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28580#issuecomment-1808794490)
Post-merge ACK 92d12f1c890350f40d8e5d5c6a59d5c172ea7550.

x86_64 guix builds:
```
13a7d1be447ecb614cf43034af4f7a3a7ce7dffbcdb6c1773bc939ba80587ef6 guix-build-92d12f1c8903/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
5ab66c69b742a89b0aa52705e48563749cb72ebcc92745a4eb07df285a20c62a guix-build-92d12f1c8903/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-92d12f1c8903-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
d3224eb0eb66bf4433ed8757667ed438e419db4240b06d76122e8754de241742 guix-build-92d12f1c8903/output/aarch64-linux-gn
...

💬 theuni commented on pull request "guix: Use LTO to build releases":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25391#issuecomment-1808900147)
Any idea where `in6addr_any` is coming from? Seems fine, just curious.

💬 1440000bytes commented on issue "25.0 RC Testing Guide Feedback":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28866#issuecomment-1808910369)
The title of this issue should be 26.0 instead of 25.0

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1809001659)
@Daniel600

> At GAP600 to date we have not seen any significant impact of FULLRBF on our service - we have seen circa 2 trxs which affected us, keep in mind we processed Circa 180k unique trx hash in Sept of 2023.

Have you actually tested full-RBF double spends against your service? Because at the moment, about 40% of hash power is mining with full-RBF enabled. So the chance of a full-RBF double-spend succeeding is approximately 40%.

As an example, here in El Salvador the Chivo ATMs ac
...