💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Fix migration of blank wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28976#discussion_r1412388284)
Done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "RPC: Add maxfeerate and maxburnamount args to submitpackage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28950#issuecomment-1836530146)
rebased on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28848 and ready for review

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "depends: Build the `native_capnp` and `capnp` packages with CMake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28856#issuecomment-1836557161)
> Yea, happy for [156366f](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/156366f10aa38c612e26a1f93d8503786f3d3a34) to be cherry-picked in here.

In case you do cherry pick it, I suggested a comment to go along with the code here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28846#discussion_r1399057303. I think it would also be good link to https://github.com/chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess/pull/79 in the commit message or pull request description since that what the triggered the problem.

Also seems
...

💬 romanz commented on pull request "rpc: keep `.cookie` file if it was not generated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28784#issuecomment-1836591659)
Thanks :)

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: log which peer sent us a header":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27826#discussion_r1412484600)
I like the first commit, but the second/third commit are not ideal, because there is a difference between a new block and a new header:
I started up this branch on mainnet while being a few blocks behind (but not that far such that I'd be in IBD so that the log messages would go to `BCLog::VALIDATION`).
Then, the log entries I'd get for each downloaded block ("Saw new header via unsolicited block") are wrong in two ways:
The header is not new (only the block), plus the blocks is not unsolicit
...

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: log which peer sent us a header":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27826#discussion_r1412496288)
I looked at this independently (tracing the call chains before reading this thread), and I came to the same conclusion as Sjors, except for the case of a direct BLOCK, which has an issue that I mentioned below.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "validation: log which peer sent us a header":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27826#discussion_r1412504952)
That indeed sounds like two bugs, will try to reproduce.

💬 kristapsk commented on pull request "rpc: distinguish between vsize and sigop-adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27591#issuecomment-1836676257)
Concept ACK

💬 murchandamus commented on issue "fuzz, coinselection: Assertion 'result_bnb->GetChange(coin_params.m_cost_of_change, CAmount{0}) == 0' failed":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28918#issuecomment-1836695533)
Yeah, a bunch of coin selection tests break when you stop running BnB while SFFO is active, since a lot of tests made use of SFFO as a crutch to avoid needing to consider the fee of inputs compared to the target. Since there are exist some [other issues](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27754) with the `coinselector_tests` anyway, I decided to clean up the `coinselector_tests` in combination with implementing the avoidance of changeless solutions when SFFO is being used.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Fee Estimator updates from Validation Interface/CScheduler thread":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28368#issuecomment-1836699939)
ACK 91504cbe0de2b74ef1aa2709761aaf0597ec66a2

👍 pablomartin4btc approved a pull request: "rpc: encryptwallet help, mention HD seed rotation and backup requirement"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28980#pullrequestreview-1760481839)
ACK 40a5117c020e6ecfc5b57909900eb7afb8a486d9

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "rpc: encryptwallet help, mention HD seed rotation and backup requirement":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28980#discussion_r1412519649)
optional nit
```suggestion
"For security reasons, the encryption process will generate a new HD seed, resulting in the creation of a fresh set of active descriptors. "
```

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "Fee Estimator updates from Validation Interface/CScheduler thread"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28368)

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "Intermittent CI failure "fee too high" in wallet_send.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25164#issuecomment-1836719951)
It still happens:
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6418676576944128

```
node0 2023-11-29T05:48:26.130808Z [httpworker.3] [txmempool.cpp:678] [check] [mempool] Checking mempool with 0 transactions and 0 inputs
test 2023-11-29T05:48:26.131000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/test/functional/test_framework/tes
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: switch to using LLVM 17.x for macOS builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28880#issuecomment-1836733075)
I was hoping we'd figure out all the determinism issues in Qt, but I guess C++20 also doesn't want to wait much longer. I'll add a reversion of #28851 here.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: remove `libz-dev` from macOS build deps"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28973)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Patch Qt to handle minimum macOS version properly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28851#issuecomment-1836734281)
WIll merge this, given #28880 is blocked on non-determinism issues in Qt. I'll rebase #28622 on top for C++20.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "build: Patch Qt to handle minimum macOS version properly"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28851)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: use macOS 14 SDK (Xcode 15.0)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28622#issuecomment-1836738988)
Rebased for #28851 and dropped the LLVM changes.

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "build: use macOS 14 SDK (Xcode 15.0)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28622)