👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "[26.0] Finalize or rc4"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28959)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "[26.0] Finalize or rc4":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28959#issuecomment-1836753602)
ACK b1d350c78b0a26e3c514a79b928578727df70538

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "fuzz: Test headers pre-sync through p2p interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28043#issuecomment-1836792663)
Needs rebase (silent merge conflict).

📝 instagibbs opened a pull request: "Cluster size 2 package rbf"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984)
Allows any 2 transaction package with no in-mempool ancestors to do package RBF.

Slightly alternative approach to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25038 in that it decouples the feature from V3, *except* in that if/when v3 packages are being conflicted *against*, we can use this information to do better by comparing actualy miner scores.

TODO:
1) Restrict the proposed 2 transaction package to be a single "chunk": we don't want a low feerate child to supply the necessary anti-DoS f
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Replace sets of txiter with CTxMemPoolEntryRefs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28886#issuecomment-1836874179)
Rebased 2685c9a228c0b2af9bc9bf6bc902bdf816263a22 -> 54f0dc5adc17ca976d9c6e997f317dc22318768f ([setEntryRefs_2](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/setEntryRefs_2) -> [setEntryRefs_3](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/setEntryRefs_3), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/setEntryRefs_2..setEntryRefs_3))

* Fixed conflict with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28368

📝 murchandamus opened a pull request: "Avoid changeless input sets when SFFO is active"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28985)
Fixes a bunch of issues around tests for coinselection, and disables changeless solutions when building transactions with SFFO.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "build: Introduce internal kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28690#issuecomment-1836875762)
Rebased 0af5d4d2d6c4201c7c6f1ba8b497cce23dc9f3ad -> 5a235048500a38fae691396cb59f6697032b4deb ([kernelInternalLib_9](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelInternalLib_9) -> [kernelInternalLib_10](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelInternalLib_10), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelInternalLib_9..kernelInternalLib_10))

* Fixed conflict with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28368

💬 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-1836875918)
This is my draft PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28985

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: Fix migration of blank wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28976#discussion_r1412668674)
In 0e7eb54bfe6:

Are we sure we always have unset the blank flag when an address, script or key was imported across all of our previous versions?

Because, if we are not, could change this line for:
```c++
success = !WalletBatch(local_wallet->GetDatabase()).HasLegacyRecords();
```
.
The implementation of `HasLegacyRecords` would be:

```c++
bool WalletBatch::HasLegacyRecords()
{
return std::any_of(DBKeys::LEGACY_TYPES.begin(), DBKeys::LEGACY_TYPES.end(), [&](const auto& type) {
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Fix migration of blank wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28976#discussion_r1412682383)
> Are we sure we always have unset the blank flag when an address, script or key was imported across all of our previous versions?

I'm pretty sure that it was unset whenever something was imported.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "doc: Add multiprocess design doc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28978#discussion_r1412680712)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28978#discussion_r1411756653

> The pull is merged?

Good catch, this was supposed to point to #19460

🤔 ryanofsky reviewed a pull request: "doc: Add multiprocess design doc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28978#pullrequestreview-1760730321)
Updated 66e19e7659dc19dac6b0cc2318efd00a4d2f5240 -> f566245147003648099f961306be82ea32ea47ae ([`pr/ipcdoc.6`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/ipcdoc.6) -> [`pr/ipcdoc.7`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/ipcdoc.7), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/ipcdoc.6..pr/ipcdoc.7)) fixing broken links and making small edits.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "doc: Add multiprocess design doc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28978#discussion_r1412680746)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28978#discussion_r1411756818

> wrong number?

Thanks, this one was supposed to point to #19461

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: Fix migration of blank wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28976#discussion_r1412702601)
In 658d2140ab:
nit: should unload the wallet after finishing the test.

👍 furszy approved a pull request: "wallet: Fix migration of blank wallets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28976#pullrequestreview-1760756402)
Code review ACK 658d2140

💬 elminson commented on pull request "rpc: encryptwallet help, mention HD seed rotation and backup requirement":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28980#discussion_r1412711729)
I like the wording by @pablomartin4btc

💬 virtu commented on issue "Increase # of block-relay-only connections ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28462#issuecomment-1837057676)
> > (feel free to double-check the [methodology](https://21.ninja/unique-reachable-nodes/methodology/))
>
> I think that this methodology (using networks in getaddr responses) will likely overestimate the number of peers reachable on multiple networks, because accepting addrs from a network does not mean you can actually accept connections from it. It doesn't even mean that you can connect to others over it: For example, I think it's quite typical that some node operators would enable an onio
...

⚠️ techy2 opened an issue: "getrawtransaction xxxxxx.... 2 causes a segfault"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28986)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

ubuntu 18.02 with updated clib (20.02)
bitcoincore v25.0

cli command getrawtransaction 1160bb49db71df577deff983d590ea1eab182a71ada56c6720748b6f2c234128 2
this combination caused a segfault

[26881892.674102] b-bitcoin-httpw[7582]: segfault at fffffffffffffff8 ip 000055d902af340e sp 00007fbcf4ff8210 error 5 in kyanite-qt[55d9023a7000+28b0000]
[26947689.966408] QThread[20975]: se
...

💬 techy2 commented on issue "getrawtransaction xxxxxx.... 2 causes a segfault":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28986#issuecomment-1837078334)
configurations commands for the build shown above are incorrect, should be....

./configure --enable-glibc-back-compat --prefix=$(pwd)/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu LDFLAGS="-static-libstdc++" --enable-cxx --enable-static --disable-shared --disable-debug --disable-tests --disable-bench --with-pic CPPFLAGS="-fPIC -O2 --param ggc-min-expand=1 --param ggc-min-heapsize=32768" CXXFLAGS="-fPIC -O2 --param ggc-min-expand=1 --param ggc-min-heapsize=32768"

💬 techy2 commented on issue "getrawtransaction xxxxxx.... 2 causes a segfault":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28986#issuecomment-1837079189)
When I tried getrawtransaction xxxx.... 1
It worked as expected
with a "2" produced the segfault