💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Use Ubuntu 24.04 Noble for asan,tsan,tidy,fuzz":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28992#issuecomment-1849657966)
Looks like something similar (for LLVM 18) is being worked around upstream, by just creating the missing file: https://github.com/include-what-you-use/include-what-you-use/pull/1350.

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "fuzz: p2p: Detect peer deadlocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29009#issuecomment-1849658906)
ACK 9f265d88253ed464413dea5614fa13dea0d8cfd5

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "msvc: Optimize "Release" builds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29045)

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "versionbits refactoring":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29039#issuecomment-1849667277)
Concept ACK. Looks cleaner. Will look in more detail when you undraft it.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: fix `addnode` functional test failure on OpenBSD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29035)

💬 vasild commented on pull request "refactor: Remove pre-C++20 code, fs::path cleanup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29040#issuecomment-1849679829)
> Does it happen on the master branch?

@hebasto, yes, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28774

✅ nymkappa closed an issue: "[build] cannot build tests using v26.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29051)

💬 nymkappa commented on issue "[build] cannot build tests using v26.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29051#issuecomment-1849683631)
> Have you run `make clean` since updating your local repo to v26.0?

I did not. I was not aware I should do this when upgrading. Thanks for the tip. It builds and run fine now on v26.0 @ 44d8b13c81e5276eb610c99f227a4d090cc532f6. All tests also passed. Thank you!

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[POC] C++20 `std::endian`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28674#discussion_r1422215535)
Depending on what happens here, given we only use `CountBits` in two places, if this is going to basically become a std lib call, we could just use it directly where needed, and remove our `CountBits` unit/fuzz tests, so that we aren't nearly unit testing / fuzzing the standard library.

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "Bitcoin Core - Transaction without permition"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29049)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Bitcoin Core - Transaction without permition":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29049#issuecomment-1849701776)
Hello @hugomenezes85 .

I'm sorry to hear about your unauthorised transaction. If this has really taken place without your knowledge it could indicate that someone has obtained a copy of your wallet file, private key(s) or other senstive key material in order to make this transaction. This would also correlate with Bitcoin Core not needing to open the wallet for this to happen -- Bitcoin Core did not make the transaction, only picked up that it had occured from the blockchain. I'd encourage yo
...

🤔 vasild reviewed a pull request: "refactor: Remove pre-C++20 code, fs::path cleanup"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29040#pullrequestreview-1774737399)
Almost ACK 0d66eea93f1e115b2e9e00ee2e89cd967f826d22, modulo the comment below about the `u8string()` method.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "refactor: Remove pre-C++20 code, fs::path cleanup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29040#discussion_r1422242907)
What about the comment that says "This method can be removed after switching to C++20"? I think indeed this method should be removed entirely.

In C++17 its prototype, according to the spec is `std::string u8string() const` which matches ours and is ok. But in C++20 it is: `std::u8string u8string() const` and it is confusing to have a mismatch. I would better drop this method like the comment says and then fix problems (if any) that arise due to that.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "refactor: Remove pre-C++20 code, fs::path cleanup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29040#discussion_r1422226453)
nit: the commit message has comments:

```
#include <system_error> // for error_code
#include <type_traits> // for is_same
```

personally I like them and find them useful.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Avoid returning references to mutex guarded members":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28774#issuecomment-1849743768)
> Let me know if I should drop it and you prefer to keep it here

It is ok. I don't have a preference whether it gets merged via https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29040 of via this PR. Just that it makes it to `master` ;-) Thanks!

📝 MarnixCroes opened a pull request: "doc/reduce-traffic: update/clarify max outbound connection count"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29052)
closes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29046

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Nit: Inconsistency in the docs regarding block-relay-only connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29046#issuecomment-1849754763)
The short-lived feeler connections are not counted against the full outbound count:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/09ab9d4fa731866802a6a9f9aa00d92536a8b420/src/net.cpp#L2349-L2355

...so reduce-traffic.md could be updated to mention that there are occasionally up to 11 outbound nodes, which it appears @MarnixCroes has just done :)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: fix intermittent error in rpc_net.py (#29030)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29041)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "test: Intermittent issue in rpc_net.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29030)

🤔 josibake reviewed a pull request: "wallet: skip BnB when SFFO is enabled"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28994#pullrequestreview-1774837387)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/1d3bc77cbe25a8492a4733841bb7d6ecd6d60d30

> Applied @murchandamus suggestion of adding inputs fee to each UTXO rather than deduct them from the target. The latter one was breaking the equivalence of the input sets.

Wasn't the test still passing before, when you were deducting them from the target? If so, I would suggest we take a closer look at this test in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28985 to ensure it's testing the thing it's suppo
...