💬 fjahr commented on pull request "doc: Add multiprocess design doc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28978#discussion_r1428168964)
```suggestion
The multiprocess feature requires [Cap'n Proto](https://capnproto.org/) and [libmultiprocess](https://github.com/chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess) as dependencies. A simple way to get started using it without installing these dependencies manually is to use the [depends system](../depends) with the `MULTIPROCESS=1` [dependency option](../depends#dependency-options) passed to make:
```

💬 jrakibi commented on issue "test: Write assumeutxo tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28648#issuecomment-1858178944)
> Hey, @maflcko @jrakibi Is there anyone working on this issue? If not I’d like to pick it up. Thanks

Hey @mohamedawnallah , I am currently preoccupied with other assignments, feel free to take it over

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428218062)
Not 100% sure how to encapsulate this exactly since Workspace is private to MemPoolAccept, which is private to validation. We have some tests that the ancestor sets are correctly calculated. Maybe we add a helper function? Or I can add some more assumes.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "tests: Don't depend on value of DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29088#pullrequestreview-1784568242)
ACK 7b45744df33c6a4759eae1a3984f389cbac837c2, changed default locally and all tests passed

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428100898)
```suggestion
if (ws.m_ptx->nVersion == 3) {
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428105177)
would be nice to explain if the key a v3 tx or the ancestor set is, for name reading purposes

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428172941)
txns can not be empty

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428129715)
```suggestion
const int64_t vsize = GetVirtualTransactionSize(*tx, /*nSigOpCost=*/0, /*bytes_per_sigop=*/0);
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428162185)
Anything that's not-already `PreCheck`'ed will necessarily have empty `Workspace::m_ancestors` sets, so there will be a mismatch in the over-estimates.

(not sure it matters, just noting)

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428144170)
```suggestion
// Map from txid of a V3 transaction to its in-package ancestor set. Not MemPoolAccept-wide
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428181463)
```suggestion
unsigned int num_in_pkg_ancestors,
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428181640)
```suggestion
const CTxMemPool::setEntries& mempoool_ancestors,
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428198917)
this function explicitly doesn't check sigops adjusted vsize

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428212191)
I think sometimes this can over-shoot, meaning we might hide the actual check we're shooting for
```suggestion
```
we don't get a great error here either so it's hard to check precisely; should we pass the whole reason back in results?

📝 djschnei21 opened a pull request: "Update doc/policy/README.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29095)
Include `-datacarriersize` in the examples because people are extremely confused about this...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428321924)
Updated the docstring

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428320528)
I've changed this to just be preceding transactions instead of all of them, which also matches with this behavior. Added a comment

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428319820)
Edited comment

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428322312)
Removed. Now using `package_state.ToString()` for "package_msg" result

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1428320034)
paranoia deleted