💬 glozow commented on pull request "mempool / rpc: followup to getprioritisedtransactions and delete a mapDeltas entry when delta==0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28885#discussion_r1429829307)
in 0d3a4abd805e3d4deec25f9902e762a7e693ce6b

This is just testing that you didn't submit the transaction. Did you mean to use the `getprioritisedtransactions` RPC instead?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "mempool / rpc: followup to getprioritisedtransactions and delete a mapDeltas entry when delta==0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28885#discussion_r1429816799)
question - why the indentation changes?

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "net, cli: use v2transport for manual/addrfetch connections, add to -netinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29058#discussion_r1429854862)
Is it possible that they haven't sent us anything (the state is `KEY`), but disconnected us for other reason than not supporting `v2`? I assume it's possible if an alternative client implements whatever because this is not prohibited by any bips... But even in the current client, say that `IsBanned` is triggered?

💬 aureleoules commented on pull request "rpc: Optimize serialization disk space of dumptxoutset":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26045#discussion_r1429863730)
Fixed thanks

💬 aureleoules commented on pull request "rpc: Optimize serialization disk space of dumptxoutset":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26045#issuecomment-1860032906)
> @aureleoules wen rebase? :-)

🫡

💬 glozow commented on pull request "wallet, mempool: propagete `checkChainLimits` error message to wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28863#issuecomment-1860046724)
utACK 8dec9c560b

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: Simply include CTxMemPool::Options in CTxMemPool directly rather than duplicating definition":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29086#issuecomment-1860058118)
Looking at the conflicts with kernel, v3, cluster mempool, etc., is this the kind of mempool refactor we should defer for now?

📝 aureleoules converted_to_draft a pull request: "rpc: Optimize serialization disk space of dumptxoutset"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26045)
This is an attempt to implement #25675.

I was able to reduce the serialized utxo set from 5GB to 4.1GB on mainnet.

Closes #25675.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Template Provider (take 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28983#issuecomment-1860108282)
Integrated changes from https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/pull/26: further noise simplification, and chunking large messages. This requires https://github.com/Fi3/stratum-1/tree/UpdateNoise until it's merged into the dev branch. I also renamed `SendMsg` in `noise.h` to `WriteMsg`. And rebased.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: Rework guix docs after 1.4 release":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28962#discussion_r1429911345)
thx, removed

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: Rework guix docs after 1.4 release":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28962#discussion_r1429911489)
thx, done

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Update doc/policy/README.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29095#issuecomment-1860150991)
So I guess it would be better to update the docs to refer to that, than to start listing more options here.

💬 aureleoules commented on pull request "rpc: Optimize serialization disk space of dumptxoutset":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26045#issuecomment-1860158880)
Rebased

I had to slightly change the tests in `feature_assumeutxo.py` because I changed the encoding format of the dump. I added 2 bytes to the offset because of the new `size` (2 bytes) field.

👋 aureleoules's pull request is ready for review: "rpc: Optimize serialization disk space of dumptxoutset"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26045)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Performance decrease after tapscript miniscript":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29098#issuecomment-1860166405)
cc @darosior @sipa

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Discussion: Upgrading to C++20":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23363#issuecomment-1860181524)
> I think you need an helper

Looks like you are right. I thought that it was possible to write a concept like

```cpp
template <class T>
concept ArrayLike = requires(T a) {
std::array<decltype(*a.begin()), a.size()>{};
};
```

But that doesn't work, because `a.size()` is unevaluated (https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.prim#req.general-2) and presumably template arguments must be evaluated?

💬 ajtowns commented on issue "Discussion: Upgrading to C++20":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23363#issuecomment-1860216234)
> > I think you need an helper
>
> Looks like you are right. I thought that it was possible to write a concept like
>
> ```c++
> template <class T>
> concept ArrayLike = requires(T a) {
> std::array<decltype(*a.begin()), a.size()>{};
> };
> ```
>
> But that doesn't work, because `a.size()` is unevaluated (https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.prim#req.general-2) and presumably template arguments must be evaluated?

`ArrayLike` sounds like `ranges::contiguous_range` ? https://en.cppref
...

💬 darosior commented on issue "Performance decrease after tapscript miniscript":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29098#issuecomment-1860221553)
Without profiling my hunch is that this performance decrease comes from using a less efficient but more optimal algorithm for satisfying a `multi_a` fragment:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/3695ecbf680a66b718f97d504308578d001eec49/src/script/miniscript.h#L1178-L1205

The [previously algorithm](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/4f473ea515bc77b9138323dab8a741c063d32e8f#diff-8a974828ccf5a554c068f5e859e62d1ab1e5010c66baaa6d6b83f42b26b219adL286-L299) would use the first `k` availa
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Bump guix time-machine to unlock riscv64 metal":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29078#issuecomment-1860266173)
> Is there an easy way to print all affected/changed/bumped dependencies in the Bitcoin Core build graph?

A quick check is to compare the manifests of master vs the change, i.e:
```bash
diff guix-build-3695ecbf680a/var/profiles/x86_64-linux-gnu/manifest guix-build-fa87a2072b91/var/profiles/x86_64-linux-gnu/manifest
60c60
< "0.67"
---
> "0.68"
62c62
< "/gnu/store/4ck57lp0wdcslrc106c649yfm3fclmsl-moreutils-0.67")
---
> "/gnu/store/09jzmmg2h8cxf75imk0r1c3j0cx20
...

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "build: Bump guix time-machine to unlock riscv64 metal"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29078#pullrequestreview-1786733471)
ACK fa87a2072b91c591d2714bc70488b395c22df95d

Guix build (aarch64):
```bash
d137d8dc94b3d734965b7e50fac273f704e122f969430e1b43bfe21c9af31bbe guix-build-fa87a2072b91/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
42d66d0daf6067a74c3ba4e55c012712ae5cca02c9123ed3ef7fd9a8f09c16d4 guix-build-fa87a2072b91/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-fa87a2072b91-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
3ccda6af99c1dd4b54533d073dca82d5f252759cede55a335220065dfe24ee7c guix-build-fa87a2072b91/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitco
...