🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: Improve fuzzing stability for minisketch harness"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29064)

💬 sipa commented on issue "Performance decrease after tapscript miniscript":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29098#issuecomment-1860568169)
That sounds very plausible, @darosior.

If so, I think there is an approach that doesn't lose optimality: keep track of the optimal satisfaction size, and once reached, don't bother evaluation further keys?

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "refactor: Replace ALWAYS_FALSE with false"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29108)
Now that `static_assert(false)` when evaluated in a non-instantiated template is treated as a no-op, use it over the workaround, and remove the workaround.

💬 darosior commented on issue "Performance decrease after tapscript miniscript":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29098#issuecomment-1860578924)
Neat. This would give us the same performance in the large majority of cases while still being optimal in the rare non-SIGHASH_DEFAULT cases. In any case this would fix the slowdown you noticed @eriknylund.

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "refactor: Replace ALWAYS_FALSE with false"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29108)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Replace ALWAYS_FALSE with false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29108#issuecomment-1860587423)
Oh nvm, this is C++26

⚠️ c0deright opened an issue: "Old wallet.dat: Error reading wallet database: keymeta found with unexpected path / All keys read correctly, but transaction data or address metadata may be missing or incorrect"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29109)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

When starting bitcoind with an old wallet (created July 2019, probably `v0.17.x` or `v0.18.x`) the log records 2 errors and one warning that are not self-explanatory.

Might be related to #19051

### Expected behaviour

No warning/errors are shown or the errors/warnings are more detailed as to what's going on.

### Steps to reproduce

Run v26.0 with a very old `wallet.dat` file. I wasn't
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1430198623)
I was just thinking on ways to simplify this. `CheckForStaleTipAndEvictPeers()` is executed every 45 seconds. I think it is ok if for a while (~ 10 mins) we think we are close to the tip but we are not in practice. Given that we realize this in a few minutes and don't get stuck with the wrong assumption forever.

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "wallet, mempool: propagete `checkChainLimits` error message to wallet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28863#pullrequestreview-1787005073)
LGTM

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "wallet, mempool: propagete `checkChainLimits` error message to wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28863#discussion_r1430210897)
this would be good

💬 ChrisMartl commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1860650558)
Concept ACK

Database is a very important resource for the "Bitcoin"-System and its usage must be reserved exclusively for Sats endogenous monetary usage.
Since the Bitcoin's systemic flaw (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29089#issue-2043281653) is still unaddressed / unsolved, efforts to preserve the capability of already allocated storage devices resources in the network shall be considered and encouraged.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "wallet, mempool: propagete `checkChainLimits` error message to wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28863#discussion_r1430217862)
Thanks Would create a tiny follow-up to fix this, so as not to invalidate ACK's.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "Improve display address handling for external signer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24313#issuecomment-1860680045)
Concept ACK

💬 vasild commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1430238465)
The problem this PR aims to resolve is that if we are too much behind (48h), then limited peers may not be able to give us the blocks we need. To resolve this problem, I think that it is not necessary to change the "extra block relay only connections" logic. IMO that better be done in a separate PR with its own justification.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: Clarify C++20 comments":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29042#issuecomment-1860707320)
Included https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29108

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Policy: Report reason inputs are non standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#discussion_r1430246659)
Fixed thanks

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Policy: Report reason inputs are non standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#discussion_r1430246916)
fixed

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Policy: Report reason inputs are non standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#issuecomment-1860731819)
Thanks for reviewing @luke-jr
Force pushed from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e032462c44dba9b6961c1e18bd597d63c6afac02 to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e032462c44dba9b6961c1e18bd597d63c6afac02.

[Compare diff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e032462c44dba9b6961c1e18bd597d63c6afac02..814571bf3ebb4e2640bbb6401c5822c038bb5287)

The changes in latest push are:
- Rebased on master to fix CI
- Updated the non-standardness reason to address @luke-jr comments

...

💬 fanquake commented on issue "ci: feature_proxy failing in MSVC job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29090#issuecomment-1860741967)
Similar failure, different test: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/7249043694/job/19746211856#step:27:521.

⚠️ fanquake opened an issue: "ci: failure in `wallet_basic.py --descriptors`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29110)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5898005006516224?logs=ci#L2515:
```bash
_20231218_134952/wallet_basic_259/node0/regtest/wallets/default_wallet/wallet.dat] SQLite Statement: ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
node0 2023-12-18T13:53:29.193915Z [scheduler] [wallet/sqlite.cpp:400] [Close] SQLiteBatch: Batch closed unexpectedly without the transaction being explicitly committed or aborted
node0 2023-12-18T13:53:29.194038Z [scheduler] [wallet/sqlite.cpp:53] [TraceSqlCallback] [/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/test_
...