💬 ariard commented on pull request "Ephemeral Anchors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29001#issuecomment-1865322967)
> @ariard I'd rather talk downstream details over here https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1524

Thanks good to me - Answered strong conceptual issues there.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "fuzz: coinselection, improve `min_viable_change`/`change_output_size`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28372)

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Transfer from closed coinbase acc."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29126)

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Transfer from closed coinbase acc.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29126#issuecomment-1865324105)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base. General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat.

💬 maaku commented on issue "macOS App Notarization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15774#issuecomment-1865330437)
I'm a bit mystified that this issue is over 4 years old. Near as I can tell, the release manager just needs to pas `--hardened-runtime` to the signing command, and the resulting binaries will be notorizable. I've personally tested this on v26.

💬 achow101 commented on issue "macOS App Notarization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15774#issuecomment-1865370047)
> I'm a bit mystified that this issue is over 4 years old. Near as I can tell, the release manager just needs to pas `--hardened-runtime` to the signing command, and the resulting binaries will be notorizable. I've personally tested this on v26.

I don't think it's technically difficult, although it will probably need additional tooling and procedural changes to work in the Guix build system.

I believe the current main objection is a philosophical one to the fact that notarizing means that
...

🤔 ryanofsky reviewed a pull request: "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#pullrequestreview-1791999003)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#issuecomment-1865160784
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#pullrequestreview-1791595622

> This is essentially what we do today, albeit with hd keys rather than hd seeds.

Right. It seems like we can add the features we want without making the wallet data model more complicated, so I think we should do that. If there are features that can't work under the current model, or would work worse under the current model, that would c
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1433383580)
In commit "test: add coverage for re-opening a downgraded encrypted wallet on master" (98b6fad226640a0827e39574a91dd3d2fdeac94a)

I think your renaming script went too far 😁, this commit used to be authored by furszy (db6b61e9e7635c9cb97d73fd44b9e7266b8eef51)

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1433362520)
In commit "wallet: Automatically upgrade a wallet to have global hd key" (442962d4410edd985fe336f29070c55516ae7de4)

It seems like these variables are unnecessary, and CWallet::UpgradeToGlobalHDKey could just get the keys from the descriptors in the wallet instance, instead of requiring them to be passed as extra argument. This would require adding an extra loop to UpgradeToGlobalHDKey, but also make it less fragile, simpler to call, and easier to understand without having to look at outside c
...

💬 maaku commented on issue "macOS App Notarization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15774#issuecomment-1865433661)
Not if the notarization is stapled to the binary, no. That should prevent phoning home. I have not used Wireshark to verify this, but that's what the documentation claims.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#discussion_r1433433918)
Oops fixed

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#issuecomment-1865439673)
> Instead of returning an object with "xpub" and "xpriv" fields, it would return a list of objects with "xpub", "xpriv", and "descriptors" fields. The "descriptors" field would contain a list of descriptors using the hd key.
>
> It would also be good for the method to accept an "active_only" option, and only return hd keys associated with active descriptors by default.
>
> This would make it easy to get the hd key, and easy to understand how the hd key is referenced by descriptors. In the
...

💬 BrandonOdiwuor commented on pull request "getrawtransaction implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/777#issuecomment-1865441605)
I have updated the PR based on the feedback given above:

- Added `Tools` menu
- Moved `getrawtransaction RPC` implementation to `Tools > verify external txid`

cc: @willcl-ark @luke-jr @pablomartin4btc

📝 1wiz1 opened a pull request: "Rename SECURITY.md to SECURITY.md."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29128)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "Rename SECURITY.md to SECURITY.md."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29128)

📝 achow101 locked a pull request: "Rename SECURITY.md to SECURITY.md."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29128)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "test: test_bitcoin: allow -testdatadir=<datadir>":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26564#issuecomment-1865554603)
Yes, that's what the compiler error says, but that function doesn't seem to be in that namespace. Its other callers don't qualify it, and if I do qualify it, the build fails for me.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "test: create deterministic addrman in the functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29007#discussion_r1433633597)
makes sense! added an option in `restart_node()` to restart the node with an empty addrman which could potentially be useful in other tests. addresses added in addpeeraddress test don't leak into addrman tests now.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "test: create deterministic addrman in the functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29007#discussion_r1433633671)
true, i've removed the comment in commit.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "test: create deterministic addrman in the functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29007#discussion_r1433634609)
right, i've included both improvements!