💬 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!

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "test: create deterministic addrman in the functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29007#issuecomment-1865704915)
thanks for the thoughtful feedback @amitiuttarwar, @0xB10C! I've updated the PR to address your comments.

Main changes were: ([git diff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d3c24183483e43dd38209dbaf3c4ac725e13d4a3..1b49149b3ed7366141f0090692256e82032cb9af))
1. adding an option to restart the node with an empty addrman (method 1 suggested here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29007#discussion_r1418564026) to prevent addpeeraddress test leaking into getaddrmaninfo and getrawaddr
...

💬 jonasschnelli commented on issue "macOS App Notarization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15774#issuecomment-1865735331)
@maaku
My tests in 2020 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18187#issuecomment-592453829) showed me, that regardless of stapling, macOS does an onlinecheck of the notarization (if the user has internet connection).

Not sure if that has changed. Might be worth to redo https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18187#issuecomment-592453829.

That unnecessary "calling-apple" was the reason to not do notarization back in 2020.

💬 maaku commented on issue "macOS App Notarization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15774#issuecomment-1865811312)
@jonasschnelli Sounds like bug 57278824, which was fixed back in 2020 just a few months after you ran your test:

> There’s one further wrinkle here: Once Brigitte removed the com.apple.security.cs.disable-library-validation entitlement from their app the problem didn’t go away! And that’s the result of a historical bug in Gatekeeper (r. 57278824). Prior to 10.15.4 Gatekeeper does not recognise the implied library validation that you get when you enabled the hardened runtime. So, even though y
...

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Transfer from closed coinbase acc."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29126)

💬 S3RK commented on pull request "wallet: Have the wallet store the key for automatically generated descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26728#issuecomment-1865817132)
IIUC the approach proposed by @ryanofsky is to basically figure out the key on demand instead of storing it in the DB.

So this works for generating tr() descriptors for existing wallets, but it doesn't work that well for #24861. The desired flow is to have a wallet with HD key but without descriptors and then retrieve an xpub to construct multisig descriptor. How would it work if we don't have an HD key associated with the wallet?

In my opinion, approach proposed in this PR resolves a regr
...

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "Nuke adjusted time (attempt 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28956#issuecomment-1865838565)
ACK 87c577e9742d7154826c755a7fe320f34fd54c81

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "Nuke adjusted time (attempt 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28956#discussion_r1433684385)
dde4e1c6b0cbb49b84e75b9d0d1a92161ba5a499
if `m_index` is 4, there are 4 samples but we will still compute the median, so the comment is inaccurate.

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "Nuke adjusted time (attempt 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28956#discussion_r1433686298)
83c790e3abd7d2434894fb964c21796f1d024e9b

the comment could be more useful, rephrasing the meaning of this info.

💬 mmgen commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1865905242)
> @conduition No need to switch to a different inscription form, assuming you mean 100% of non-mining nodes adopt it. The mining nodes (miners) are financially incentivized to accept the inscriptions, so they will not adopt such code, so inscriptions txs will be sent directly to miners out of band (such as via API) to dark/private miner mempools.

Yes, this is the most important point, the reason that this patch will accomplish absolutely nothing.