💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Bump clang minimum supported version to 15":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29165#discussion_r1440439062)
Sorry, I meant fixing/changing the latomic build system check is unrelated, not the CI changes in this PR.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Nuke adjusted time (attempt 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28956#discussion_r1440456087)
We already assume the median can be rounded down, so I don't think extra rounding changes any assumptions, and therefore I wouldn't overcomplicate things, it's just not worth it imo. I'd be okay with casting to a double first, but it's not strictly better as we're trading off precision at the higher ranges (which I also don't think is important at all).

```cpp
if (m_index % 2 == 0) {
return (0.5 * sorted_copy[m_index / 2]) +
(0.5 * sorted_copy[m_index
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Relay own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#issuecomment-1875443279)
This is relevant and I am rewriting it as per the discussions above.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Possibility to dump all runtime parameter values":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28790#issuecomment-1875457667)
To get all config options (and their default) you can run `-help`.

To get all interpreted config options, you can look a the debug log, as already explained.

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: optimize migration process, batch db transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28574#pullrequestreview-1802244171)
Rebased, conflicts solved. Next PR in the line is #28987.

⚠️ Pissycat43 opened an issue: "In the future "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29168)
0xd8Ca987144CB163E6B2b1Edd6356622bEfD4d96E

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "In the future "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29168)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "In the future "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29168)

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "mempool: Don't sort in entryAll"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29019#pullrequestreview-1802291377)
utACK f761f0306b092c06cecd239060b36cd0ba45fa2c

👍 furszy approved a pull request: "wallet: Fix migration of wallets with txs that have both spendable and watchonly outputs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28868#pullrequestreview-1802295539)
reACK b093e5e

Only cleaned the IsMine && IsFromMe code dup from my last review.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Possibility to dump all runtime parameter values"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28790)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Possibility to dump all runtime parameter values":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28790#issuecomment-1875492104)
Going to close this for now.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Remove dependency on CScheduler":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28960#issuecomment-1875530051)
Rebased 717093f24b1ad65bc18b23eab492cfdcc2511e69 -> d63b2e88780dc78fd531b053653361a0bf3fcbea ([noGlobalSignals_0](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/noGlobalSignals_0) -> [noGlobalSignals_1](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/noGlobalSignals_1), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/noGlobalSignals_0..noGlobalSignals_1))

* Fix conflict with #29013

💬 furszy commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1440574231)
> To me `net_processing.h` looks like the natural place to move/expose the constant(s) that were defined as `static` in `net_processing.cpp` if they need to be used outside of that `cpp` file. Do you somehow dislike that idea or have another one?

I don't totally dislike it, but was pondering the option of moving them to a separate file for two reasons; I find the spread of constants across the sources hard to maintain, and I was also thinking about another testing scenario: what if we want to
...

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "mempool: Don't sort in entryAll"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29019#pullrequestreview-1802420294)
ACK f761f0306b092c06cecd239060b36cd0ba45fa2c given this brings us back to what we had before

It seems correct that none of the callsites need `GetSortedDepthAndScore`, though maybe topological is needed in wallet? I had the [same](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29019#issuecomment-1845497136) question. I guess insertion order doesn't imply topological if a parent was inserted later than a child, i.e. if it's from a reorg?

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "Nuke adjusted time (attempt 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28956#discussion_r1440584344)
Just a code comment would be fine too. I agree that the rounding doesn't matter at all in this context (and it'd also be fine not to calculate the mean in the even case at all), but code tends to get copied and reused.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "Nuke adjusted time (attempt 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28956#issuecomment-1875562921)
Concept ACK

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "fuzz: rule-out too deep derivation paths in descriptor parsing targets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28832#pullrequestreview-1802469073)
ACK a44808fb437864878c2d9696b8a96193091446ee - Not running into timeouts anymore

https://dergoegge.github.io/bitcoin-coverage/pr28832/fuzz.coverage/index.html

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: a new target for the coins database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28216#issuecomment-1875574282)
Coverage for `coins_db`: https://dergoegge.github.io/bitcoin-coverage/pr28216/fuzz.coverage/index.html

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: a target for the block index database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28209#issuecomment-1875575611)
Coverage for `block_index`: https://dergoegge.github.io/bitcoin-coverage/pr28209/fuzz.coverage/index.html