💬 fanquake commented on issue "new crash in v26.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29153#issuecomment-1877232062)
cc @hebasto

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "test: Use test framework utils in functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28528#discussion_r1441859824)
```suggestion
assert_equal(txid, utxo["txid"])
```

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ubsan: misaligned-pointer-use in crc32c/src/crc32c_arm64.cc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29178#issuecomment-1877240437)
I re-tried commit 7b45d171f549595a831489827c28e8493f36c00c and at least Asan is passing. Fuzz and Tsan are failing for different reasons.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "fuzz: a target for the block index database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28209#discussion_r1441867954)
Ok, looks like i'm wrong. It doesn't make any difference in runtime when running my target over my local corpus. I'll hold off making this change then.

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to current master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29169#pullrequestreview-1804351648)
re-ACK e2cdeb592596432039d21f4c819d45f1e46d65ef

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "wallet: Add CoinGrinder coin selection algorithm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27877#issuecomment-1877253041)
After discussing Pieter’s review comments further with him, I decided to restructure the algorithm proposed in this PR. I’m returning the PR to draft for a few days while I rewrite the commits.

📝 murchandamus converted_to_draft a pull request: "wallet: Add CoinGrinder coin selection algorithm"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27877)
***Please refer to the [topic on Delving Bitcoin](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/gutterguard-and-coingrinder-simulation-results/279) discussing Gutter Guard/Coingrinder simulation results.***

Adds a coin selection algorithm that minimizes the weight of the input set while creating change.

Motivations
---

- At high feerates, using unnecessary inputs can significantly increase the fees
- Users are upset when fees are relatively large compared to the amount sent
- Some users struggle to m
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Fix use-after-free in WalletBatch::EraseRecords":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29176#issuecomment-1877254328)
ACK faebf1df2afe207f5d2d4f73f50ac66824fe34bb

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "wallet: Fix use-after-free in WalletBatch::EraseRecords"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29176)

👍 real-or-random approved a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to current master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29169#pullrequestreview-1804417620)
Concept ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c13a17c6996442f04635bdf70ee8f06bf6854ff6 I haven't checked that the subtree is correct but no objections to update to this commit

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "wallet: Fix use-after-free in WalletBatch::EraseRecords":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29176#issuecomment-1877306996)
Backported to 26.x in #29011.

🤔 jonasnick reviewed a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to current master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29169#pullrequestreview-1804437226)
reACK e2cdeb592596432039d21f4c819d45f1e46d65ef

💬 desi-bitcoiner commented on pull request "doc: revert clarify -datacarriersize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29173#issuecomment-1877319214)
It's a disgrace that core devs with merge rights are behaving as kids and not taking this PR seriously. Please open this issue again and address the concerns with valid arguments rather than acting tyrannical and closing the issue.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "test: Use test framework utils in functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28528#discussion_r1441924369)
2103e12: here and for `assert_less_than_or_equal` too.
```suggestion
raise AssertionError("%s >= %s" % (str(thing1), str(thing2)))
```

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "test: Use test framework utils in functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28528#discussion_r1441930203)
2103e12: maybe just have `assert_not_equal(thing1, thing2)`. i couldn't find an occurrence where we needed to `assert_not_equal` 3+ things. ex: `assert_not_equal(2, 2, 3)`

💬 desi-bitcoiner commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877342635)
Concept ACK

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "test: Use test framework utils in functional tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28528#discussion_r1441947958)
i think you can find more places where `assert_not_equal` can be used using the command @theStack mentioned [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23119#issue-1009729239)!

example first 3 lines output:
```
$ git grep "assert ".*\!=
feature_fee_estimation.py: assert fee_dat_current_content != fee_dat_initial_content
feature_fee_estimation.py: assert fee_dat_current_content != fee_dat_initial_content
mempool_accept_wtxid.py: assert child_one_wtxid != child_tw
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: C++20: Use std::rotl":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29085#issuecomment-1877382331)
lgtm ACK 842c288852c4d66de359e6907d9c82b7e618ab65

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "[26.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29011#pullrequestreview-1804535841)
ACK 7b79e54474b86864c81148c74824bfe4b732412d

🤔 aureleoules reviewed a pull request: "wallet, rpc: `FundTransaction` refactor"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28560#pullrequestreview-1804531120)
A few nits