💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: Split logging utilities from system.h":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27238#discussion_r1134181883)
should be on the first line and separate section to catch missing includes in the header

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "Improve address decoding errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26514#issuecomment-1466387824)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26514/commits/962a0930e699b74b3c4d019427df6e2b3af5c831

💬 kiminuo commented on pull request "Add feerate histogram to getmempoolinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21422#issuecomment-1466387944)
> > So what would be your approach to do it externally then? Especially if you want to get this information more often.
>
> Could a tracepoints approach, similar to #26531, work?

I need to research that in detail but it looks promising. Thank you for sharing it here!

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Cache more stuff in the ci images: msan, iwyu, pip, sdks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27028#issuecomment-1466450885)
Thanks, fixed

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "rpc: Add test-only RPC getaddrmaninfo for new/tried table address count":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26988#issuecomment-1466454098)
thank you @amitiuttarwar and @brunoerg! I've updated the PR to include your suggestions:
- added release notes
- test coverage for different networks
- hidden RPC check

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "rpc: Add test-only RPC getaddrmaninfo for new/tried table address count":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26988#discussion_r1134245231)
done.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "rpc: Add test-only RPC getaddrmaninfo for new/tried table address count":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26988#discussion_r1134253991)
adding addresses from different networks wouldn't cause these kind of collisions because [`GetGroup()`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/b5868f4b1f884e8d6612f34ca4005fe3a992053d/src/netgroup.cpp#L17) would differ right?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: A few fixes of `ccache` issues":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27084#issuecomment-1466466171)
lgtm. While it would be good to be able to point to docs, I don't think this is required. Happy to review if you move this out of draft.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Split logging utilities from system.h":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27238#issuecomment-1466482704)
Updated [4aa0ec6](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27238/commits/4aa0ec6a8617ac77a19e49d8cf081b7a7f6404ae) -> aaced5633b81b2f08b993106a527e2a0e1d663c1 ([splitSystemLogging_0](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/splitSystemLogging_0) -> [splitSystemLogging_1](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/splitSystemLogging_1), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/splitSystemLogging_0..splitSystemLogging_1)) to fix header inclusion order addressing @MarcoFalke
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "[POLICY] Ephemeral anchors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26403#issuecomment-1466487189)
Switched to OP_TRUE, as it was less confusing for at least a few people, and only requires light test editing. Had to rebase on top of master for trivial merge conflict.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: Split logging utilities from system.h":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27238#issuecomment-1466487829)
re-ACK aaced5633b81b2f08b993106a527e2a0e1d663c1 🐍

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: re-ACK aaced5633b81b2f08b99
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "[POLICY] Ephemeral anchors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26403#discussion_r1134315587)
suggested in other PR: "switch the ordering? else if (whichType != ANCHOR && IsDust())"

✅ glozow closed an issue: "Error messages for invalid address"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21741)

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "Improve address decoding errors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26514)

👍 hernanmarino approved a pull request: "Mask values on Transactions View"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/708)
ACK 4492de1be11f4131811f504a037342c78f480e20

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "Avoid integer overflow in CheckDiskSpace"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27235)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Mask values on Transactions View":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/708#issuecomment-1466603230)
ACK 4492de1be11f4131811f504a037342c78f480e20

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "rpc: Add test-only RPC getaddrmaninfo for new/tried table address count":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26988#discussion_r1134455743)
I don't think so - even with the guarantee that `GetGroup()` is different, there is still a small chance that two addresses happen to hash to the same bucket in `GetNewBucket()`.

👋 pinheadmz's pull request is ready for review: "Add wallet method to detect if a key is "active""
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27216)

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "test: fix race condition in encrypted wallet rescan tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27199#discussion_r1134513177)
Oh yes, `walletlock` never gets called here. However, implementing this change results in another `CannotSendRequest`.