💬 fanquake commented on pull request "util: remove Boost posix_time usage from GetTime*":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21110#issuecomment-1878453838)
> As std::chrono::parse is available now,

I'm not sure if that is true? See discussion in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29081#issuecomment-1857683898. Happy for you to submit a PR in any case.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "rpc: Remove deprecated -rpcserialversion"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28890)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc,rest,zmq: faster getblock, NotifyBlock and rest_block by reading raw block":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26415#discussion_r1442732727)
rpc ser-flags were removed

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "build: Fix check whether `-latomic` needed"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29177#pullrequestreview-1805731949)
ACK f8ca1357c8205ceff732dcfb0d2bad79b40b611b

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "build: Fix check whether `-latomic` needed"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29177)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Bump clang minimum supported version to 15":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29165#discussion_r1442736791)
Thanks, fixed.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Bump clang minimum supported version to 15":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29165#issuecomment-1878479956)
rebased

💬 maflcko commented on issue "fuzz: Fix timeouts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28812#issuecomment-1878490116)
So currently, I think, the remaining ones are:

* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28226#issuecomment-1837969022
* https://github.com/bitcoin-core/qa-assets/issues/158
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28657#issuecomment-1874012428
* and possibly https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28812#issuecomment-1855815358 ?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Use DEBUG=1 in depends for MSAN jobs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27495#issuecomment-1878505456)
Pushed again as oss-fuzz closed the equivalent issue as flaky/not-reproducible, however it definitely still happens:
```bash
2024-01-05T1Uninitialized bytes in strlen at offset 113 inside [0xe0900000a05c, 114)
==35245==WARNING: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value
#0 0xaaaad75d2440 in sqlite3Strlen30 /ci_container_base/depends/work/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/sqlite/3380500-6ac42047a53/sqlite3.c:32670:28
#1 0xaaaad75fd278 in mkFullPathname /ci_container_base/depends/work/
...

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "build: Bump clang minimum supported version to 15"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29165#pullrequestreview-1805775946)
ACK fac4cf24588c281b12f9f64aa6f0a4dda1a645b7.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: set `nMaxOutboundLimit` in connman target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29172#discussion_r1442763249)
Maybe call `CConnan::Init` instead of introducing this new test only setter?

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: set `nMaxOutboundLimit` in connman target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29172#discussion_r1442764742)
```suggestion
const uint64_t max_outbound_limit{fuzzed_data_provider.ConsumeIntegral<uint64_t>()};
```

this will result in 0 some of the time.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "crypto: remove use of BUILD_BITCOIN_INTERNAL macro in sha256":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29180#issuecomment-1878520710)
Re comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29180#pullrequestreview-1804912723
> Now it is gated with the DISABLE_OPTIMIZED_SHA256 one. Is it intentional?

That code seems to be unused currently if `BUILD_BITCOIN_INTERNAL` is defined, so this seems like an improvement to me.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "crypto: remove use of BUILD_BITCOIN_INTERNAL macro in sha256":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29180#issuecomment-1878521297)
> compiles regardless of the BUILD_BITCOIN_INTERNAL macro. Now it is gated with the DISABLE_OPTIMIZED_SHA256 one. Is it intentional?

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes it was intentional as I believe this is currently wonky in master.

Note that libbitcoinconsensus is the only user of `LIBBITCOIN_CRYPTO_BASE`. And because it never calls `SHA256AutoDetect` it will never actually use `sha256_sse4::Transform`. It's therefore useless to include sse4 in `LIBBITCOIN_CRYPTO_BASE`.

I'll push anot
...

💬 theuni commented on pull request "rpc: Remove deprecated -rpcserialversion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28890#issuecomment-1878533182)
Post-merge utACK fa46cc22bc696e6845915ae91d6b68e36bf4c242. Nice cleanup :)

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "build: remove systemtap variadic patch"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29181#pullrequestreview-1805812259)
ACK 6047e25035b7dc07f25e8a756930d5cf3d92cd9f

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "crypto: remove use of BUILD_BITCOIN_INTERNAL macro in sha256"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29180#pullrequestreview-1805820587)
Approach ACK 9235801256a63a9ca4f8c95a005b5151afa9a5d4.

🤔 maflcko reviewed a pull request: "test: randomize perturbed files excluding ldb"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29182#pullrequestreview-1805830780)
Please keep your fixup commits squashed according to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#squashing-commits

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: randomize perturbed files excluding ldb":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29182#discussion_r1442799108)
are block files guaranteed to contain this many bytes of blocks, always?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878572381)
This is a summary of the arguments on the PRs, mailing list posts, and some tweets.

### ACKs by reason

If you feel I have misrepresented something you said, feel free to let me know.

#### "Stop inscriptions, which are spam"

These types of transactions are used for ordinals, NFTs, data-carrying, or some use case that is not
financial transactions. This is "spam" and undermines the utility of Bitcoin for
payments due to high transaction traffic and fees.
- "these spam transactions m
...