💬 luke-jr commented on issue "Witness scripts being abused to bypass datacarriersize limit (CVE-2023-50428)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29187#issuecomment-1879034293)
No, it doesn't contradict it. That overview conveniently leaves out the context of OP_RETURN being the _only_ way tolerated, and the `datacarriersize` limit makes no sense the way you want to spin it.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: simplify and batch zap wallet txes process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28987#discussion_r1443161309)
In 559529480fedd4181dab76f4452b5998d0cdadc3 "refactor: decouple wallet EraseTxns from ZapSelectTx"

Unnecessary whitespace change.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: simplify and batch zap wallet txes process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28987#discussion_r1443160561)
In 559529480fedd4181dab76f4452b5998d0cdadc3 "refactor: decouple wallet EraseTxns from ZapSelectTx"

The commit message calls this `EraseTxns`.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: simplify and batch zap wallet txes process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28987#discussion_r1443164969)
In ff214259de28216a5190c358b786306985f30227 "wallet: migration, remove watch-only transactions atomically"

It seems unnecessary to be making this change here as `ZapSelectTx` is now atomic.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "wallettool: Always be able to dump a wallet's database"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29117)

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor(tidy): Use C++20 contains method":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29191#issuecomment-1879038224)
Concept ACK

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Failing to fetch `cfheader` corresponding to block header in `headers` message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27085#issuecomment-1879039692)
> I guess the question now is why are we gossiping headers before its possible to serve filterheaders / filters that correspond with them if blockfilterindex=1 is enabled?

There was a previous discussion (I can't find it now), but I think it said that the P2P interface may fail, because it reaches to untrusted peers, so a logic to recover is needed either way. If you want to use a trusted interface, use RPC.

Though, there is also P2P encryption and peer permission flags, so my preference w
...

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "RPC/Blockchain: scanblocks: Accept named param for filter_false_positives"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29184#pullrequestreview-1806497595)
ACK 96ec3b67a7a7f968d002e13d6fc227f69b7f07d7

Also quickly checked that all other options objects properly accept named parameters (although I didn't check every single options parameter)

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "doc: Rework guix docs after 1.4 release"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28962#pullrequestreview-1806498886)
ACK fad444f6e1b1ce5c1572c773db4a9a098c7a0b96

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "doc: update Guix install docs for 1.4.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28957)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: Rework guix docs after 1.4 release"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28962)

💬 josibake commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: `FundTransaction` refactor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28560#discussion_r1443173852)
nice! TIL c++20 introduced contains for sets :heart:

💬 Christewart commented on issue "Failing to fetch `cfheader` corresponding to block header in `headers` message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27085#issuecomment-1879044563)
> There was a previous discussion (I can't find it now)

Do you recall the venue of where it was discussed? Some PR/issue on github or elsewhere? I may go digging.

In general, should I leave this issue open? It seems like this will not be resolved in the short term (or ever maybe).

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "CONTRIBUTING: Caution against using AI/LLMs (ChatGPT, Copilot, etc)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "CONTRIBUTING: Caution against using AI/LLMs (ChatGPT, Copilot, etc)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28175#issuecomment-1879046034)
Closing this for now.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: C++20: Use std::rotl":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29085#issuecomment-1879046730)
Concept ACK.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Failing to fetch `cfheader` corresponding to block header in `headers` message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27085#issuecomment-1879048367)
It was on GitHub (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci, iwyu: Update mappings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27710#issuecomment-1879071401)
Rebased.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: `FundTransaction` refactor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28560#discussion_r1443207515)
Rather than clearing tx.vout in the outer RPC function call, I am clearing tx.vout at the call sites of FundTransaction. Otherwise, I would have needed to make `tx` non-const, which seems risky since we are still using it to pass `tx.vins`

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: wallet rescan with reorged parent + IsFromMe child in mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29179#discussion_r1443208149)
Thanks, taken.