🚀 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.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: wallet rescan with reorged parent + IsFromMe child in mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29179#discussion_r1443208305)
taken

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: wallet rescan with reorged parent + IsFromMe child in mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29179#discussion_r1443208232)
I agree, taken

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: wallet rescan with reorged parent + IsFromMe child in mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29179#discussion_r1443209504)
Added a similar comment.

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#issuecomment-1879093274)
Why was it rebased? Just seems to make it harder to review the changes...

💬 sipa commented on issue "brew: serfloat_tests tests fail on Linux":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28941#issuecomment-1879103731)
It appears that subnormal `double` values are encoded as 0 for some reason. My guess would be that somehow `std::fpclassify` returns FP_ZERO for them, but I'm not sure it's worth investigating.

These functions are only used to store fee estimate data on disk, since Bitcoin Core v22.0. We don't care about subnormal numbers, I believe, and even then, this test is just verifying that the serialization is compatible with the pre-v22 code used on x86_64. I think we can just weaken the test to veri
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#issuecomment-1879129804)
Considering an alternative branch with fee diagram checks instead of heuristic here: https://github.com/instagibbs/bitcoin/commits/feefrac_package_rbf

💬 Davidson-Souza commented on pull request "RFC: Deprecate libconsensus":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29189#issuecomment-1879130051)
Thank you, @1thales, for the ping.

I'm building a lightweight Bitcoin full node called [Floresta](https://github.com/Davidson-Souza/Floresta), and I'm using `libbitcoinconsensus` through `rust-bitcoinconsensus`. I would rather not reimplement the entire script interpreter logic, given the complexity of keeping this code consensus-compatible with core. I did reimplement some consensus logic, but tx validation and script interpreter are the hardest ones to. `libbitcoinconsensus` has some issues
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1443276867)
Probably yeah, tests should catch this case regardless. Will add one after deciding what way to go with heuristic vs diagram check

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "RFC: Deprecate libconsensus":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29189#issuecomment-1879168582)
Concept ACK

> If libbitcoinkernel exposes stateless block/tx validation, that is, I give the transaction[s], the inputs and some context like block hash and MTP, and it spits out a "valid" or "not valid because X"; I would start using it as replacement without problems.

Sounds pretty achievable in the short-term, and something that should be exposed for cross-implementation testing anyway?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#issuecomment-1879175078)
> Why was it rebased? Just seems to make it harder to review the changes...

`git range-diff bitcoin-core/master a b` does not care about rebases, see the docs in this repo.