💬 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.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#issuecomment-1879176485)
Pushed to fix CI.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: attempt to fill full outbound connection slots with peers that support tx relay":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28538#discussion_r1443312604)
> not super clear why we won't do this if full_outbound_delta > 0?

> Which raises the question whether there should be any interaction?

I think this would create a weird interaction. The current approach of this PR is trying to make the 8 full-outbound connections relay transactions, given we already have blocks-only connections, so we should not waste full-outbound slots for this purpose. However, our full-outbound connection protection criteria is based on whether they have provided vali
...

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#issuecomment-1879183816)
>`git range-diff bitcoin-core/master a b` does not care about rebases, see the docs in this repo.

It's also painful to review. If there's no benefit to a rebase, better to just avoid it.

📝 sipa opened a pull request: "Weaken serfloat tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29192)
Closes #28941.

Our current tests for serfloat verify to distinct things:
* Whether they roundtrip `double`->`uint64_t`->`double` (excluding NaN values) on all systems.
* Whether on systems with a typical floating point unit that encoding matches the hardware representation, as before v22.0, we would dump the hardware representation directly to disk and we wanted to retain compatibility with that.

#28941 seems to show that the second property doesn't always hold, but just for "subnormal"
...

👍 jamesob approved a pull request: "fuzz: a target for the block index database"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28209#pullrequestreview-1806749752)
ACK 8083aa21a699cb240a11741be8ba5cfeeb58ee8b ([`jamesob/ackr/28209.1.darosior.fuzz_a_target_for_the_bl`](https://github.com/jamesob/bitcoin/tree/ackr/28209.1.darosior.fuzz_a_target_for_the_bl))

Ran the test locally and read over the change. This is a good basic test to have in place; seems like a low-risk merge.

<details><summary>Show signature data</summary>
<p>

```
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

ACK 8083aa21a699cb240a11741be8ba5cfeeb58ee8b ([`jamesob/ackr/28209.
...

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "fuzz: a target for the block index database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28209#discussion_r1443317367)
Good suggestion, but could be done in a follow-up I guess.