💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Bump clang minimum supported version to 14":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29208#discussion_r1446267614)
Thanks, fixed

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: wallet rescan with reorged parent + IsFromMe child in mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29179#discussion_r1446269441)
changed

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: wallet rescan with reorged parent + IsFromMe child in mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29179#discussion_r1446269555)
taken

💬 reardencode commented on pull request "OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK(VERIFY), OP_INTERNALKEY validation (LNHANCE)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29198#issuecomment-1883309957)
Hi @michaelfolkson, can you enumerate a concrete dispute with my proposals (on their respective PRs) or my code here? Otherwise, I'm not sure your comments are contributing to the discussion. You've registered your Concept NACK.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "build: Drop `ALLOW_HOST_PACKAGES` support in depends"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29203)

💬 michaelfolkson commented on pull request "OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK(VERIFY), OP_INTERNALKEY validation (LNHANCE)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29198#issuecomment-1883319863)
@reardencode: No, registering my Concept NACK is sufficient. I'll leave it to others to rehash what Sjors and I have already advised and you can choose to ignore them too.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "fuzz: a target for the block index database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28209#discussion_r1446286078)
You need it for the logs iirc.

📝 glozow opened a pull request: "[26.x] more backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29209)
Backports for 26.x. Includes:
- 453b481 from #28391

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#issuecomment-1883380383)
pushed update with fee diagram checks instead of heuristics. @sipa please see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984/commits/9dda95d58442e4884a57216472c991c62f87ef1f and similar

Addressing other comments next.

🤔 stratospher reviewed a pull request: "p2p: attempt to fill full outbound connection slots with peers that support tx relay"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28538#pullrequestreview-1811535657)
ACK 8f07458. useful to fill outbound slots with peers which we can relay transactions with and i liked the approach in this PR to swap away blocks-only peers in full relay outbound slots only after the threshold number of max full relay outbound connections is reached.

💬 stratospher 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_r1446322434)
68769ff: nit if you retouch.
```suggestion
with self.nodes[0].assert_debug_log(expected_msgs=["disconnecting full outbound peer not participating in tx relay: peer=1"]):
self.nodes[0].mockscheduler(46)
blocksonly_peer2.wait_for_disconnect()
```

💬 stratospher 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_r1446331630)
> It would be easy to exempt non-tx-relaying m_protect peers from disconnection, but that would mean that we could end up with up to 4 of these peers permanently.

[commit message](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11490/commits/5a6d00c6defc587e22c93e63029fdd538ce8858d) where `m_protect` was introduced says "we pick 4 of our outbound peers and do not subject them to this logic, to be more conservative. We don't wish to permit temporary network issues (or an attacker) to excessively disru
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Drop `ALLOW_HOST_PACKAGES` support in depends":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29203#discussion_r1446339387)
nit: Forgot to adjust the cirrus yaml description of this task?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: remove `FORCE_USE_SYSTEM_CLANG` & native_llvm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29188#issuecomment-1883429315)
I'm just going to squash this back into #21778, and get it done together. The changes (combined with lld) are now working.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "depends: remove `FORCE_USE_SYSTEM_CLANG` & native_llvm"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29188)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "I2P: Change encryption type"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29197)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "net: create I2P sessions using both ECIES-X25519 and ElGamal encryption"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29200)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "net, cli: use v2transport for manual/addrfetch connections, add to -netinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29058#issuecomment-1883456495)
ACK fb5bfed26a564014b83ccfc96ff00b630930fc61

💬 mzumsande 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#issuecomment-1883481846)
Thanks for the review!

We had an offline conversation about this today (FYI @sdaftuar @sipa @sr-gi). Some takeaways:
- It would probaly be better to first have a replacement peer ready before disconnecting a blocksonly peer. That would mean a similar approach as for the extra network-specific peers, it would also mean that we would need to add a way to make extra connections when we have a -blocksonly peer we want to get rid of.
- We should avoid situations where there could be perpetual ch
...

📝 mzumsande converted_to_draft a pull request: "p2p: attempt to fill full outbound connection slots with peers that support tx relay"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28538)
As described in the issues #16418 and #28371, it's a possibility that we could end up having an insufficient number of outbound peers relaying our transactions. Having fewer outbound peers support tx-relay could also have implications on [privacy](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16418#issuecomment-514328042) and fee estimation.

While #28488 is suggesting meaures based on comparing fee filters / mempool sizes, there is also the simpler issue of peers that tell us they don't want tran
...