💬 cecuabin commented on issue "`-maxtxfee` is used as a fee and a feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29220#issuecomment-1890830538)
FR + dac = -At^2sds + Wo^3/1.223
358 dt^2sv = F271 +dr^3 / 1:121234^3/2 r^2 -cfv^2

🤔 jonesk7734 reviewed a pull request: "Update doc/policy/README.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29095#pullrequestreview-1820177649)
Reviewed, and terms agreed to.

📝 BrandonOdiwuor opened a pull request: "doc: update encryptwallet passphrase doc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29245)
Follow up to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28974, coming from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28974#issuecomment-1855661692

🤔 jonesk7734 reviewed a pull request: "doc: refer to "Node relay options" in policy/README"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29235#pullrequestreview-1820183065)
Reviewed, and accepted terms.

✅ BrandonOdiwuor closed a pull request: "wallet: Refactor DumpWallet function to accept -dumpfile path argument"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29223)

💬 hsjoberg commented on pull request "Implement 64 bit arithmetic op codes in the Script interpreter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29221#issuecomment-1890905163)
Concept ACK. This is great!

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "doc: refer to "Node relay options" in policy/README"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29235)
Fixed up #29095, to refer to `-help`, rather than listing every option.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Revert "build: Fix regression in "ARMv8 CRC32 intrinsics" test"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29226#issuecomment-1890934252)
> We could alternatively add a suppression but I prefer reverting unless someone can explain how this is not an actual bug.

Assuming that this is a bug, disabling the buggy feature should be documented properly, no?

💬 GoodDaisy commented on pull request "Fix typos":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/787#issuecomment-1890949164)
@hebasto thank you very much for your guide. I will submit to the main repository.

📝 GoodDaisy opened a pull request: "Fix typos"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29246)

fix typo in doc/Doxyfile.in
fix typo in test/functional/wallet_backup.py

💬 GoodDaisy commented on pull request "Fix typos":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29246#issuecomment-1890950963)
@hebasto thank you very much for your suggestion, and I submit to here.

💬 reardencode commented on pull request "OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK(VERIFY), OP_INTERNALKEY validation (LNHANCE)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29198#issuecomment-1890976319)
Force pushed to deconflict opcodes with VAULT, add deployment info output, and slightly improve tx_invalid tests.

💬 RandyMcMillan commented on pull request "Fix typos":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29246#issuecomment-1890985686)
ACK a1b1798b1652e93caf66e5e1c8353bcd7951f1c4

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor(tidy): Use C++20 contains method":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29191#issuecomment-1891007986)
Re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29191#issuecomment-1882971897

> but I'm not sure for this PR the benefits outweigh the costs?

FWIW I would approve this PR if it would only contain the changes that are automatically picked up by tidy and applied by running with `-fix`, making resolving potential conflicts purely manual.

💬 hebasto commented on issue "ubsan: misaligned-pointer-use in crc32c/src/crc32c_arm64.cc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29178#issuecomment-1891012697)
I can reproduce the issue on Debian 11, aarch64.

💬 benthecarman commented on pull request "OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK(VERIFY), OP_INTERNALKEY validation (LNHANCE)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29198#discussion_r1451787079)
does this mean you can do schnorr sigs with segwit v0 and p2sh? is that intended?

💬 benthecarman commented on pull request "OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK(VERIFY), OP_INTERNALKEY validation (LNHANCE)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29198#discussion_r1451787098)
if schnorr is allowed in non-taproot then why forbid ecdsa for taproot?

💬 benthecarman commented on pull request "OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK(VERIFY), OP_INTERNALKEY validation (LNHANCE)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29198#discussion_r1451787208)
msg size is also not verifiied here

💬 benthecarman commented on pull request "OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK(VERIFY), OP_INTERNALKEY validation (LNHANCE)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29198#discussion_r1451787153)
should different message sizes be left for future upgrades

💬 reardencode commented on pull request "OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK(VERIFY), OP_INTERNALKEY validation (LNHANCE)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29198#discussion_r1451788888)
Yes, intended to support both ECDSA and BIP340 sigs in segwitv0 and legacy.

No need for message size check here because BIP340 supports arbitrary length message.