📝 petertodd opened a pull request: "RBF: Require unconfirmed inputs to come from a single conflicting transaction"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29297)
Extends BIP-125 Rule #2 slightly. Rational: if we allow unconfirmed inputs to come from multiple conflicts, we could allow a desirable transaction, and an undesirable transaction, to be replaced by a single undesirable transaction.

This solves the same problem that https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26451 was intended to solve, in a simpler way.

May not actually be worth adding to Bitcoin Core, as other solutions are coming. But I wrote the code for my replace-by-fee-rate work, where
...

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "Mempool util: Add RBF diagram checks for single chunks against clusters of size 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29242#issuecomment-1906919216)
```
$ echo "BAIBAgICAgIABfcN/f11BwAAAPsAAAICAgICAgICAi0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABwb3J0AgL+//////8hAQICAooBATIBAR4AAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIC/v///////wECAgKKAQEyAQEeAgIiAgICAgICHgACAgIDAgICAgICAiICAgICAExLQAICAgICAgICAv//////////////////////////////////////////////////////AQEBAQEByQEBAQEBAQEB/P8AAC8AGvsAXAEAAgLcAgICAgICAlSbtqZ56uTNNhvmIHMu83ifTNtXiVGR9z3J4We8dnhZegAAAAAAAAD/AAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAXP96AAAAAgICAgAF9w39/QAAAAEAAAABAgICAgICAgICLZC
...

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Weaken serfloat tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29192#issuecomment-1906925728)
Does dropping 2 lose the test that we haven't broken the serialization format somehow? Maybe it should be comparing a fixed mapping of some values at least?

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add basic type conversion hooks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28921#issuecomment-1906930401)
ACK 6acec6b9ff02b91de132bb1575d75908a8a2d27b

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "multiprocess: Add basic type conversion hooks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28921)

📝 theuni opened a pull request: "depends: patch libool out of libnatpmp/miniupnpc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29298)
An alternative to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29232

Rather than switching to the CMake builds which [proved problematic](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29232#issuecomment-1898513919), do the quick and dirty thing of just patching out libtool. Doesn't seem to introduce any new issues.

This should buy us time to upstream the necessary CMake fixes.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "depends: remove dependency on Darwin libtool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29232#issuecomment-1906942254)
Closing in favor of #29298.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "serialization: c++20 endian/byteswap/clz modernization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29263#issuecomment-1906951455)
Added a quick note about `std::byteswap` and c++23.

🤔 achow101 reviewed a pull request: "wallet, rpc: `FundTransaction` refactor"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28560#pullrequestreview-1839971435)
ACK 18ad1b9142e91cef2f5c6a693eeb2d0fbb8c517d

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: `FundTransaction` refactor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28560#discussion_r1464018197)
In f7384b921c3460c7a3cc7827a68b2c613bd98f8e "refactor: move parsing to new function"

nit: Making temp variables is not necessary.

✅ theuni closed a pull request: "depends: remove dependency on Darwin libtool"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29232)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "wallet, rpc: `FundTransaction` refactor"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28560)

💬 furszy commented on issue "Prune Node Rescan Project Tracking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29183#issuecomment-1906996240)
> Does `scanblocks` work on pruned nodes yet? If not, does this project aim to add that capability?

`scanblocks` always worked on pruned nodes. Just need to enable `-blockfilterindex` since the node's inception.

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "assumeutxo: nTx and nChainTx violations in CheckBlockIndex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29261#issuecomment-1907059722)
> * The final pindex->IsAssumedValid() check added in [#28791](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28791) seems a little overbroad. I think the condition `(pindex->nChainTx == pindex->nTx + prev_chain_tx)` should actually be true for all assumed-valid blocks except the first one and the last one, so that check could be tightened up

After trying this out, I think that this is not the case. The `BLOCK_ASSUMED_VALID` status is only removed when the block is connected to the chain and raised
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "init: handle empty settings file gracefully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#issuecomment-1907071391)
So now we will (always?) log this on startup:
```bash
2024-01-23T22:48:12.205684Z [init] Setting file arg: _warning_ = "This file is automatically generated and updated by Bitcoin Core. Please do not edit this file while the node is running, as any changes might be ignored or overwritten."
```

Which seems a bit pointless/noisy, and could maybe even be confusing to users?

📝 mzumsande opened a pull request: "validation: improve checkblockindex comments"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29299)
The two assumptions there were described as test-only, which has led to confusion whether they should exist.
However, they are necessary in general, as the changed comment explains - without them, the check would fail everywhere where it is enabled.
The second commit moves this assert down to the other checks.

Closes #29261

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "assumeutxo: nTx and nChainTx violations in CheckBlockIndex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29261#issuecomment-1907088890)
See #29299 for a fix (only changing the doc and moving the check into a proper section).

📝 furszy opened a pull request: "init: settings, do not load auto-generated warning msg"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29301)
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#issuecomment-1907071391.

The settings warning message is meant to be used only to discourage users from
modifying the file manually. Therefore, there is no need to keep it in memory.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "init: handle empty settings file gracefully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#issuecomment-1907124245)
> So now we will (always?) log this on startup:
>
> ```shell
> 2024-01-23T22:48:12.205684Z [init] Setting file arg: _warning_ = "This file is automatically generated and updated by Bitcoin Core. Please do not edit this file while the node is running, as any changes might be ignored or overwritten."
> ```
>
> Which seems a bit pointless/noisy, and could maybe even be confusing to users?

Agree. Good catch. Fixed in #29301.

📝 marcofleon opened a pull request: "wallet: clarify replaced_by_txid and replaces_txid in help output"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29302)
Resolves issue #27781