💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1470235298)
In a6ae5b23b1497ab6f4899db49348db623700a2d8 "wallet: track mempool conflicts":

Nit: Should this perhaps also inform about the conflicting transactions like the _BlockConflicted_ state informs about the block?

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1470229826)
I don’t feel strongly about it, please feel free to mark this comment as resolved.

💬 InsanityMatrix commented on issue "Use different datadirs for different signets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27494#issuecomment-1915645704)
Hey, as I haven't seen this being tackled I will happily undertake it. Currently working on it at https://github.com/InsanityMatrix/bitcoin on branch "signet-datadir-changes"

I plan to start with the src/init.cpp file and work my way through the files to change any references to the block directory depending on signet or mainnet, and also plan on making it backwards compatible. Any help would be appreciated, just mention me if you have any ideas or contributions! :)

🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "net: enable v2transport by default"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#pullrequestreview-1849860045)
ACK 292e716cde3325bef83e78f7804d2d0bddf03509

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "test: adds outbound eviction functional tests, updates comment in ConsiderEviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29122#issuecomment-1915658857)
Rebased to fix CI

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "net: attempts to connect to all resolved addresses when connecting to a node":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28834#issuecomment-1915659529)
Rebased to fix CI

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: gives seednode priority over dnsseed if both are provided":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28016#issuecomment-1915660249)
Rebased to fi CI

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1915664301)
Concept ACK

Not sure if it should be enabled for onion/i2p connections by default.

💬 TheBlueMatt commented on issue "Cluster mempool, CPFP carveout, and V3 transaction policy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29319#issuecomment-1915669008)
Looking at my code, I see `version: 2`, `lock_time: (0x20 << 8*3) | (random_garbage & 0xffffff)`,
one segwit non-wrapped input with `sequence: (0x80 << 8*3) | (random_garbage & 0xffffff)`, outputs sorted first by value, then by script_pubkey. There should always be at least one (sometimes two) outputs of exactly 330 sats and all outputs should be P2WSH.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1915676062)
looking at the [CI failure](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6469401004736512?logs=ci#L6015-L6015) very quickly without testing...
maybe you need to update this line too?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/292e716cde3325bef83e78f7804d2d0bddf03509/test/functional/test_framework/test_node.py#L208

💬 sipa commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1915679047)
Hmm, no. The issue is that previous releases may not even support the `-v2transport` flag, so to determine whether to set it, we need to know what version we're talking about.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1915687141)
> Hmm, no. The issue is that previous releases may not even support the `-v2transport` flag, so to determine whether to set it, we need to know what version we're talking about.

Sorry I deleted my comment cos I realised it was wrong as other tests would have failed... originally was:

>> looking at the [CI failure](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6469401004736512?logs=ci#L6015-L6015) very quickly without testing...
maybe you need to update this line too?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob
...

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: p2p: check disconnect due to lack of desirable service flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29279#issuecomment-1915723249)
Rebased on master (after the merge of #24748 :tada: ), and tackled https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29279#discussion_r1469196012. Note that I tried enabling v2 transport for this test, but it seems that it is non-trivial and needs some deeper changes in the test framework regarding the order of version messages sent (see slightly related comment https://mirror.b10c.me/bitcoin-bitcoin/24748/#discussion_r1465420112). Will tackle that in a follow-up.

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "test: Treat msg_version.relay as unsigned, Remove `struct` packing in messages.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29067#pullrequestreview-1849950870)
re-ACK 55556a64a8e4e6238f990cf66295c3b9594c2c3d

Checked that since my previous ACK, a rebase + [stickes' suggestion](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29067#discussion_r1468173825) of passing `signed=True` for (de)serializing the CBlockLocator version was applied.

💬 NicolasDorier commented on pull request "Make provably unsignable standard P2PK and P2MS outpoints unspendable.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28400#issuecomment-1915766303)
@1440000bytes the repartition you are showing is on outputs count, not size. Since ordinal, utxoset size been from 5GB to 10GB. Even if they are margin in term of output count, in term of size, it takes around 50% of the UTXO Set at the moment.

I haven't looked how they put JPEG and JSON files on the chain exactly, I assumed it was with invalid P2PK, but didn't look closely into it.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Make provably unsignable standard P2PK and P2MS outpoints unspendable.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28400#issuecomment-1915778170)
> I haven't looked how they put JPEG and JSON files on the chain exactly, I assumed it was with invalid P2PK, but didn't look closely into it.

Ordinal inscriptions don't use P2PK or bare multisig, they use P2TR with tapscripts. In order for an inscription to be in the blockchain, it must create and then spend a UTXO, so inscriptions themselves have no impact on the UTXO set. Ordinals may have an impact as there are people creating small outputs for their "rare" sats, but those are all perfect
...

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "test: p2p: check disconnect due to lack of desirable service flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29279#issuecomment-1916028804)
ACK d82eafb173d6bfa98a59e86a845013cc8528b65d.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1916079402)
ACK 0bef104.

💬 t-bast commented on issue "Cluster mempool, CPFP carveout, and V3 transaction policy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29319#issuecomment-1916166471)
Another approach that may be simpler is to imbue with v3 semantics only once one of the anchor output is being spent in the mempool (because if none are spent, there's no basically nothing to do). This way we can pattern match on the anchor output script which is very specific:

```
OP_PUSHDATA(<some_public_key>) OP_CHECKSIG OP_IFDUP OP_NOTIF OP_16 OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY OP_ENDIF
```

I think that this approach shouldn't generate any false positive. Once such an anchor transaction is ident
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24748#discussion_r1470738750)
nit: Please don't encode the default value in the syntax of the source code. Otherwise, it is hard to change the default value. Also, it is confusing to have to change two places to change one value. You could just use `self.Arg<bool>(2)`.