💬 ariard commented on issue "Cluster mempool, CPFP carveout, and V3 transaction policy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29319#issuecomment-1926157308)
> It looks like removal of CPFP carve out is not a concern for you; you just don't think v3 is a good idea. If that's the case, there is no need to post general criticisms of v3 here. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948 description for a list of threads dedicated to discussing v3.

I would appreciate a more gently online communication tone from someone I spent time sharing a lot of information (cf. my old gist [“Mitigating Tx-Relay Jamming for Time-Sensitive Contract Protocols”]
...

💬 ariard commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1926161087)
so i took time to test a NTA pinning scenario: ariard@84e12b8 which is known since https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-June/018011.html

I’m interested if there is a full-branch with package-relay + v3 tx policy available somewhere.

I don’t know if it’s robust against NTA pinning and if in consequence we should not be better off to reconsider the whole package relay + v3 bitcoin engineering package. take it nicely as a statement to be corroborated for now.

my apo
...

⚠️ ariard opened an issue: "Update security.md with all PGP fingerprints (version 2)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29383)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29366

> You didn't ask one, you made a statement, which I think is sufficiently addressed by encrypting directly to the people who you want to share the information with.

I’m not satisfied by this answer achow101. Let me know what should be the public communication venue to submit such concern.
If one is not satisfied to be security@bitcoincore.org list whatever the reason, one can resign.

💬 ariard commented on issue "Update security.md with all PGP fingerprints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29366#issuecomment-1926167871)
@achow101

Thanks to not use your GH admin rights to close issue before someone is satisfied with your answer.

This is a qualified lack of professionalism for an open-source maintainer as such as Bitcoin, which is engaging your own reputation.

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Update security.md with all PGP fingerprints (version 2)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29383)

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Update security.md with all PGP fingerprints (version 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29383#issuecomment-1926168873)
Don't open duplicate issues. If you think an issue should be reopened, then say so in that issue.

⚠️ achow101 reopened an issue: "Update security.md with all PGP fingerprints"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29366)
As a bitcoin sec researcher, appreciated if PGP fingerprints of all receiving endpoints of security@bitcoincore.org can be public.
Thanks.

💬 ariard commented on issue "Update security.md with all PGP fingerprints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29366#issuecomment-1926169684)
FYI - I raised the subject of securing line of sensitive communications as one of the last in-person coredev.

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Update security.md with all PGP fingerprints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29366#issuecomment-1926170386)
I considered the question posed in the OP to be answered and that there was nothing further to do here.

Since you disagree, what exactly is it that you are asking? I'm having a hard time parsing from your responses what further questions you actually have other than whether the full list can be published.

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1477695130)
I have now added a test for descendants of conflicted transactions.

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1477697474)
Actually, I have just added a test in this PR.

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1477697683)
I have added a comment indicating this.

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1477699351)
Good point, this comment is from a previous version of the PR. I have fixed it.

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1477700028)
Should be fixed now.

⚠️ Rodert opened an issue: "When I make a highly concurrent request to bitcoin core, a new block appears and all my requests get blocked"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29384)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

When I make a highly concurrent request to bitcoin core, a new block appears and all my requests get blocked


### Expected behaviour

ok

### Steps to reproduce

When I make a highly concurrent request to bitcoin core, a new block appears and all my requests get blocked


### Relevant log output

_No response_

### How did you obtain Bitcoin Core

Package manager

### What version of Bi
...

🤔 stratospher reviewed a pull request: "test: fix intermittent failure in `rpc_setban.py --v2transport`, run it in CI"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29372#pullrequestreview-1861953032)
tested ACK cc87ee4. nice find!

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#issuecomment-1926350798)
> Is it still possible to abandon a transaction with conflicts with the mempool?

Yes, because of [this](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307/commits/3de89342dcd44bdde4027a91cb27793dc0231847#diff-1f2db0e4d5c12d109c7f0962333c245b49b696cb39ff432da048e9d6c08944d8L1313-R1313) change.

> If a transaction is already abandoned and we know it conflicts with the mempool does isMempoolConflicted still return false?

Yes

> Sure, but then I'm pretty sure we need to add a bool abandoned;
...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `maxfeerate` wallet startup option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#discussion_r1477791006)
>I'm fairly certain we don't check relayMinFee when creating a transaction, but it would be good to confirm this (even better, to have a functional test!)

I've tested this, and it turns out that the wallet indeed prevents creating transactions below the `minrelaytxfee`
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a11585692e72cac468fb1496ea2c30e4c07f73e5/src/wallet/spend.cpp#L1055

Here is a test that confirms we can't create transactions with a fee rate below the minimum relay fee, and also t
...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `maxfeerate` wallet startup option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#discussion_r1477793113)
Thanks @murchandamus, I agree with your suggestion and reorder the commits.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `maxfeerate` wallet startup option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#discussion_r1477810958)
The reason is that the maximum fee rate check for [`sendrawtransaction`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a11585692e72cac468fb1496ea2c30e4c07f73e5/src/rpc/mempool.cpp#L84-L94) is performed in `BroadcastTransaction` which returned [`MAX_FEE_EXCEEDED`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a11585692e72cac468fb1496ea2c30e4c07f73e5/src/node/transaction.cpp#L71-L79) error type to `sendrawtransaction`.
If I change the `MAX_FEE_EXCEEDED` error message to "Fee exceeds maximum configured by use
...