🚀 hebasto merged a pull request: "Enable users to configure their monospace font specifically"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/497)

👋 ryanofsky's pull request is ready for review: "assumeutxo: Get rid of faked nTx and nChainTx values"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29370)

💬 theuni commented on pull request "bitcoin-config.h includes cleanup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29404#issuecomment-1932746572)
Removed the include from `interfaces/wallet.h` which snuck in because of a comment:
```c++
//! function will be undefined in builds where ENABLE_WALLET is false.
```
That was the only example of a false-positive that I managed to find.

🤔 achow101 reviewed a pull request: "wallet: batch erase procedures and improve 'EraseRecords' performance"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29403#pullrequestreview-1868639990)
ACK 69c5bb5c3ad3da508541a3ef6c29a0bad21f2fc0

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: batch erase procedures and improve 'EraseRecords' performance":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29403#discussion_r1481997602)
In 2d770f6ae88d9ee6f1775e011f241274059fe275 "wallet: clean redundancies in DelAddressBook"

I'd prefer to have these occur separately so that a distinct error can be logged for each, that way we can discover which operation failed.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: batch erase procedures and improve 'EraseRecords' performance":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29403#discussion_r1482000338)
In 0dba0b6de03c0c79bb09296b913729ec8eb75aca "wallet: bdb batch 'ErasePrefix', do not create txn internally"

Instead of `assert`ing, I would prefer if this did `if (!Assume(activeTxn)) return false` so we didn't cause nodes to crash if a transaction were missing for whatever reason. `Assume` should still catch this for developers.

💬 hernanmarino commented on pull request "test, assumeutxo: Add test to ensure failure when mempool not empty":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29394#discussion_r1482025759)
Will do.

🤔 achow101 reviewed a pull request: "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#pullrequestreview-1868662211)
ACK 1f177ff9a6ab229bd6486941e46daa92ab22b622

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#discussion_r1482012171)
In c154e0940b6518487e29de96eb24ecf1839bd3fe "refactor: SetAddrBookWithDB, signal only if write succeeded"

nit: `__func__` is not necessary

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#discussion_r1482012269)
In c154e0940b6518487e29de96eb24ecf1839bd3fe "refactor: SetAddrBookWithDB, signal only if write succeeded"

nit: `__func__` is not necessary

⚠️ realsetvin opened an issue: "Bitcoin ubuntu ppa, outdated"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29406)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

https://launchpad.net/~bitcoin/+archive/ubuntu/bitcoin

Last update, 2018. Ubuntu 24 is coming soon. Any plans to update this?

### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.

_No response_

### Describe the solution you'd like

_No response_

### Describe any alternatives you've considered

_No response_

### Please leave any additional context

_No response_

💬 josibake commented on pull request "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#issuecomment-1932797896)
reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836/commits/1f177ff9a6ab229bd6486941e46daa92ab22b622

📝 theuni opened a pull request: "RFC: build: remove confusing and inconsistent disable-asm option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29407)
1. It didn't actually disable asm usage in our code. Regardless of the setting, asm is used in random.cpp and support/cleanse.cpp.
2. The value wasn't forwarded to libsecp as a user might have reasonably expected.
3. We now have the DISABLE_OPTIMIZED_SHA256 define which is what disable-asm actually did in practice.

If there is any desire, we can hook DISABLE_OPTIMIZED_SHA256 up to a new configure option that actually does what it says.

Additionally, this is one of the last (THE last?) re
...

💬 theuni commented on pull request "RFC: build: remove confusing and inconsistent disable-asm option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29407#issuecomment-1932804445)
Ping @hebasto @fanquake @TheCharlatan for buildsystem eyes.
Ping @sipa for crypto concept ACK/NACK.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: simplify and batch zap wallet txes process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28987#discussion_r1482044079)
In d26a28508d5322fe7c29b3642dcf3a17b0ea31f1 "wallet: batch ZapSelectTx db operations"

This should explicitly call `TxnAbort` before returning as otherwise we will get extraenous logs about the tx being aborted before batch is destroyed.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: simplify and batch zap wallet txes process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28987#discussion_r1482045052)
In d26a28508d5322fe7c29b3642dcf3a17b0ea31f1 "wallet: batch ZapSelectTx db operations"

I'm not sure if `NONCRITICAL_ERROR` is really the right return code. It seems like something has gone critically wrong if `TxnCommit` were to fail.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "RFC: build: remove confusing and inconsistent disable-asm option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29407#issuecomment-1932807361)
Also ping @dergoegge for fuzzer interactions ACK/NACK.

💬 ryanofsky commented on issue "assumeutxo: nTx and nChainTx violations in CheckBlockIndex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29261#issuecomment-1932814360)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29261#issuecomment-1917639308

> So it seems like there is a larger bug here

Looking into this more, I think the bug where `pprev->HaveNumChainTxs` can return true on this line even when "all parents are BLOCK_VALID_TRANSACTIONS" would be pretty hard to trigger and the consequences would not be too bad.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/cad2df24b396be403f13f372ec48ea14a90d7f06/src/validation.cpp#L3604-L3605

The main consequence would
...

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Bitcoin ubuntu ppa, outdated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29406#issuecomment-1932817501)
From PPA description:
> NOT MAINTAINED.

💬 realsetvin commented on issue "Bitcoin ubuntu ppa, outdated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29406#issuecomment-1932827360)
Can it at least be updated every few years?