💬 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💬 hebasto commented on issue "Bitcoin ubuntu ppa, outdated":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💬 realsetvin commented on issue "Bitcoin ubuntu ppa, outdated":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?

💬 realsetvin commented on issue "Bitcoin ubuntu ppa, outdated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29406#issuecomment-1932828277)

💬 realsetvin commented on issue "Bitcoin ubuntu ppa, outdated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29406#issuecomment-1932830802)
Linux and bitcoin are both open source systems, having substantial overlap. It makes it difficult to educate new people when nothing works. Our peer to peer digital cash should seek to be usable, otherwise people will continue to prefer exchanges over self custody and education.

💬 epiccurious commented on pull request "test: Fix SegwitV0SignatureMsg nLockTime signedness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29400#issuecomment-1932874890)
Tested ACK fab15723b0518acbb1015e64df47dcac0187e92f.

💬 realsetvin commented on issue "Bitcoin ubuntu ppa, outdated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29406#issuecomment-1932884048)
> From PPA description:
>
> > NOT MAINTAINED.

I wanted to say something else, you knew this comment would not be helpful. Obviously im opening this issue because it has not been maintained for a long time. Does this mean bitcoin is a dead project? Whats the deal?

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Proposed Timeline for Legacy Wallet and BDB removal":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20160#issuecomment-1932891713)
Seems unlikely that the bdb parser stuff will make it into 27.0, so pushed those back another release.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#discussion_r1482110161)
Sure. `__func__ ` removed.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#discussion_r1482110377)
Sure. `__func__ ` removed.

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#pullrequestreview-1868826371)
Updated per feedback. Thanks achow!. [Small diff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1f177ff9a6ab229bd6486941e46daa92ab22b622..86960cdb7f75eaa2ae150914c54240d1d5ef96d1).

Two changes:
1) Removed `__func__ ` usages in the logging messages.
2) Have divided the purpose and name erasing lines per [request](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29403#discussion_r1481997602).

💬 ziljah commented on pull request "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#issuecomment-1932967456)
👎

🤔 sr-gi reviewed a pull request: "rpc: addpeeraddress tried return error on failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28998#pullrequestreview-1868852542)
Approach ACK

It is a pity that `"failed-adding-to-tried"` cannot be tested on demand, however, this at least gets rid of the intermittent failure when a collision is found in `tried`.

I think the tests can be made more exhaustive though, check comment inline.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "rpc: addpeeraddress tried return error on failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28998#discussion_r1482129839)
This is a non-exhaustive case now. There are two potential error outcomes that can be triggered on demand, from which only one is being tested:

- a) The address is already in `new` and we are trying to add it again (to any table)
- b) The address is already in `tried` and we are trying to add it again (to any table)

In this case, only `b)` is being tested: we do so both with and without the "try to add to tried" flag, but the reality is that the reason why the function is failing is the e
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: batch and simplify addressbook migration process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26836#issuecomment-1933039793)
ACK 86960cdb7f75eaa2ae150914c54240d1d5ef96d1

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: batch erase procedures and improve 'EraseRecords' performance"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29403#pullrequestreview-1868847059)
Updated per feedback. Thanks achow!