💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting manual connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1483624485)
I'll fix it

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "i2p: log connection was refused due to arbitrary port":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29393#issuecomment-1934983441)
ACK 5b358cdd1a5f5d2fe87a9e41c638996eab2e2796

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1483628446)
done

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1483628863)
added

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1483628734)
added a comment

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1483628675)
removed

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1483628493)
done

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1483628403)
Gonna mark this as resolved 👍

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1483631193)
I agree that in the case above D shouldn't need to conflict with all children, so will leave as is.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1934997643)
> To unblock progress on other work, my suggestion is that we do the following:
>
> * modify this PR to introduce the v3 policy and validation rules, but not make v3 transactions standard for relay yet -- this should be a very small code change I think

Pushed to address @instagibbs review and make v3 not-yet-standard for mainnet.

💬 ariard commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1935034851)
> To be clear, package relay with package RBF is meant to be resistant to these kinds of network topology aware (NTA) pinning scenarios. With correctly implemented package relay it doesn't matter that a CPFP tx did a CPFP on top of a commitment transaction that no-one but the originator has: provided the fee (or with RBFR, fee-rate) outbids the competing commitment transaction, it will be replaced as nodes evaluate the new package as a whole.

i’m not sure if the adversary injects malicious pa
...

🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "release: Update translations for v27.0 soft translation string freeze"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29397#pullrequestreview-1871391193)
post-merge tACK 71927b24e5aceecd8a07cdaeb916898d45486bea

I've tested it following the [translate process guide](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/translation_process.md) (which `Transifex` setup is outdated and needs to be corrected) on master and compared the resulted changes against this PR verifying there was no differences.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: fix intermittent failure in `rpc_setban.py --v2transport`, run it in CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29372#issuecomment-1935056868)
ACK cc87ee4c3934028e78a59de509951ff7226ec80d

💬 ariard commented on issue "Cluster mempool, CPFP carveout, and V3 transaction policy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29319#issuecomment-1935060892)
So carve-out was introduced back by #15681 with motivation to allow one extra single ancestor tx.
After testing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/6337b978e77a4e1f93bb009958db7c9a619323df you can always replace a long-chain of transactions with a higher-fee candidate. Carve-out is already broken today due to NTA pinning.
LN devs can upgrade to have a single output on each commitment with one branch for each counterparty.
At least this should conserve the same level of robustness for no
...

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: fix intermittent failure in `rpc_setban.py --v2transport`, run it in CI"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29372)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: Add makefile target for running unit tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29377#issuecomment-1935067438)
ACK 5ca9b24da18e842e7a093dc44f6b222af73e92cf

> I also wonder if this new `check-unit` test option is redundant with the existing `bitcoin_test_check` target.

`bitcoin_test_check` just fails for me, so they are at least different in this aspect. It looks like this target is used by the `check` target in `src/test/Makefile`.

👍 kristapsk approved a pull request: "i2p: log connection was refused due to arbitrary port"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29393#pullrequestreview-1871410459)
re-ACK 5b358cdd1a5f5d2fe87a9e41c638996eab2e2796

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: Add makefile target for running unit tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29377)

💬 shovas commented on issue "Use of a wallet shouldn't be blocked in prune mode ("wallet loading failed... beyond pruned data")":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27188#issuecomment-1935075611)
> @shovas, I have created #29183 to focus our efforts and delineate the working path in the clearest possible manner. It should help pushing the project forward.

Thanks, I'm watching that issue. I'm experimenting with wallets for btcoin, litecoin, dogecoin, and bitcoin cash using cli tools right now so maybe I can help in some way.

💬 shovas commented on issue "Prune Node Rescan Project Tracking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29183#issuecomment-1935076754)
Here from #27188. I'm presently experimenting with wallets for bitcoin, litecoin, dogecoin, and bitcoin cash using linux cli tools right now so if I can help I'll try.