📝 vasild opened a pull request: "net: make the list of known message types a compile time constant"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29421)
Turn the `std::vector` to `std::array` because it is cheaper and allows us to have the number of the messages as a compile time constant: `g_all_net_message_types.size()` which can be used in future code to build other `std::array`s with that size.

---

This change is part of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29418 but it makes sense on its own and would be good to have it, regardless of the fate of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29418. Also, if this is merged, that would red
...

👍 epiccurious approved a pull request: "log: Nuke error(...)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29236#pullrequestreview-1874393601)
utACK fa1d4f07c36dda3c72fb328918bddd7de062ef96.

💬 epiccurious commented on pull request "log: Nuke error(...)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29236#discussion_r1485621343)
nit - Noticed this when reviewing the changes. Since we're already changing the file - should Line 357/358 be a `LogError` not a `LogPrintf`?

💬 epiccurious commented on pull request "log: Nuke error(...)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29236#discussion_r1485623720)
nit - Also noticed this when reviewing the changes. Since we're already changing the file - should Line 413/422 be a `LogError` not a `LogPrintf`?

💬 vasild commented on pull request "test: use v2 everywhere for P2PConnection if --v2transport is enabled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29358#discussion_r1485626063)
`test/functional/test_runner.py` contains:

```py
'rpc_net.py',
'rpc_net.py --v2transport',
```

So, on `master`, when I execute `test_runner.py` it will run this test two times, once in v1 mode and once in v2 mode. What about if I run, with this PR, `test_runner.py --v2transport`? Would that execute `rpc_net.py` two times and both in v2 mode? If yes, then what about adding `--v1transport` option as well? Or maybe just change the above to just:

```py
'rpc_net.py',
```


...

🤔 vasild reviewed a pull request: "test: use v2 everywhere for P2PConnection if --v2transport is enabled"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29358#pullrequestreview-1874395839)
Approach ACK b9912e2df9767540ab7f53cb3ba37fd2e2491806

The code changes look good. Just the question below.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "test: use v2 everywhere for P2PConnection if --v2transport is enabled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29358#discussion_r1485622195)
nit: in commit message of b9912e2df9767540ab7f53cb3ba37fd2e2491806 `test: enable v2 for python p2p depending on global --v2transport flag`:

* s/all connection/all connections/
* "before this test" - should this be "before this change"?

💬 vasild commented on pull request "addrman: delete addresses that don't belong to the supported networks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29330#issuecomment-1937824083)
What about setting `preferred_net`

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/7143d4388407ab3d12005e55a02d5e8f334e4dc9/src/net.cpp#L2682

if `-onlynet` is used? Surely it is a waste to select an unreachable address:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/7143d4388407ab3d12005e55a02d5e8f334e4dc9/src/net.cpp#L2695-L2697

That would skew the outcome though. If addrman has 60% IPv4, 25% Tor and 15% I2P addresses right now it is more likely to select Tor over I2P. If we run with `-onlynet=tor
...

⚠️ vostrnad opened an issue: "Assertion chainman().ActiveChain()[height] fails on startup on memory-constrained system"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29422)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

bitcoind crashes on startup with this error: (not logged in debug.log)
```
node/interfaces.cpp:525 getBlockHash: Assertion `chainman().ActiveChain()[height]' failed.
Aborted (core dumped)
```
This is after trying to bring the node up after a previous crash from which I don't have the error as I was running in `-daemon` mode. The previous crash happened during IBD at height 140920.

##
...

💬 satsie commented on pull request "rpc: add 'getnetmsgstats' RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28926#issuecomment-1937844734)
RE:

>> ... this requires the "inverse" ...
>
> Ha, I did not realize this before! I am fine either way.

I voted for `bitcoin-cli getnetmsgstats '["message_type"]'` because as a node operator it's simpler to remember the dimensions I want (i.e. message) instead of knowing the RPC well enough to list every dimension I don't want (i.e. direction, network, connection type). Of course anyone using an RPC should read the docs :smile:

⚠️ DoctorBuzz1 opened an issue: "Move from a Static Dust Limit [of 330 / 546 sats] to a Variable Dust Limit [= to TxFee]..."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29423)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

This is the basis for my proposal....





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

Based on the number of Txs that have been unmovable, unspendable for nearly a solid year, it appears that the static dust limit is still permitting dust attacks, based on how the UTXO system works. Any entity with the ability
...

💬 ariard commented on issue "Update security.md with all PGP fingerprints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29366#issuecomment-1937865544)
For everyone knowledge, Linux kernel has a separation between software security bugs and hardware ones for good historical reasons. Few years ago, in the handling of Meltdown / Spectre (the 1st gen of transient execution CPU vulnerabilities), early leaks of the issues did happen. Since then, the kernel and OS folks have put in place clearer security handling policy to coordinate vulnerability response, including expelling members from future security incidents who are not respecting embargo dead
...

💬 ariard commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1937866820)
@sdaftuar @achow101 @instagibbs

Congrats guys to ACK and merge a +1100 CoC PR a Friday evening with still standing objections on the very heart of the PR.
What a lack of professionalism…Still my pleasure to break v3 anti-pinning mitigations in the future, with a pinning toolkit.
If script kiddies don’t make it before me and go to savage the LN ecosystem, who would have naively thought they’re safe.

@glozow

I think there is medium difficulty follow-up to this PR to make pinning far ha
...

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "Create Bitcoin"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29417)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Update security.md with all PGP fingerprints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29366#issuecomment-1937885620)
I still don't understand what specific concern that you have. I don't understand what specific problem you are trying to solve by making the list of recipients public. Are you concerned about particular individuals on the list or is this a general concern of vulnerabilities leaking because there are too many people? Either way, it seems like the solution is to encrypt your communications to specific people, and you are free to ask them to inform you who will be involved in fixing the problem.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Fix transaction view/table":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/662#issuecomment-1937888058)
Closing due to lack of support from the PR author (unaddressed comments, the failed CI).

✅ hebasto closed a pull request: "Fix transaction view/table"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/662)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Improve 'Requested Payments History' Multiselect":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/684#issuecomment-1937888670)
@john-moffett Are you still working on this PR?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Hide Peers Detail Button":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/505#issuecomment-1937890180)
This https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/505#discussion_r1328132799 still needs to be addressed.

💬 epiccurious commented on pull request "log: Nuke error(...)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29236#issuecomment-1937891227)
Tested ACK fa1d4f07c36dda3c72fb328918bddd7de062ef96.

Passed `test/functional/test_runner.py --extended`. Please let me know if any of these skipped tests are relevant.
```
feature_bind_port_discover.py | ○ Skipped | 0 s
feature_bind_port_externalip.py | ○ Skipped | 1 s
feature_unsupported_utxo_db.py | ○ Skipped | 0 s
interface_usdt_coinselection.py | ○ Skipped | 0 s
interface_usdt_mempool.py
...