💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Show transactions as not fully confirmed during background validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28616#discussion_r1486245188)
Dropped

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Enable HW-accelerated implementations of SHA256 for MSVC builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24773#issuecomment-1938773252)
Rebased.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Fix SSE4.1-related issues":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28893#issuecomment-1938781874)
Rebased.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Show transactions as not fully confirmed during background validation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28616#issuecomment-1938791206)
Rebased, but not much else changed given the lack of concept-enthusiasm.

Test commit is dropped since #28838 landed.

> I don't consider this a blocker for assumeutxo mainnet params

Agreed. If anywhere, it's a blocker for having _automatic_ and/or very easy UI based snapshot loading.

> Another question for me is: Why don't we have something similar when `assumevalid` is used?

That state is permanent, since we don't have a background check for `assumevalid`.

> Small suggestion,
...

📝 glozow opened a pull request: "v3 followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29424)
Addresses final comments from #28948:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1483769698
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1483776227
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1484427635
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1484467280
- A unit test similar to the one suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1484531064
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussio
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1486268283)
Done in #29424

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1486268465)
#29424replaced these 2 comments with a slightly more helpful one at the top of the block.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1486268684)
#29424 added a unit test but slightly different from this one (I didn't like the package size being 1)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1486269325)
Actually, in #29424 I've added unit tests here instead of adding an `Assume` (which would cause those tests to crash). Sorry for the flip flop but should address the fact that these blocks aren't covered by tests.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1486269443)
removed in #29424

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1486269585)
Yes I think so.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1486269770)
Removed in #29424

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1486269845)
Fixed in #29424

💬 glozow commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1486270285)
@ismaelsadeeq that test looks good to me 👍 can I cherry-pick this into #29424?

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: cache IsMine scriptPubKeys to improve performance of descriptor wallets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26008#pullrequestreview-1875313580)
Concept ACK

I have been considering the idea of using a probabilistic data structure instead of the deterministic one for the membership-test over the past few days. Mainly, because I'm a bit concerned about the unbounded cache size. I was going to share it today, but it requires more work and the local benchmarks show a substantial speed difference in favor of this approach.

So.. as feature freeze is close, will finish review in few hours. I believe this can be implemented simpler, and sh
...

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: cache IsMine scriptPubKeys to improve performance of descriptor wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26008#discussion_r1486226771)
This does not seems to be necessary. At this point (`LoadDescriptorScriptPubKeyMan`), the spkm should't contain any script.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Release `LockData::dd_mutex` before calling `*_detected` functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26781#issuecomment-1938797790)
Rebased to refresh the CI.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1486279084)
Yes 👍

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `maxfeerate` wallet startup option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#issuecomment-1938811986)
Thank you @josibake will address comments shortly!

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1938882808)
@ariard

I'll let people decide for themselves our professionalism or lack thereof.

I asked hundreds of comments ago to stop
using this PR as a venue for debating the finer points of the LN spec, obviously unheeded.
There's a BOLT repo, which is an appropriate place on github to discuss these things.

You are also free to lobby different projects to not use these primitives moving forward and push
whatever solutions you think are necessary, even consensus changes. Meanwhile people
wh
...