💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Avoid CI failures from temp env file reuse":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29441#discussion_r1494748529)
`git` is still installed unconditionally, otherwise, it wouldn't be present, no?

Might replace "install" with "require" if I re-touch, or in a follow-up?

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "ci: Avoid CI failures from temp env file reuse"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29441#pullrequestreview-1888734489)
ACK fa91bf2559d2e839592bf1dc1d423d5fb1c3573e.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: document that BIP324 on by default for v27.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29452#issuecomment-1952731929)
lgtm ACK 0d3e18bcd6639d0752a15078d2ba76fbaaa94417

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "doc: document that BIP324 on by default for v27.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29452#pullrequestreview-1888744127)
ACK 0d3e18bcd6639d0752a15078d2ba76fbaaa94417

💬 sipa commented on pull request "doc: document that BIP324 on by default for v27.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29452#issuecomment-1952747820)
ACK 0d3e18bcd6639d0752a15078d2ba76fbaaa94417

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "RFC: build: remove confusing and inconsistent disable-asm option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29407#issuecomment-1952767863)
> Our docs (developer-notes.md and fuzzing.md) mention the use of `--disable-asm` to avoid address sanitizer failures.

In the libsecp repo, the `--with-asm=no` option is still required to avoid MSan warnings. If this is a common issue for builtin assembly code, it seems possible that the `sha256_sse4.cpp` might cause similar issues in the future without an option to disable it.

Maybe gate the `sha256_sse4::Transform` function with `#if !defined(DISABLE_OPTIMIZED_SHA256)`?

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "doc: document that BIP324 on by default for v27.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29452)

🤔 josibake reviewed a pull request: "wallet: cache IsMine scriptPubKeys to improve performance of descriptor wallets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26008#pullrequestreview-1888853780)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26008/commits/e041ed9b755468d205ed48b29f6c4b9e9df8bc9f

Reviewed diff, looks good!

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#issuecomment-1952864224)
I've updated this to use https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1471 for the cryptography needed for silent payments. This way, we don't need make any changes to `CKey`/`CPubKey` and keeps all of the low-level cryptography in `libsecp256k1`. This simplifies this PR to creating the necessary wrappers for the libsecp silent payments module and implementing the non-cryptography parts of the protocol (i.e. the client code).

Putting this PR in draft for now, until https://github.com/bitcoi
...

✅ ariard closed a pull request: "Add issuer-selected opt-in txn / pckg policy checks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29448)

💬 ariard commented on pull request "Add issuer-selected opt-in txn / pckg policy checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29448#issuecomment-1952864387)
> It's not really clear to me what you're trying to achieve in this PR - some kind of way for transactions to specify what their > ancestor/descendant limits are? There are no tests, the CI is failing, and a lot of the code comments are incorrect/irrelevant > to the adjacent lines.

Yeah some kind of way for transactions to specify what their ancestor / descendant / max weight / limits, in the hard limits of current mempool ones. I know no test and CI failing, it’s just proof-of-concept code t
...

📝 josibake converted_to_draft a pull request: "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122)
This PR is part of integrating silent payments into Bitcoin Core. The project is tracked in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28536

## BIP352

This PR focuses strictly on the BIP logic and attempts to separate it from the wallet and transaction implementation details. This is accomplished by working directly with public and private keys, instead of needing a wallet backend and transactions for testing. Labels for the receiver are optional and thus deferred for a later PR.

Test ve
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "rpc: Do not wait for headers inside loadtxoutset":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29345#issuecomment-1952876404)
ACK faa30a4c56

Thanks, as @pablomartin4btc found, I had a slight preference for this simpler solution when reviewing the original PR.

I wrote a test for this (and also removed a `sync_block` call that seemed unnecessary in the process), can be pulled in here or I can open it as a follow-up: https://github.com/fjahr/bitcoin/commits/pr29345/

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "contrib: add test for bucketing with asmap":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28869#issuecomment-1952906081)
Force-pushed changing the code to make it faster. Removed the `assert_debug_log` when adding an address into addrman.

Thanks, @fjahr.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: Fixed signed integer overflow for large feerates":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29434#issuecomment-1952971290)
ACK dddd7be9bf038c25f3e53c5bd708fb9cf73d4493

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "net: call `Select` with reachable networks in `ThreadOpenConnections`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29436#discussion_r1494903447)
> Might be worth making this overflow-safe?

I don't know, I don't see a viable way of reaching that.

> it's really hard to trigger.... feeding addrman with that much garbage would be a failure probably before the size_t limit is hit :)

I believe that's impractical due to the limited size of addrman.

👍 BrandonOdiwuor approved a pull request: "test: Recognize dialog object by name"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/797#pullrequestreview-1888982852)
ACK 4c9db9b5874acb5db2fb9bb1eb5d549aa17f9aa8

⚠️ so7ow opened an issue: "When selecting a custom location on first launch of Bitcoin Core GUI on Mac, where is that setting stored?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/798)
### Issues, reports or feature requests related to the GUI should be opened directly on the GUI repo

- [X] I still think this issue should be opened here

### Report

When selecting a custom location on first launch of Bitcoin Core GUI on Mac, where is that setting stored?

I've looked in ~/Library/Application\ Support/Bitcoin for bitcoin.conf and settings.json and in the selected custom location for those same files and I can't locate where that configuration settings is stored.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "rpc: Fixed signed integer overflow for large feerates"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29434)

✅ so7ow closed an issue: "When selecting a custom location on first launch of Bitcoin Core GUI on Mac, where is that setting stored?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/798)