💬 so7ow commented on 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#issuecomment-1953000731)
I belive I've located it:

`~/Library/Preferences/org.bitcoin.Bitcoin-Qt.plist`

⚠️ so7ow reopened 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 setting is stored.

💬 so7ow commented on 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#issuecomment-1953013370)
I spoke too soon. When I delete that file, Bitcoin Core GUI still knows about the custom location I selected at first launch.

💬 jeffreyjackson commented on issue "iOS Deployment Target for RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11720#issuecomment-1953019639)
This is interesting. I have a spare 1tb iPhone I'd love to get this running on.

⚠️ ariard opened an issue: "Brainstorm: Transaction issuer-selected policy limits"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29454)
This issue opens a brainstorm about introducing transaction issuer-selected policy limits.

Currently, all the policy limits are either static (e.g `DUST_RELAY_TX_FEE` or `MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE`)
or it can be set dynamically on the command-line by the node operator (e.g ancestors / descendants / incremental
tx-relay fee). New policy mechanism like v3 are introducing specific limit such as the 1000 vb limit on the single
child.

This approach is limited for some use-cases, as the
...

💬 ariard commented on pull request "Add issuer-selected opt-in txn / pckg policy checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29448#issuecomment-1953038192)
did it https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29454

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: cache IsMine scriptPubKeys to improve performance of descriptor wallets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26008#pullrequestreview-1889102719)
Code review ACK e041ed9b

It isn't blocking, but I have to admit that I'm still not really happy with the doubled script storage. I think we can do better. Will be experimenting with possible solutions.
A first measure to decrease it and remain fast, without changing the structure, could be to use the cache only for the inactive SPKMs. Since the active ones are limited in number (max 8), they can be checked quickly. However, this approach does not address the issue of handling really large sc
...

📝 bitcoin-pow opened a pull request: "Merge the PoW/PoT consensus code into BTC 026x baseline"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29455)
This feature implements the Proof-of-Work / Proof-of-Transaction (PoW/PoT) consensus which will make BTC a more decentralized blockchain. Instead of mining using dumb work, the consensus uses SMART work. Miners hash using their own utxo hashes to do the PoW. An attacker can't simple turn on a large farm of ASICs to attack the network, they must slowly build up their transactions to gain enough utxos so they can mine using them. The maximum possible hash rate continues to increase as more utxos a
...

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Merge the PoW/PoT consensus code into BTC 026x baseline"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29455)

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "Merge the PoW/PoT consensus code into BTC 026x baseline"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29455)
This feature implements the Proof-of-Work / Proof-of-Transaction (PoW/PoT) consensus which will make BTC a more decentralized blockchain. Instead of mining using dumb work, the consensus uses SMART work. Miners hash using their own utxo hashes to do the PoW. An attacker can't simple turn on a large farm of ASICs to attack the network, they must slowly build up their transactions to gain enough utxos so they can mine using them. The maximum possible hash rate continues to increase as more utxos a
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "doc: Assert that assumed-valid blocks are not fully valid in CheckBlockIndex()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29355#issuecomment-1953242432)
Seems reasonable, code review ACK fa027e08f7be63c201f42d0e06160d2273b4a6dd

Not sure why this is marked as a "doc" change though.

💬 ariard commented on pull request "Add imbued v3 based on template-matching":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29427#issuecomment-1953316512)
If the design goal of this imbuance mechanism is to apply "novel" transaction-relay policy in a backward fashion on pre-signed transactions in the context of multi-party applications and contracting protocols, I think there should be a cryptographic opt-in of one of the transaction issuer itself.

I think the template approach is a dead-end as not only in practice each multi-party applications and contracting protocols have inherent malleability affecting the chain of transaction (amounts, scr
...

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "rpc: Do not wait for headers inside loadtxoutset"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29345#pullrequestreview-1889331879)
Code-review ACK faa30a4c566c5b720c7994c55f276352a119129f

💬 delta1 commented on pull request "doc: Assert that assumed-valid blocks are not fully valid in CheckBlockIndex()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29355#issuecomment-1953479997)
@fjahr i think drahtbot added that label because the commit starts with “doc:”

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "RPC: Add maxfeerate and maxburnamount args to submitpackage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28950#discussion_r1495330198)
```cpp
const CFeeRate max_raw_tx_fee_rate{ParseFeeRate(self.Arg<UniValue>(1))};
```

See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29434#event-11853176044

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "net: call `Select` with reachable networks in `ThreadOpenConnections`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29436#discussion_r1495427464)
>I believe that's impractical due to the limited size of addrman.

Right, probably fine to keep it this way for both cases.

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "net: call `Select` with reachable networks in `ThreadOpenConnections`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29436#issuecomment-1953718864)
ACK 7edb07ca800991f7c88d582b880a392efe17f31d

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Silent payment index (for light wallets and consistency check)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28241#issuecomment-1953738549)
@josibake I'm trying to rebase, but I'm not sure how to change the following:

```cpp
const auto tweak_data = wallet::GetSilentPaymentTweakDataFromTxInputs(tx->vin, coins);

if (!tweak_data) continue;

const uint256 outpoint_hash = tweak_data->first;
CPubKey tweaked_pub_key_sum = tweak_data->second;
if (!tweaked_pub_key_sum.TweakAdd(outpoint_hash.begin())) {
```

It looks like `GetSilentPaymentTweakDataFromTxInputs` is only used by test code. Am I still supposed to us
...

👍 naumenkogs approved a pull request: "consensus: Store transaction nVersion as uint32_t"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29325#pullrequestreview-1889798865)
ACK 6acfcbfe2487f683e8f62606d195a9974bc2234f

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "consensus: Store transaction nVersion as uint32_t":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29325#discussion_r1495440147)
ca7090d43fab2013bd396d683f4cf03062666b14

Does this still look meaningful?
If you want to test a large number, then better check against `TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION + 1`?