📝 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`?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Avoid CI failures from temp env file reuse":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29441#issuecomment-1953753202)
rfm? :)

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting manual connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#issuecomment-1953785668)
ACK c10f528350152ca9248e8c167b67993fc7321ca3

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1495502646)
Assuming I still need this for the index #28241, I still prefer if this wasn't part of the wallet. Afaik nothing in this file has a dependency on the wallet, so the easiest change would to be move this to `src/common`.

💬 BrandonOdiwuor commented on issue "rfc: store PSBTs in wallet ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17619#issuecomment-1953810858)
What's the progress with this?

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent payment index (for light wallets and consistency check)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28241#issuecomment-1953888046)
> Am I still supposed to use it

Yep, still the correct function. The return value has changed, and we've removed the `pubkey.TweakAdd` method in favor of a dedicated routine in `module/silentpayments`. I need to expose the routine for pubkey tweaking in `src/bip352.h` and then you should be good.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#discussion_r1495568944)
Now that we have `src/bip352.h`, it might make more sense to get rid of `src/wallet/silentpayents.h` and put everything in `src/bip352.h`. In the future, anything that is wallet specific can go in `src/wallet/silentpayments.h` and you'd have everything you need for an index in `src/bip352.h`. Thoughts?

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "wallet: cache IsMine scriptPubKeys to improve performance of descriptor wallets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26008)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: Avoid CI failures from temp env file reuse"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29441)

💬 hebasto commented on issue "When selecting a custom data directory on first launch of Bitcoin Core GUI on Mac, where is that setting stored?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/798#issuecomment-1953943599)
> I believe I've located it:
>
> `~/Library/Preferences/org.bitcoin.Bitcoin-Qt.plist`

That's correct. Also see https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/blob/master/doc/files.md#gui-settings.

> I spoke too soon. When I delete that file, Bitcoin Core GUI still knows about the custom location I selected at first launch.

You have to invalidate the corresponding cache: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19742452/qsettings-on-os-x-10-9-unable-to-locate-clear-it.