💬 Zhouziheng3188 commented on issue "Can't version 26.1 export Bech32 address private key?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29836#issuecomment-2045442571)
> 此命令仅支持旧版钱包。`listdescriptors`对你有用吗？
这个命令不是列出描述符的吗？ 此命令有用，但是返回的结果，并没有包含私钥的字段嘛。

🤔 maflcko reviewed a pull request: "sync: introduce a thread-safe generic container and use it to remove a bunch of "GlobalMutex"es"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25390#pullrequestreview-1989367912)
Are there any examples from the last couple of years where this would have helped to prevent a bug or other issue?

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "Add ASM optimizations for MuHash3072":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19181#issuecomment-2045454153)
To be clear, I'm happy to review asm if there's 1) a very clear performance win in an important part of the code 2) it's human-written and well commented 3) it's only small and relatively straightforward, self-contained operations.
With how good compilers are nowadays it should be rare, though. With new instruction sets it's generally better to use intrinsics instead of direct inline assembly.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "RPC/Wallet: Convert walletprocesspsbt to use options parameter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24963#issuecomment-2045457878)
Are you still working on this?

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "AcceptMultipleTransactions: Fix workspace not being set as client_maxfeerate failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29735#pullrequestreview-1989374685)
reACK 4ba1d0b55339c3ea90e2bcd64662a06f0f90dd46

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Can't version 26.1 export Bech32 address private key?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29836#issuecomment-2045468085)
Ref https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26046#issuecomment-1293842474

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "ci: run test_bitcoin with DEBUG_LOG_OUT in RUN_UNIT_TESTS_SEQUENTIAL"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28736)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "ci: run test_bitcoin with DEBUG_LOG_OUT in RUN_UNIT_TESTS_SEQUENTIAL":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28736#issuecomment-2045468355)
The PR didn't seem to attract much attention in the past. Also, the issue seems not important enough right now to keep it sitting around idle in the list of open PRs.

Closing due to lack of interest.

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Run all CI unit tests with DEBUG_LOG_OUT"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28466)

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Run all CI unit tests with DEBUG_LOG_OUT":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28466#issuecomment-2045468893)
The feature request didn't seem to attract much attention in the past. Also, the issue seems not important enough right now to keep it sitting around idle in the list of open issues.

Closing due to lack of interest. Pull requests with improvements are always welcome.

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "test: Add algo assert to bnb_search_test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29206)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: Add algo assert to bnb_search_test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29206#issuecomment-2045470105)
This PR does not seem to have conceptual support.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: run test_bitcoin with DEBUG_LOG_OUT in RUN_UNIT_TESTS_SEQUENTIAL":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28736#issuecomment-2045476738)
To add some context. I think it would be nice to print the seed. However, the changes here had to be pushed five times, because the bash code was wrong, and the current version passes CI, but it is unclear if the bash code is correct.

For example, it seems better to fail CI on a test failure and not print the seed, than to print the seed and not fail the CI on a test failure.

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "Make (Read/Write)BinaryFile work with char vector, use AutoFile"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29229)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Make (Read/Write)BinaryFile work with char vector, use AutoFile":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29229#issuecomment-2045487138)
The PR didn't seem to attract much attention in the past. Also, the issue seems not important enough right now to keep it sitting around idle in the list of open PRs.

Closing due to lack of interest.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: validate fee estimation mode case insensitive":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29175#issuecomment-2045506214)
Does it make sense to treat it case insensitive?

It hasn't been treated that way, so it would be better to fix the docs?

Also, it seems better to be strict when parsing input, as opposed to loosely accepting different values?

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "rpc: validate fee estimation mode case insensitive":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29175#issuecomment-2045515081)
Concept NACK. i think the solution here is to update the documentation. AFAIK, none of our RPC APIs have historically been case insensitive, and i don't think there's a good reason to start here. Ideally, imo, commands and field names should be considered "just blobs", not subject to unicode casing rules.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "util: check for errors after close and read in AutoFile":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29307#issuecomment-2045516340)
Seems like there is some discussion in the description that is a better fit for a brainstorming issue.

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "rpc: Add script verification flags to getdeploymentinfo"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28806)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: Add script verification flags to getdeploymentinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28806#issuecomment-2045521331)
The PR didn't seem to attract much attention in the past. Also, the issue seems not important enough right now to keep it sitting around idle in the list of open PRs.

Closing due to lack of interest.