💬 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.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "tests: add functional test for miniscript decaying multisig":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29156#issuecomment-2045528359)
> This is very closely based on [test/functional/wallet_multisig_descriptor_psbt.py](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/functional/wallet_multisig_descriptor_psbt.py) both in code and concept.

Can you articulate what meaningful difference there is?

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "Enable HW-accelerated implementations of SHA256 for MSVC builds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24773)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Enable HW-accelerated implementations of SHA256 for MSVC builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24773#issuecomment-2045541193)
Deferring to after cmake

💬 Zhouziheng3188 commented on issue "Can't version 26.1 export Bech32 address private key?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29836#issuecomment-2045543159)
> 参考号[#26046（评论）](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26046#issuecomment-1293842474)

谢谢，看了下解决方案，好像只有换版本，不过不知道卸载现在的版本，换一个旧版本的bitcoin core，是不是又要重新同步区块，实在太费事了。之前也是有现成的区块数据，但还是同步了1天多的时间。

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "refactor: Remove excess reserve() call for SecureString"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29364)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "refactor: Remove excess reserve() call for SecureString":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29364#issuecomment-2045543741)
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 issue "Can't version 26.1 export Bech32 address private key?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29836#issuecomment-2045550220)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base.

General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or one of the Bitcoin subreddits, or any other place that you feel is well suited.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "refactor, bench, fuzz: Drop unneeded `UCharCast` calls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29820#issuecomment-2045550809)
Seems fine, code review ACK 56e1e5dd10cbe51d3abc3fbf532b6b41bf62a889

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Add Signet launch shortcut for Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26334#issuecomment-2045554895)
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 a pull request: "Add Signet launch shortcut for Windows"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26334)

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "ParseHDKeypath: support h as hardened marker"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28192)

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "rpc: provide per message stats for global traffic via new RPC 'getnetmsgstats'":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29418#issuecomment-2045595297)
just fyi as this came up: You could count up message stats with the inbound and outbound message tracepoints. However, this does only gives you stats from the points on where you start hooking into the tracepoints, might not be as user friendly (RPC is easier to use than the tracepoints), and the tracepoints currently only work on Linux.

📝 BrandonOdiwuor opened a pull request: "Feature: Use different datadirs for different signets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29838)
#### !!early draft for feedback on approach

Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27494

When the `-signetchallenge` argument is provided, the hash-160 of the challenge is appended to the data directory name. This ensures that each signet has its own distinct data directory, following the naming convention `signet-XXXXXXX`.

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "wallet: fix unrelated parent conflict doesn't cause child tx to be marked as conflict":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29680#issuecomment-2045654198)
Rebased https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/532d25fb536da953db2b7a6ce7405a4b105c1a56 to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/47750d3cea9baf9538925362608f9a039bc760ff

> It appears to also be watching for replacements of those replacements too, and I think that is unnecessary.

@achow101 I took this out because the new replacement is not guaranteed to conflict with the original wallet transaction

Added `conflicting_block_hash` and `conflicting_block_height` to `ConflictReason`
...

💬 mjdietzx commented on pull request "tests: add functional test for miniscript decaying multisig":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29156#issuecomment-2045667575)
> Can you articulate what meaningful difference there is?

Tests a Miniscript descriptor and asserts that it behaves as expected at different block heights as the multisig's thresh of required signers decreases.

I can't judge how meaningful that is or if it deserves a standalone test. As someone who checks in occasionally I needed to convince myself I can really throw Miniscript into a descriptor and the wallet will work/behave like I'm used to