💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Could the wallet count unconfirmed non-mempool change?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11887#issuecomment-2047770240)
Related to private broadcast @vasild ?

💬 glozow commented on issue "policy: allow RBF descendant carveout whenever conflicts exist, not just when number of conflicts == 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16819#issuecomment-2047781108)
AFAIK, #27677 gets rid of RBF carveout / fixes this, as it instead calculates what the mempool would look like after removing the replacees and adding the new transaction(s)?

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "depends: Evaluate potential improvements"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18821)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "depends: Evaluate potential improvements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18821#issuecomment-2047798129)
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.

Pull requests with improvements are always welcome.

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "Allow JSON RPC "batches" for multiwallet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18715)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Allow JSON RPC "batches" for multiwallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18715#issuecomment-2047800194)
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.

Pull requests with improvements are always welcome.

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "[RFC] Dealing with RPCs that have a lot of positional options"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22575)

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "ignored getblocktxn takes longer to detect than is possible"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22295)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "ignored getblocktxn takes longer to detect than is possible":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22295#issuecomment-2047804953)
We think this issue is now resolved, please feel free to comment here or open another issue if you disagree.

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "make keeps redoing some of the earlier done work."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22134)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "make keeps redoing some of the earlier done work.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22134#issuecomment-2047808171)
There doesn't seem to be much interest in implementing this feature.

Please feel free to submit a pull request if this is something that you still want.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#issuecomment-2047810807)
Thank you very much @sr-gi @maflcko @vasild @glozow @mzumsande for your extensive review.

Force pushed to address all review comments:
- in GUI: display the warning along with other warnings, instead of in a messagebox. This prevents the warning from [blocking the `msghand` thread](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1551733252) (and is a nicer approach in general)
- various nits around improved documentation, variable naming, references, help messages, ...

I probab
...

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "The BlockIndex/BlockMap should not live in memory *all the time*"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24760)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "The BlockIndex/BlockMap should not live in memory *all the time*":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24760#issuecomment-2047817782)
This issue hasn't had activity in a while and appears to have gone stale so I'm going to close it for now.

Feel free to open a new issue or comment here if you are still experiencing this problem so we can investigate further.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1554563937)
I think it is for [`if (m_offsets.size() < 5) return 0s;`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623/files#diff-a3d241f8a9033c5a4b88c7323f31c4b147800aae7479f38f127400461ff09a91R40)?

🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#pullrequestreview-1984476214)
Thank you very much @sr-gi @maflcko @vasild @glozow @mzumsande for your extensive review.

Force pushed to address all review comments:

in GUI: display the warning along with other warnings, instead of in a messagebox. This prevents the warning from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1551733252 (and is a nicer approach in general)
various nits around improved documentation, variable naming, references, help messages, ...
I probably won't be addressing nits in this P
...

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1554567992)
It's wrapped in a `std::atomic` here which requires the chrono literal, doesn't compile otherwise:

```
net_processing.cpp:395:52: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'std::atomic<std::chrono::seconds>' (aka 'atomic<duration<long long>>')
std::atomic<std::chrono::seconds> m_time_offset{0};
```

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1554563217)
Thanks, I've updated the doc to `to make it harder for others to create false warnings about our clock being out of sync.`

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1559370716)
Thanks, no longer relevant since the variable has been removed in latest push

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1554629471)
I think I'd prefer to leave this as is, it's a well scoped mutex, performance impact should be negligible so keeping it concise makes sense I think.