✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "Adding a blocksonly option to addnode"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23763)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Adding a blocksonly option to addnode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23763#issuecomment-2047834198)
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.

If someone is interested in this feature they could pick up https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24170

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "security: restrict abis in bitcoind.service":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28340#issuecomment-2047834466)
ACK 0244416aacbad03e4ebe8f2c95c7861a318916ea

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "RPC: gettxoutsetinfo correctly flushes transactions to the coindb, but then does not return any RPC reply, and keeps running"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25912)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "RPC: gettxoutsetinfo correctly flushes transactions to the coindb, but then does not return any RPC reply, and keeps running":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25912#issuecomment-2047836598)
The problem does not seem to be easily reproducible.

Please open a new issue (or leave a comment in here if you want this re-opened) if you experience the problem again.

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "importdescriptors hanging on importing/updating descriptor with large range":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25895#issuecomment-2047840620)
@furszy is this fixed in master?

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Error: specified data directory "\\IP.Ad.re.ss\release\Folder"does not exist":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25868#issuecomment-2047844159)
@ryanofsky are you working on this?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "refactor: Simplify base32/64 padding calculations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29847#issuecomment-2047855386)
```bash
Run base_encode_decode with args ['/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src/test/fuzz/fuzz', '-runs=1', PosixPath('/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/qa-assets/fuzz_seed_corpus/base_encode_decode')]INFO: Running with entropic power schedule (0xFF, 100).
INFO: Seed: 1375269970
INFO: Loaded 1 modules (578208 inline 8-bit counters): 578208 [0x55e843d75228, 0x55e843e024c8),
INFO: Loaded 1 PC tables (578208 PCs): 578208 [0x55e843e024c8,0x55e8446d4ec8),
INFO:
...

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "Add `consolidate_wallet` argument to fund* RPCs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24795)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Add `consolidate_wallet` argument to fund* RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24795#issuecomment-2047858044)
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.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "valgrind: Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29635#issuecomment-2047861599)
Some options:

* Add a valgrind suppression
* Avoid clang17+ for now, use up to clang16 in CI
* Something else?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Simplify base32/64 padding calculations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29847#issuecomment-2047875411)
Thank you for your contribution. While this stylistic change makes sense on its own, it comes at a cost and risk for the project as a whole. The weak motivation for the change does not justify the burden that it places on the project. A burden could be any of the following:

* Time spent on review
* Accidental introduction of bugs
* (Silent) merge conflicts, either in the branch or a backport branch. Those conflicts demand further developer and reviewer time or introduce bugs.

For more in
...

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "refactor: Simplify base32/64 padding calculations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29847#issuecomment-2047973653)
Thanks for the review @fanquake and @maflcko - though it was still in draft form because of the unsigned problems.

I didn't mean the change as a stylistic change.

In the encodings the original `str.reserve` doesn't enforce the final size, but after the change it's obvious that it's an exact calculation, not just an upper bound, i.e. `while (str.size() % 4) str += '=';` vs `str.append(size - str.size(), '=');`.

In the second change (which I've removed for now) the point was to unify the
...

💬 itornaza commented on pull request "test: Add `leaf_version` parameter to `taproot_tree_helper()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29371#issuecomment-2048105785)
> Reasonable minds can differ of course, for future readers of the PR leave a comment or give me a 👎 if you disagree and would like to see the default parameter used in this case. If it is clear that I'm in the minority, I will change it.

Who am I to say, but I philosophically agree with your reasoning on not passing default parameters in critical test code.

👋 Eunovo's pull request is ready for review: "wallet: fix unrelated parent conflict doesn't cause child tx to be marked as conflict"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29680)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Enable fuzz binary in MSVC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29774#discussion_r1560028640)
The error message is:
```
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "D:\a\bitcoin\bitcoin\test\fuzz\test_runner.py", line 406, in <module>
main()
File "D:\a\bitcoin\bitcoin\test\fuzz\test_runner.py", line 110, in main
test_list_all = parse_test_list(
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "D:\a\bitcoin\bitcoin\test\fuzz\test_runner.py", line 392, in parse_test_list
test_list_all = subprocess.run(
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "C:\hostedtoolcache\windows
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: replace GCC unaligned VMOV patch with binutils patch":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29846#issuecomment-2048425728)
Concept ACK.

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "refactor: Simplify base32/64 padding calculations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29847#issuecomment-2048485814)
@maflcko, you were right, the changes didn't add enough value, I've reverted them.
I've kept the tests, since I think they're valuable and unified the style between base 32 and 64 in the source. If you think that's still too much, I'll revert it.

💬 niftynei commented on pull request "RPC: add new `listmempooltransactions`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29016#issuecomment-2048493284)
Yes but won't have any progress to show til May or so. Thanks

👋 paplorinc's pull request is ready for review: "refactor/test: add a few more base32/64 calculation corner cases"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29847)