🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Fix typos in `subprocess.hpp`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29849)

💬 theuni commented on pull request "[WIP] build: remove need to test for endianness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29852#issuecomment-2049806807)
Want to upstream the crc32 patch to match the others we have sitting there?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[WIP] build: remove need to test for endianness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29852#issuecomment-2049815951)
Concept ACK.

💬 laanwj commented on issue "util-{util,wallet}: undefined reference to `evhttp_uridecode'":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29654#issuecomment-2049819462)
`bitcoin-util` doesn't seem to be linked against libevent. It also doesn't actually use that function. Normally, the linker would drop unused object files, but somehow it doesn't in this user's case. It probably shouldn't be linking in that object in the first place.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "[27.x] More backports and finalize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29780#issuecomment-2049825002)
Reminder it's probably worth backporting #29853 to avoid hitting it in the fuzzer.

📝 darosior opened a pull request: "26.x: backport #29853 ("sign: don't assume we are parsing a sane Miniscript")"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29854)
Backports #29853.

📝 achow101 opened a pull request: "psbt: Check non witness utxo outpoint early"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29855)
A common issue that our fuzzers keep finding is that outpoints don't exist in the non witness utxos. Instead of trying to track this down and checking in various individual places, do the check early during deserialization. This also unifies the error message returned for this class of problems.

💬 QureshiFaisal commented on pull request "test: refactor: introduce and use `calculate_input_weight` helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29777#issuecomment-2049926127)
tACK [6d91cb7](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29777/commits/6d91cb781c30966963f28e7577c7aa3829fa9390)

Functional tests passed for `rpc_psbt.py` and `wallet_send.py`

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "ci: Bump s390x to ubuntu:24.04"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29856)
Now that most other CI tasks are rolled to 24.04, roll this one as well.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "ci: Bump s390x to ubuntu:24.04":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29856#issuecomment-2049992762)
im not sure it was intended to be rollling from debian to ubuntu too :smile:

Not sure ubuntu exists for s390, but we'll see if CI passes.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "guix: remove `gcc-toolchain static` from Windows build":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29828#issuecomment-2050005385)
As this still passes the symbol import check (no extra DLL dependencies introduced) i suppose this is correct. Good find!

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Bump s390x to ubuntu:24.04":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29856#issuecomment-2050041563)
> Not sure ubuntu exists for s390, but we'll see if CI passes.

I think they are only missing riscv64, after commit https://github.com/docker-library/docs/commit/54617b9e5298e9b8325c59081dcd9bd30cb229d6#diff-aa2475d4f8253db9a16955859cf75ba0a5d4f2e2418db0d07390376ca47f1e48R39

⚠️ ChrisCho-H opened an issue: "Enable sighash default option for non-taproot(or tapscript) spend?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29857)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

Why does not enable sighash default for non-taproot transaction(i.e. p2pkh, p2sh, p2wpkh, p2wsh)?
I think it's great BIP341 adds sighash default to save a single byte, which could be huge in aggregate.
As segwit v0 and legacy transactions still take a lot of portion, wouldn't it be good to enable sighash default for them?
It's more efficient, and increases overall backward-compatiblity(without concern about malleability in my humble op
...

💬 sipa commented on issue "Enable sighash default option for non-taproot(or tapscript) spend?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29857#issuecomment-2050074696)
That's not possible without a hardforking consensus change.

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Enable sighash default option for non-taproot(or tapscript) spend?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29857)

💬 emc99 commented on issue "ci: failure in `rpc_scanblocks.py`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29831#issuecomment-2050125202)
Who performs ci?

💬 emc99 commented on pull request "ci: Bump s390x to ubuntu:24.04":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29856#issuecomment-2050172934)
What's s390x?

📝 naiyoma opened a pull request: "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858)
This PR adds tests for `rpcwhitelistdefault.` The implementation is a continuation of this [PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17805).

Applied suggestions to include the tests in` rpc_whitelist.py` and to use a single node.

💬 itornaza commented on pull request "test: Handle functional test disk-full error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29335#issuecomment-2050304085)
tested re-ACK for 858fa78637041ae704005d4b6e564dd8245f4b5d

## No size restrictions

- Did a code review and checked that there is adequate space on the file system to run the tests
- Configured with `--with-incompatible-bdb` and `--enable-suppress-external-warnings`
- Ran unit tests with `make check` and all tests pass
- Ran all functional tests with no extra flags, all tests pass and no warnings about free space are displayed
- Ran all functional tests with `--extended` and all tests p
...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "ci: Bump s390x to ubuntu:24.04":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29856#issuecomment-2050404404)
> I think they are only missing riscv64, after commit

Great!

> What's s390x?

s390x is some old IBM CPU architecture, we test on it to check if everything works on big-endian machines.