💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: build expat with CMake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29878#issuecomment-2061297943)
> 26 files present in the tarball are not present in the git repository for a total of 57709 lines: https://paste.debian.net/plainh/ba0edfca
> After removal of the files above, this package contains no binaries, no archives and 4 generated scripts: https://paste.debian.net/plainh/ed6bbbc7

I've pushed a change that switches to downloading the unbootstraped source tarball. Want to re-run your script?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1568894409)
great idea, will change 👍

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "blockstorage: do not flush block to disk if it is already there":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039#discussion_r1568898268)
Got it, thanks. Worth opening a new PR?

💬 tobtoht commented on pull request "depends: build expat with CMake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29878#issuecomment-2061349222)
>Want to re-run your script?

- [x] No signature file found, however git tag `R_2_6_2` is signed with a GPG key that was used to sign a previous release: `3176EF7DB2367F1FCA4F306B1F9B0E909AF37285`
- [x] All files in common with the git repository have matching hashes.
- [x] Tarball does not contain any files that are not present in the git repository.
- [ ] This package contains no binaries, no archives and 4 generated scripts: https://paste.debian.net/plainh/beafa9aa

Those generated scr
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "blockstorage: do not flush block to disk if it is already there":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039#discussion_r1568925505)
If you want, yes, I am happy to review. Though, I won't create a pull myself.

💬 setavenger commented on pull request "Silent payment index (for light wallets and consistency check)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28241#issuecomment-2061378522)
> Here's the tweaks I get on a recent signet block:
>
Do you have a mainnet block before height 834761 indexed, then we could compare. I don't have signet data available.

💬 t-bast commented on pull request "policy: restrict all TRUC (v3) transactions to 25KvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29873#issuecomment-2061480170)
> Ah so (900 + 172 * 483 * 2 + 224) / 4 = 41819vB?

That's correct, that is the maximum size of a commitment transaction today.

This size was chosen to ensure that signatures for all HTLCs could be transmitted in a single 65kB lightning p2p message. But we will likely need to transmit more data when we support PTLCs, which means we'll probably reduce the maximum number of allowed PTLCs (IIRC we'll have to divide the current limits roughly by two). That would reduce the maximum size of a com
...

💬 ariard commented on pull request "policy: restrict all TRUC (v3) transactions to 25KvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29873#issuecomment-2061482383)
> So maybe a better number is 42KvB or 50KvB.

Yes, don’t forget the 2 * for anchor outputs.

> Regardless of that, I think you shouldn't care about the size of today's lightning transactions: whenever we start using TRUCs,

Still, what are TRUCs ? Do you have documentation ?

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "doc: Add example of mixing private and public keys in descriptors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28373)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: add `-Wundef`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29876#discussion_r1569045988)
> Would it be possible to change these to values 0/1 instead of defined/undefined?

These are currently checked via: `AC_CHECK_HEADERS([sys/select.h sys/prctl.h sys/sysctl.h vm/vm_param.h sys/vmmeter.h sys/resources.h])`. If we wanted, to we could change this.

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "ci: Run everything in Nulgrind or Valgrind"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29900)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Run everything in Nulgrind or Valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29900#issuecomment-2061593496)
I guess this is too fragile to be useful

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Intermittent issue in test/ipc_tests.cpp Fatal glibc error: pthread_mutex_lock.c:450 (__pthread_mutex_lock_full): assertion failed: e != ESRCH || !robust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29889#issuecomment-2061604188)
I guess it could make more sense if someone tried to reproduce this in `rr`.

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: Fix intermittent issue in p2p_handshake.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29898#issuecomment-2061659300)
Concept ACK, thanks for fixing!

⚠️ brunoerg opened an issue: "Wallet fuzzing tracking issue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29901)
The wallet has poor fuzz coverage. Hopefully, some work is being done to improve it. The goal of this issue is to actively track current work and work that needs to be done to improve fuzz coverage for the wallet.

## Open PRs / Ready to review

- [ ] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29694
- [ ] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28236
- [ ] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28074

## Current wallet targets

We currently have 6 specific targets for wallet, which cover
...

💬 m3dwards commented on issue "IBD performance regression in 27.0rc1 on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29785#issuecomment-2061714375)
I did get a bit of variation but hard to know what's important. `BlockAssemblerAddPackageTxns` was about 10-15% slower on `27.0rc1` vs `26.0`. The bench also throws a filesystem error on 27.0rc1 but completes on 26.0.

[Full bench results](`BlockAssemblerAddPackageTxns`)

💬 stratospher commented on issue "intermittent issue in wallet_backwards_compatibility.py: line 245, in run_test assert txs[3]["abandoned"] AssertionError":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29806#issuecomment-2061766412)
seen in #29898 too - https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5457627730149376?logs=ci#L3718

🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "security: restrict abis in bitcoind.service"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28340)

🤔 murchandamus reviewed a pull request: "fuzz: wallet, add target for Spend"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28236#pullrequestreview-2006620250)
Hey,

Just did a quick pass. What is the status of this PR?

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for Spend":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28236#discussion_r1569162422)
This comment is inconsistent:

```suggestion
// Add 50 spendable UTXO, 50 BTC each, to the wallet (total balance 2500 BTC)
```

A variable set of available coins might be desirable. Smaller amounts could for example trigger behavior regarding negative effective value or having insufficient funds to create a transaction.