✅ maflcko closed an issue: "Signed Integer Overflow in GetBlockSubsidy at block height 2,147,483,647 (During Epoch 10,227, halving 10,226) could increase the block subsidy, total supply, or potentially halt the network"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29928)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Signed Integer Overflow in GetBlockSubsidy at block height 2,147,483,647 (During Epoch 10,227, halving 10,226) could increase the block subsidy, total supply, or potentially halt the network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29928#issuecomment-2068767323)
The year 2106 will happen before that (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#cite_ref-2), and this can be fixed at the same time, when the time has come. I don't think there is a need to keep this issue open, or open an issue for every single function that will be affected by a `int` block-height signed overflow.

Moreover, this is the wrong place to discuss protocol or consensus changes.


General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin Stack
...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "refactor: Use our own implementation of urlDecode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29904#discussion_r1574339319)
For better or worse, this silent accepting behavior for invalid hex values in URL decoding is really common. See for example Python:

```python3
>>> import urllib.parse
>>> urllib.parse.unquote('%12%%xx%0a')
'\x12%%xx\n'
```
It's the web philopsophy of "in case of doubt, just do something!" 😅 . Anyhow, in this refactor it doesn't make sense imo to add error handling here.

👍 laanwj approved a pull request: "refactor: Use our own implementation of urlDecode"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29904#pullrequestreview-2014113911)
Concept and code review ACK 175d57ba953cdc1da3a54ae0208dad813f7ea4cf

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "refactor: Use our own implementation of urlDecode"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29904#pullrequestreview-2014144499)
Is `if USE_LIBEVENT` guard in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/175d57ba953cdc1da3a54ae0208dad813f7ea4cf/src/Makefile.am#L715-L718 still needed?

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Crash on fail ~CCheckQueue() destructor?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29930#issuecomment-2068824789)
This was fixed in Bitcoin Core 27.x

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "Crash on fail ~CCheckQueue() destructor?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29930)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Crash on fail ~CCheckQueue() destructor?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29930#issuecomment-2068825320)
Is this still an issue with a recent version of Bitcoin Core? If yes, what are the exact steps to reproduce?

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "refactor: Use our own implementation of urlDecode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29904#issuecomment-2068827925)
No, it isn't. Nor is piling on the `EVENT_CFLAGS`. Good catch @hebasto.

💬 virtu commented on pull request "contrib: Add asmap-tool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28793#discussion_r1574349440)
```suggestion
#!/usr/bin/env python3
# Copyright (c) 2022 Pieter Wuille
```

💬 virtu commented on pull request "contrib: Add asmap-tool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28793#discussion_r1574356520)
The last non-f-string left, I think.

💬 virtu commented on pull request "contrib: Add asmap-tool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28793#discussion_r1574368473)
nit: I searched other scripts in `contrib` for appending to `sys.path` to find out if there's precedent one could follow:

```python
testgen/gen_key_io_test_vectors.py
14:sys.path.append(os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), '../../test/functional')
message-capture/message-capture-parser.py
16:sys.path.append(os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), '../../test/functional'))
```

📝 vasild opened a pull request: "doc: suggest only necessary Qt packages for installation on FreeBSD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29932)
The previously suggested `qt5` package is a meta package that does not install anything itself but depends on a bunch of others and is used as a convenience to install "everything" Qt5 related: 253 packages / 3 GiB.

We only need a subset of those which amounts to 71 packages / 224 MiB, so suggest just that.

For comparison:

```
Updating local repository catalogue...
local repository is up to date.
All repositories are up to date.
Checking integrity... done (0 conflicting)
The follow
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "rpc: Optimize serialization disk space of dumptxoutset - Reloaded":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29612#issuecomment-2068890350)
@fjahr sounds good. Let me know when that's ready and I'll bake a halving block snapshot...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "doc: suggest only necessary Qt packages for installation on FreeBSD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29932#issuecomment-2068899128)
Just to ask: These are stil developer packages, right, with the headers?

💬 vasild commented on pull request "doc: suggest only necessary Qt packages for installation on FreeBSD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29932#issuecomment-2068914601)
Yes, in FreeBSD there is no distinction like in e.g. Debian:

```
pkg info -l qt5-network |grep ssl.h
/usr/local/include/qt5/QtNetwork/qssl.h
```

More importantly - those are the same packages that `qt5` depends on. To simplify - `qt5` depends on `qt5-foo`, `qt5-bar`, `qt5-baz`, `qt5-omg`, `qt5-whatnotonemilliondeps` whereas we only need `qt5-foo`. So, the suggestion to install `qt5` is just excessive.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "doc: suggest only necessary Qt packages for installation on FreeBSD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29932#issuecomment-2068923134)
Absolutely, it's excessive. Qt is like an operating system in itself, in depends we're also very careful to only build the parts that are needed. It makes sense to pick specific packages instead of the umbrella package.

ACK b1e98c1b36354b45c3d3ee44ec5c1d11cc9a46d2

💬 Kino1994 commented on issue "Signed Integer Overflow in GetBlockSubsidy at block height 2,147,483,647 (During Epoch 10,227, halving 10,226) could increase the block subsidy, total supply, or potentially halt the network":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29928#issuecomment-2068940724)
Hi @maflcko

Thank you for your feedback.

I would like to emphasize that while some bugs may seem similar or less urgent than others, it is best practice in software development to address each bug individually. This ensures that each issue is thoroughly investigated and resolved based on its own merits, rather than being bundled together or deferred due to perceived similarities. The forums you've referenced are predominantly for general Bitcoin inquiries akin to StackOverflow discussions
...

💬 BrandonOdiwuor commented on pull request "doc: explain what the wallet password does":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28974#discussion_r1574452288)
removed

💬 BrandonOdiwuor commented on pull request "doc: explain what the wallet password does":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28974#discussion_r1574452537)
fixed