🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "sign: don't assume we are parsing a sane TapMiniscript"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29853#pullrequestreview-2018286165)
ACK 4d8d21320eba54571ff63931509cd515c3e20339 with a small nuance that could be tackled in a follow-up by someone else (or never).

As this was found by the RPC fuzzer, it would be nice to re-use those inputs and craft a functional test, rather than covering it on a unit test. This is because functional tests can be ported across releases with the bug fix, while unit tests might not be easy to port due to some internal changes. Plus, in the long term, unit tests require more maintenance work.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Improve display address handling for external signer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24313#issuecomment-2073454165)
ACK 4357158c4712d479522d5cd441ad4dd1693fdd05

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "Improve display address handling for external signer"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24313)

💬 vostrnad commented on pull request "Remove redundant `-datacarrier` option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29942#issuecomment-2073575320)
Another difference from `-chain` is that it is possible to set both `-datacarrier=0` and a positive `-datacarriersize` without so much as a warning (`-chain` immediately crashes when in conflict with another option).

Here are also a few examples of users confused about the two options:

https://twitter.com/FieldNas/status/1782498776671768807
https://twitter.com/betoche1984/status/1782452190063337681

📝 luke-jr opened a pull request: "Bugfix: JSON-RPC request Content-Type is application/json"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29946)
This goes all the way back to #3246, and it's not clear why text/plain has been used throughout.

There seems to be a lack of specification of what the correct content-type is, but application/json seems correct and popular, and text/plain definitely isn't.

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "doc: Suggest only necessary Qt packages for installation on OpenBSD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29947)
The currently suggested `qt5` installs many unneeded dependencies, for example, `qtsensors`, `qtspeech` etc.

Similar to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29932.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "doc: Suggest only necessary Qt packages for installation on OpenBSD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29947#issuecomment-2073613812)
cc @theStack

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "doc: Suggest only necessary Qt packages for installation on OpenBSD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29947#pullrequestreview-2018507569)
Tested ACK b175ca9cc8bad4e106149260c3b592b1e0f2cb2f

Verified on a fresh install of OpenBSD 7.5 that these two packages are the minimum requirement to build the GUI:

* Without `qtbase`, the configure script invoked via `./configure --with-gui=qt5 MAKE=gmake` fails with `configure: error: Qt5Core >= 5.11.3 not found`.
* Without `qttools`, the configure script fails with `configure: error: LRELEASE not found`.
* With both installed, the configure passes and the build succeeds.

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "help i think my core is hacked":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29944#issuecomment-2073702422)
This is your change output. Look for more information on https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com

✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "help i think my core is hacked"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29944)

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "refactor: Use our own implementation of urlDecode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29904#discussion_r1577057922)
Even this can go? It's fascinating to see how this little function was such a wedge issue and now we can drop half the build system 😄

👍 laanwj approved a pull request: "refactor: Use our own implementation of urlDecode"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29904#pullrequestreview-2018558155)
Code review ACK 477c03b42825084ac344050d97ea206a82ba0eb6

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Add used balance to overview page":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/775#issuecomment-2073729945)
What is the use case here? (And the avoid_reuse flag in general...)

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "doc: Suggest only necessary Qt packages for installation on OpenBSD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29947#issuecomment-2073755514)
Concept ACK. It's nice that OpenBSD provides separate modules for Qt nowadays.

💬 HaSan1y commented on issue "help i think my core is hacked":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29944#issuecomment-2073763151)
> This is your change output. Look for more information on https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com
i dont understand? what do you mean with 'change output'?? what do you mean with look for more information?
elaborate please?
anyway who are you? did you even read my problem?
i know what is inside that link https://explorer.btc.com/btc/transaction/c5069dd52612dd07cfff6a2c587356497a2f8e7489923376a92420850fe27d09
im saying something is wrong with the transaction. did you perheps programm to steal
...

💬 IAmAdamRest commented on issue "Crashes in v27 on Windows 10 and 11":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29916#issuecomment-2073776190)
Having this same issue. Where do I find my logs?

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "cli: Detect port errors in rpcconnect and rpcport":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29521#discussion_r1577085955)
Yes, that sounds reasonable. Removed the "18443" test and pushed.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: Run framework unit tests in parallel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29771#issuecomment-2073796442)
Rebased and pushed.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "Bugfix: JSON-RPC request Content-Type is application/json":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29946#issuecomment-2073812562)
IIRC we do *return* `application/json` content type, so this at least makes it symmetric. id be against enforcing this (because so many clients already specify it wrong), but the example would be better this way.

💬 Umiiii commented on pull request "test: add missing comparison of node1's mempool in MempoolPackagesTest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29941#issuecomment-2073825129)
@glozow could you review again and see if it meets the requirements now ..?