💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "test: adds outbound eviction functional tests, updates comment in ConsiderEviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29122#issuecomment-2079606752)
Updated to address https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29122#discussion_r1580221364

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665#issuecomment-2079616145)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665#issuecomment-2079388456

> > or the [CompleteChainstateInitialization](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/blob/55d7de92bbbe035c1833c89f885af14e5b243932/src/node/chainstate.cpp#L38-L179) function from #25665
>
> I don't think this is good usage of `Update()`, since there is no chaining happening here. I would find list initialization more readable and less error-prone:
>
> git diff on 1376583

The diff you suggested is actually the way
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Silent payment index (for light wallets and consistency check)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28241#issuecomment-2079619223)
I'm not a Rust guru, but if someone can write a quick script to make `rust-silentpayments` spit out the tweaks per block, I can compare it with our index.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Avoid getchaintxstats invalid results":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29720#discussion_r1581204910)
Ok, I've pushed a commit. Let me know what you think.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Avoid getchaintxstats invalid results":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29720#discussion_r1581205666)
Not sure what to do here. I'll resolve this conversation for now.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Avoid getchaintxstats invalid results":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29720#discussion_r1581206073)
Fixed, so resolving this for now.

📝 achow101 locked a pull request: "fix block subsidy at 3.25 BTC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29778)
This fixes block subsidy at 3.25 BTC.
- ensures ongoing profitability of mining operations
- increasing money supply for growing Bitcoin economy
- to be rolled out after April 2024 halving

💬 achow101 commented on issue "qa: Support git worktrees when running the linters locally via Docker":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29972#issuecomment-2079680643)
Yes, this happens if you try to run any of the CI tasks locally in a worktree.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275198)
done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275245)
taken

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275555)
complete sentence, but not grammatically correct or useful, removed

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275611)
taken

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275679)
taken

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275786)
it's a package rbf test, I think name is fine

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275855)
Hmm, yeah I don't think this test is meaningful. Removed.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275921)
done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581275972)
forgot to remove, done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276032)
fixed

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276105)
conceptually the test is cleaner if each parent is different, so I updated the parent to be slightly different, and asserted the parents are all have different txids

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276165)
Deleting this comment as I don't think it's helpful