💬 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

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276237)
added updated comment

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276289)
would need to do a bit more work to make sure it actually would be attempting a package rbf. I think we can rely on our conflict topology check tests to ensure this, at least for default mempool chains?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276334)
taken

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1581276412)
added an extra phrase, hope that helps?