📝 instagibbs opened a pull request: "functional test: ensure confirmed utxo being sourced for 2nd chain"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29998)
The test could fail/stop testing what we want if non-confirmed utxos become sourced through some internal change to `MiniWallet`; better to just fetch confirmed explicitly.

💬 itornaza commented on pull request "p2p: gives seednode priority over dnsseed if both are provided":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28016#issuecomment-2083124545)
tested re-ACK 82f41d76f1c6ad38290917dad5499ffbe6b3974d

This PR not only adds meaningful functionality by enabling seeds that are provided by the user to take precedence over the default DNS seeds, but also enhances user experience with relevant reporting on what exactly happens through the process of connecting to the P2P network and which type of nodes are effectively used.

Built this PR from a cleaned up environment using `make distclean` and checked out the latest commit to test upon. M
...

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "test: Don't rely on incentive incompatible replacement in mempool_accept_v3.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29986#discussion_r1583360322)
I think that works, let me know if what I pushed matches what you're thinking!

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "test: Don't rely on incentive incompatible replacement in mempool_accept_v3.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29986#pullrequestreview-2028979977)
ACK f8a141c2dae2471a7ce7248e28a0bbeb8a291acd

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "fuzz: txorphan tests fixups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29974#pullrequestreview-2028986127)
ACK 6998f02c97c0b2c3579fac160192402c8b09613d

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "rpc: return warnings as an array instead of just a single one":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29845#discussion_r1583373054)
> Happy to have a go after this gets merged.

Implemented in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...stickies-v:bitcoin:2024-04/move-warnings-node

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "prune, rpc: Check undo data when finding pruneheight":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29668#discussion_r1583375437)
done

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "prune, rpc: Check undo data when finding pruneheight":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29668#discussion_r1583375522)
done

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "prune, rpc: Check undo data when finding pruneheight":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29668#discussion_r1583375709)
done

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "prune, rpc: Check undo data when finding pruneheight":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29668#discussion_r1583375852)
added

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "prune, rpc: Check undo data when finding pruneheight":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29668#discussion_r1583376000)
taken

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "prune, rpc: Check undo data when finding pruneheight":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29668#discussion_r1583376085)
I prefer to keep this one as is because I find it more intuitive.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "prune, rpc: Check undo data when finding pruneheight":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29668#issuecomment-2083168939)
Adressed feedback from @stickies-v , thanks again!

> nit: I think the last 3 commits should be squashed

The doc change is only tangentially related so I will keep it separate. But I squashed the 2nd and 3rd.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: Don't rely on incentive incompatible replacement in mempool_accept_v3.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29986#issuecomment-2083176753)
ACK f8a141c2dae2471a7ce7248e28a0bbeb8a291acd

💬 glozow commented on pull request "fuzz: don't allow adding duplicate transactions to the mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29990#issuecomment-2083179739)
utACK cc15c5bfd1eb3903de246c124702a7c66c687008 makes sense to me

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "doc: removed help text saying that peers may not connect automatically":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29994#discussion_r1583385359)
fixed in [95897ff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29994/commits/95897ff181c0757e445f0e066a2a590a0a0120d2)

💬 denavila commented on pull request "Deniability - a tool to automatically improve coin ownership privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/733#issuecomment-2083190086)
@1440000bytes,
Thank you so much for testing the PR and for the feedback. That's very helpful.

(1) Yes, that's good idea, I'll rename it.
(2) and (5) are related. The selectable frequencies are actually also randomized, within the selected frequency range - for example hourly is random from 1 to 2 hours, daily is random from 1 to 2 days etc (see line 934 in deniabilitydialog.cpp). Perhaps we need to rename the frequency UI selection to something that better describes this?
(3) Great idea
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "kernel: Streamline util library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29015#issuecomment-2083201174)
I've tested 5eeafeb302dcf56dd5c16c1e4785a41a132344c7 on Ubuntu 23.10.

While all changes look correct and reasonable to me, I was expecting that this PR removes some of dependencies mentioned in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28548.

But that is not the case. The `libbitcoin_util` still depends on `libbitcoin_crypto`, `libbitcoin_consensus` and `libbitcoin_common` libraries.

If such an outcome is expected, maybe update the `doc/design/libraries.md` accordingly?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1583414798)
Right, *even if* the test would manage to hit the case where it would have considered a package rbf(this case won't), it should be caught in both PreChecks and package mempool checks separately.

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "doc: removed help text saying that peers may not connect automatically"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29994#pullrequestreview-2029199846)
ACK 95897ff181c0757e445f0e066a2a590a0a0120d2