💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1585614142)
I agree, would be nice to avoid this code duplication.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1585616821)
I wonder if there are situations in which we fail on a package level and therefore return here and never call `ProcessInvalidTx()` to remove the child from the orphanage. Would that be possible, for example, with v3 transactions that violate `PackageV3Checks()`, and is there something we could do against it? (or should, maybe it's not that terrible?).

⚠️ BullishNode opened an issue: "Change estimate_mode default to "ECONOMICAL" in these RPC calls"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30009)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

The default fee estimate mode for the following RPC calls is set to "ECONOMICAL" rather than "CONSERVATIVE".

My observation running a Bitcoin non-custodial exchange and payment processor which creates a lot transactions is that Bitcoin Core on conservative mode consistently overpays transaction fees as compared to mempool's fee estimation algorithm. I have collected data on this, if anyone needs convincing, but I think this is common k
...

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "AddTimeData will never update nTimeOffset past 199 samples"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/4521)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623)

💬 BullishNode commented on issue "Change estimate_mode default to "ECONOMICAL" in these RPC calls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30009#issuecomment-2087655291)
Another option would be to put this in the config.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "p2p: gives seednode priority over dnsseed if both are provided":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28016#issuecomment-2087660085)
ACK 82f41d76f1c6ad38290917dad5499ffbe6b3974d

💬 BullishNode commented on issue "Change estimate_mode default to "ECONOMICAL" in these RPC calls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30009#issuecomment-2087669682)
Another option would be to have a config for default estimate mode but in that case also the default should be "ECONOMICAL" and not "CONSERVATIVE"

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "doc: i2p: improve `-i2pacceptincoming` mention":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29813#issuecomment-2087670358)
ACK 2179e2c3209a41c1419f1f5ed6270a0dad68b50d

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "p2p: gives seednode priority over dnsseed if both are provided"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28016)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "doc: i2p: improve `-i2pacceptincoming` mention"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29813)

💬 Ayush170-Future commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for `Crypter`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28074#discussion_r1585677457)
Did the necessary changes. Thanks!

💬 Ayush170-Future commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for `Crypter`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28074#issuecomment-2087722633)
- Rebased to the main.
- Used the new `good_data` approach to avoid unnecessary fuzz runs.

💬 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_r1585681716)
Oops -- I miscalculated the ancestor feerates after rewriting it this way, and the new tx still has insufficient fee. Here's what everything looks like with the change here (that is now merged, doh):

tx_unrelated_replacee: fee 31200, vsize 104
parent tx: fee 2000, vsize 147
tx_v3_child_2: fee 10400, vsize 104

tx_v3_child_3: fee 62400, vsize 157

So the total fee of the new transaction is high enough, but the ancestor feerate is still too low: (62400+2000)/304 = 211, which is less than
...

💬 Ayush170-Future commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for `Crypter`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28074#issuecomment-2087734041)
`lint` seems wrong. I couldn't find any trailing whitespaces in the file.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "msvc: Compile `test\fuzz\bitdeque.cpp`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29983#issuecomment-2087752647)
ACK 774359b4a96d2724dc70f900cb71e084a77164da

Tested on windows, the bitdeque fuzz target is indeed now available.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "msvc: Compile `test\fuzz\bitdeque.cpp`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29983)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "doc: update release-process.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29645)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "doc: update release-process.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29645#issuecomment-2087757648)
Went ahead with merging this since the vast majority of the changes here are correct and useful. It seems like there are still some questions related to the translations, but I think we can document those later when it becomes apparent that what we're actually doing diverges from the doc.

💬 hernanmarino commented on pull request "test: Assumeutxo: snapshots with less work should not be loaded":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29428#discussion_r1585735088)
Restored that TODO in my last push. Thanks