👍 willcl-ark approved a pull request: "blockstorage: XOR blocksdir *.dat files"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28052#pullrequestreview-2033326580)
ACK faaf3cf535999c2c9a84337414c8b35435384862

Nice change with the same rationale as the previous mempool XOR changes (preventing anti-virus falsely flagging/modifying block files).

One non-blocking comment left as a result of manual testing.

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "blockstorage: XOR blocksdir *.dat files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28052#discussion_r1586058508)
Jjust noting here that if the user specifies `-blocksxor=01234567` and a file-based key already exists in the datadir, the key from the file is silently used.

This is the correct behaviour IMO, but wonder if we should log that the user-set option has been overridden?

As @maflcko pointed out to me previously, even if a user mistakenly thought they were using a custom xor key set as a CL option and removed the key file, they could still restore it. So I don't see any dangers with this curren
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Add test case for spending bare multisig":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29120#issuecomment-2088216432)
utACK e504b1fa1fa4d014b329dea81bfdf1aa55db238f

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Testnet fixed seeds don't work":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29574#issuecomment-2088217034)
See #30008

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "blockstorage: XOR blocksdir *.dat files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28052#discussion_r1586099563)
> -blocksxor=01234567

The option is boolean, so I guess it could throw here. In any case, the setting won't have an effect on an existing blocksdir, even on `-reindex`. Maybe the manpage can be adjusted to clarify this?

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2088238337)
Concept ACK
```
Flags: x9
Status DNS name Totals IPv4 IPv6
nconn/n nconn/n TTL nconn/n TTL
* mainnet
OK seed.bitcoin.sipa.be. 25/25 25/25 2640 0/0
OK dnsseed.bluematt.me. 29/31 20/21 60 9/10 60
OK dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes 22/22 22/22 264
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2088252118)
Concept ACK

Some of our DNS seeds are currently not performing [well](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29911), so adding a new/more reliable one seems logical to me.

I have also been running this seeder myself for some time (at seed.bitcoin.fish.foo) and the program seems to work well from the operator side too, not requiring any intervention in the few weeks i've been running it.

I ran a different test to @laanwj on mainnet IPV4 only, and did find seeds generally returning res
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "depends: sqlite 3.45.3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29991#issuecomment-2088396078)
Guix builds (aarch64)
```
95204b6b16c56371e935059face7a9775a20248823740257a96f302b30a1f766 guix-build-63678f7635b4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
a7e81be279d93a7a20b354f98183ac7247694a3a665d56ee05d24cf249d7f74e guix-build-63678f7635b4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-63678f7635b4-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
613d11f0e216160f050e3e752234d33ba63d7e8c7d27bebabbc4cb292d686624 guix-build-63678f7635b4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-63678f7635b4-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
5d1286410d
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1586254555)
> PCKG_POLICY doesn't populate m_tx_results so we wouldn't have results for those transactions

From my reading of the code, `package-mempool-limits` populates `m_tx_results`? We also allow those cases in our fuzz target(which I'm guessing is there because I hit it!).

We could probably be more aggressive about filling out results when possible and passing those results along, sounds like future work for now?

📝 glozow opened a pull request: "opportunistic 1p1c followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30012)
Followups from #28970:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1568781077
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1585554972
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1581019326
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1581036209

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1586256603)
Should all these failures be `PCKG_POLICY`? We have individual errors which are reported as well, and now with 1P1C relay, we probably want to act on failures at p2p layer?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1586256784)
Done in #30012

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1586256968)
Done in #30012

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1586257053)
Done in #30012

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#issuecomment-2088415179)
rebased to pick up 1P1C relay

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1586258730)
Then maybe we should just do this?

> Update the p2p logic here to continue when it's PCKG_POLICY and call ProcessInvalidTx for the MempoolAcceptResults we find.

(and remove the `Assume` that they always exist)

👋 glozow's pull request is ready for review: "p2p: index TxOrphanage by wtxid, allow entries with same txid"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30000)

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "lint: [doc] Clarify Windows line endings (CR LF) not to be used"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30010#pullrequestreview-2033554704)
ACK fa9be2f79520fff9cfe2ed35ace05cb322680af3

⚠️ tylerztl opened an issue: "How to get Signet test coins(sBTC)?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30013)
### Issues, reports or feature requests related to the GUI should be opened directly on the GUI repo

- [X] I still think this issue should be opened here

### Report

I am a developer. I want to get more test coins of the signet network. The faucet is too small. If I want to get more, I try to start the test node, but I cannot mint any sBTC.

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "How to get Signet test coins(sBTC)?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30013)