💬 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)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "How to get Signet test coins(sBTC)?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30013#issuecomment-2088439640)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base.

General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or one of the Bitcoin subreddits, or any other place that you feel is well suited.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "net: Favor peers from addrman over fetching seednodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29605#discussion_r1586275063)
Done inn [33ddd1b](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29605/commits/33ddd1b4c1cb1165b5068fbf7a9461e295f6cef1)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Use our own implementation of urlDecode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29904#issuecomment-2088465111)
Ported to the CMake-based build system in https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/181.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-2088480026)
`fd603b8f5c...42cb080600`: rebase and address suggestions

📝 shinghim opened a pull request: "doc: Remove outdated description for --port argument"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30014)
Removing an outdated sentence in the argument description for the --port argument. The note says to wait until #23542 have become widespread, which I think has happened since those changes were merged over two years ago on March 2, 2022

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1586316212)
Yes, but I did not like the behavior of the wallet "unexpectedly" stopping to broadcast its own transactions because `-privatebroadcast` is enabled.

> It's not the most user-friendly thing to introduce a new command arg that would only work if another arg was also changed from its default.

Yes, I agree. I do not like that either but somewhat prefer it over automatically switching off wallet broadcast. I can imagine GUI users who enable `-privatebroadcast` and still try to send transactions
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1586317728)
Updated.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1586317921)
Yes, fixed!