💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "net: Make AddrFetch connections to fixed seeds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26114#issuecomment-2088732123)
[d8df9f9 ](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/d8df9f94f933c9d5fd19a58a4b1473ea9becd362)to [c07bfae](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c07bfae27718da97322d22bc05db6af1176f738a): Rebased

🤔 instagibbs reviewed a pull request: "p2p: index TxOrphanage by wtxid, allow entries with same txid"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30000#pullrequestreview-2033911780)
code changes are quite mechanical, thankfully

concept ACK

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: index TxOrphanage by wtxid, allow entries with same txid":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30000#discussion_r1586473749)
```Suggestion
if (m_orphanage.HaveTx(Wtxid::FromUint256(hash))) return true;
```

💬 BullishNode commented on issue "Change estimate_mode default to "ECONOMICAL" in these RPC calls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30009#issuecomment-2088788922)
Agreed that switching to economical is not a long-term fix for fee estimation, but it's still a notable improvement. Implementing this change would likely lead to a very noticeable reduction in fees paid by Bitcoin Core users, and users of Bitcoin Core fee estimation, and Bitcoin users as a whole.

To give an idea of how much this affects a business which does a lot of Bitcoin transaction, we actually created software that will pull the recomended fees from the mempool api and we feed that to
...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "doc: Remove outdated description for --port argument":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30014#issuecomment-2088796987)
Does anyone have concrete statistics on this? Or even anecdotes?
i would imagine nodes on non-standard ports still get significantly less connections, if not the least because the DNS seeds don't support them.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "lint: [doc] Clarify Windows line endings (CR LF) not to be used":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30010#issuecomment-2088798660)
Yes, this makes sense, having a mix of linux and windows line endings in the respository would be a mess.

📝 Shaxrux1811 opened a pull request: "Initial commit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30015)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

👋 ryanofsky's pull request is ready for review: "refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665)

🤔 ryanofsky reviewed a pull request: "refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665#pullrequestreview-2034094691)
Rebased 0c8a1bb1445e8b88bb0ad9d440830ef215e9e8f8 -> db91dbb5a9a0413d6ee22ed6e32d1221d5b6d996 ([`pr/bresult2.56`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/bresult2.56) -> [`pr/bresult2.57`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/bresult2.57), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/bresult2.56-rebase..pr/bresult2.57)) after #29906 was merged

🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "doc: Remove outdated description for --port argument"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30014#pullrequestreview-2034095091)
It may yet be early to do this. I mentioned this change in https://jonatack.github.io/articles/using-alternative-p2p-networks-with-bitcoin-core#bitcoin-core-listening-port but have no statistics on the use of non-8333 ports for running bitcoind.

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "Initial commit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30015)

📝 achow101 locked a pull request: "Initial commit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30015)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "kernel, refactor: return error status on all fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29700#issuecomment-2088841298)
Rebased 4d2c9de24916f8d69514ea7c7251136e2762fa5c -> f65fa8c91130931713848a97606d5add0fc9b8c5 ([`pr/fatalresult.13`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/fatalresult.13) -> [`pr/fatalresult.14`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/fatalresult.14), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/fatalresult.13-rebase..pr/fatalresult.14)) due to silent conflict with #28970

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add util::ResultPtr class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26022#issuecomment-2088844666)
Rebased 8ecac0885ef5b6fc2313cd2f8dfb48c10a05db27 -> 9f58eb795ec5592c59f9af3269f004e589a2368f ([`pr/bresult-ptr.4`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/bresult-ptr.4) -> [`pr/bresult-ptr.5`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/bresult-ptr.5), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/bresult-ptr.4-rebase..pr/bresult-ptr.5)) on top of latest #25665 (no other changes)

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "doc: Remove outdated description for --port argument":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30014#issuecomment-2088858032)
This is a duplicate of #29994.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "net: don't lock cs_main while reading blocks in net processing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26326#discussion_r1586585459)
Would it be woth having a static assert for this when defining `MAX_BLOCKTXN_DEPTH`?

```
static_assert(MAX_BLOCKTXN_DEPTH < MIN_BLOCKS_TO_KEEP, "MIN_BLOCKS_TO_KEEP too low");
```

This was not obvious to me either, but I'm not too familiar with this part of net_processing

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "fuzz: txorphan tests fixups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29974#pullrequestreview-2034150338)
ACK 58594c7

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "net: don't lock cs_main while reading blocks in net processing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26326#discussion_r1586586486)
Would it be worth having a static assert for this when defining `MAX_BLOCKTXN_DEPTH`?

```
static_assert(MAX_BLOCKTXN_DEPTH < MIN_BLOCKS_TO_KEEP, "MIN_BLOCKS_TO_KEEP too low");
```

This was not obvious to me either, but I'm not too familiar with this part of net_processing

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: index TxOrphanage by wtxid, allow entries with same txid":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30000#issuecomment-2088877822)
should be able to add fuzz coverage easily for differing wtxids but same txids in `src/test/fuzz/txorphan.cpp`

✅ laanwj closed a pull request: "doc: Remove outdated description for --port argument"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30014)