💬 hebasto commented on issue "Manually Banning Peers Results in Crash":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29916#issuecomment-2089986189)
@iotamega @IAmAdamRest

Does the issue happen with Bitcoin Core v26.1, v25.2?

💬 dominicusadinfinitum commented on issue "Testsuite for Bitcoin Core 27.0.0 - FAIL: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30020#issuecomment-2089987732)
> > [test-suite.log](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/files/15184292/test-suite.log)
>
> The file is empty. If it is less than 100 lines, you can put it in a comment here.


I checked and downloaded it several times. The file is full using your comment link ;D

💬 dominicusadinfinitum commented on issue "Testsuite for Bitcoin Core 27.0.0 - FAIL: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30020#issuecomment-2089988846)
=============================================
Bitcoin Core 27.0.0: src/test-suite.log
=============================================

# TOTAL: 4
# PASS: 3
# SKIP: 0
# XFAIL: 0
# FAIL: 1
# XPASS: 0
# ERROR: 0

.. contents:: :depth: 2

FAIL: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt
=============================

********* Start testing of AppTests *********
Config: Using QtTest library 5.15.8, Qt 5.15.8 (arm64-little_endian-lp64 shared (dynamic) release build; by GCC 12.2.0), debian 12
PASS
...

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Testsuite for Bitcoin Core 27.0.0 - FAIL: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30020#issuecomment-2090005933)
@dominicusadinfinitum

What are the first few lines (before "Script verification uses...") in the `debug.log` file when you run `bitcoin-qt -regtest`?

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Testsuite for Bitcoin Core 27.0.0 - FAIL: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30020#issuecomment-2090019788)
> I checked and downloaded it several times. The file is full, but you got it also in a comment below.

My bad, the file is good.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Testsuite for Bitcoin Core 27.0.0 - FAIL: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30020#issuecomment-2090021205)
> I followed the steps in the book "Mastering Bitcoin".

Can you please add exact steps to reproduce? The book may be using outdated information.

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Testsuite for Bitcoin Core 27.0.0 - FAIL: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30020#issuecomment-2090021621)
A few other thoughts:

1. Have you installed all the [GUI dependencies](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/build-unix.md#linux-distribution-specific-instructions)? (preumably you must have, and I see "Using QtTest library 5.15.8, Qt 5.15.8", but just thought I'd double check)
2. Does this happen if you configure with debug mode enabled: `./configure --enable-debug`? If so, the output may also be more useful to us to find what is failing rather than guessing from "No symbol tab
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Bitcoin Core 27 crash at sync - Ubuntu - No error in logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30001#issuecomment-2090032624)
I mean it doesn't contain the crash information. Are you sure this is a crash and not a normal shutdown or someone initiating a shutdown?

In any case, if this really is a crash, you can get the traceback with something like:

```
gdb --args .../bitcoin-qt

...

> run
```

Then recreate the crash and check the output in the terminal.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Improve new LogDebug/Trace/Info/Warning/Error Macros":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29256#issuecomment-2090083022)
> To reiterate my own point of view, `-logsourcelocation` does not solve the same problem this PR solves because it does not

That ignores bullets (1), (2) and (5) from your OP (as it stands today).

It also ignores comments like [vasild's](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29256#pullrequestreview-1884614153), [jamesob's](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28318#discussion_r1445429093), [luke-jr's](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24464#pullrequestreview-902452600), [jonata
...

💬 Sjors commented on issue "Change estimate_mode default to "ECONOMICAL" in these RPC calls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30009#issuecomment-2090106386)
Are you sure this isn't already happening?

This code suggests it does, but I haven't tested:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/9d1a286f20b8a602ffe72928bcd79be09fdbf9d0/src/wallet/fees.cpp#L52-L53

cc @achow101

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "Fix misleading signmessage error with segwit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/819#pullrequestreview-2035359966)
Approach ACK 83def1c5a3741878aa63e6f28cc3def99f76c358 on the content of the messages.

However, splitting lines makes translation work harder due to providing less context. Could you make every touched message a single translatable string?

Also, if you'd like, add translation comment will be very useful to avoid any potential issue similar to [ (for example, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29979).

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "Fix misleading signmessage error with segwit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/819#pullrequestreview-2035365546)
And "Bitcoin Core" phrase should be replaced with `PACKAGE_NAME` (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18646, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19282 etc).

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "test: create assert_less_than util":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30019#discussion_r1587398443)
This looks worse now

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "test: create assert_less_than util":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30019#discussion_r1587399692)
why so general, the previous one was a simple operator, why obfuscate it as such?

🤔 paplorinc reviewed a pull request: "test: create assert_less_than util"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30019#pullrequestreview-2035362348)
I'm not sure I understand what's wrong with the original operators, this seems less readable to me

💬 virtu commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2090115678)
> @virtu FYI, would it be easily possible to run some of the metrics of https://21.ninja/dns-seeds/ for this new seeder?

@mzumsande, the seed is now being monitored on [dev.21.ninja](dev.21.ninja/dns-seeds/).

There may be some graph artifacts until a second data point becomes available. But so far data looks good: 40 advertised addresses (half of them ipv4, the other ipv6), and 35 of them reachable.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "opportunistic 1p1c followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30012#issuecomment-2090123427)
> Can this also address:

Added. I made a copy instead of reference because it's a pointer.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "test: create assert_less_than util"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30019#pullrequestreview-2035382457)
Why not just use `assert_greater_than_or_equal`?

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "refactor, fuzz: Make 64-bit shift explicit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30017#discussion_r1587407613)
was the `1U` deliberately kept here?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Avoid unused-variable warning in init.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29968#issuecomment-2090190099)
> Avoids the worry about future compilers, and (void)blah which isn't explanatory

I think `(void)blah;` is well understood to mean this (to both code readers and compilers), but `[[maybe_unused]]` seems fine as well. Switched to that.