💬 Christewart commented on pull request "tests: fix `OP_1NEGATE` handling in `CScriptOp`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29589#issuecomment-2091723640)
I've updated this PR to take @achow101 's suggestion. After 08f2c78658d8261199c75c7956fecc26efc17f3a the behavior between the c++ and python codebase is the same.

As mentioned by @dgpv and @petertodd , this now touches consensus code. Here is what I see for the implications. I'm not super familar with the c++ codebase, so please let me know if I am missing some occurrences.

### `EncodeOP_N()`

<img width="245" alt="Screenshot 2024-05-02 at 4 18 30 PM" src="https://github.com/bitcoin/bit
...

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "refactor, test: Always initialize pointer"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30026)
This change fixes MSVC warning [C4703](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/error-messages/compiler-warnings/compiler-warning-level-4-c4703).

All `DisableSpecificWarnings` dropped from `test_bitcoin.vcxproj` as all remained are inherited from `common.init.vcxproj`.

Required to simplify warning suppression porting to the CMake-based build system.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor, test: Always initialize pointer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30026#issuecomment-2091832414)
cc @jamesob as a test author

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2091915882)
I had to rebase to fix a silent merge conflict and I think I managed to make the CI happy with the tests I added. In general, I think this can be moved out of draft status now since we are discussing the details of the changes in parameters but overall there seems to be no opposition to the change. I initially had removed Testnet3 as part of this already and keeping it in place makes this much less controversial/dangerous.

I have removed the adjustments on min difficulty and changed the excep
...

👋 fjahr's pull request is ready for review: "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775)

⚠️ 09352333528 opened an issue: "Some import path needed then."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30027)
Some import path needed then.

_Originally posted by @paveljanik in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8035#issuecomment-218124694_

✅ 09352333528 closed an issue: "Some import path needed then."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30027)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Some import path needed then."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30027)

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2091981656)
> perhaps testnet4 should include a variant of the proposed rule from the Great Consensus Cleanup that would require the first block of a difficulty period to be no more than two hours less than the previous difficulty period’s last block’s timestamp.

I have added the corresponding code from #15482 in a separate commit as a basis for discussion.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: build with glibc 2.31":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29987#issuecomment-2092041669)
Guix Build (aarch64)
```bash
d5b65771bb9c1d2e4e49fbb78305e97a99ca43e608ced495f8c437855701d6af guix-build-f5a949b90881/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
113d77f864bac9382aa7598cb038a822aff2c961348ed9ca747a168ec87199bb guix-build-f5a949b90881/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-f5a949b90881-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
4a25c348e2921d27542f39cd5ccb6c7cf3aba72c89fecf69f4f66d63c4d5b623 guix-build-f5a949b90881/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-f5a949b90881-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
6157c1d
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "refactor, fuzz: Make 64-bit shift explicit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30017)

👍 MarnixCroes approved a pull request: "doc: replace remaining "520" magic nums with MAX_SCRIPT_ELEMENT_SIZE"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30024#pullrequestreview-2037275330)
lgtm ffc674595cb19b2fdc5705b355bdd3e7f724b860

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2092079804)
Why does the seeder consider 'default port' for good nodes?

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2092080764)
> Prevent use of the 20-minute difficulty exception on the last block in a difficulty period

I think the worst case here is that someone with significant hashpower quickly mines a few retarget periods to get the difficulty to increase a lot, then stops mining, and no one else is around with enough hashpower who's willing to mine a block.

With the rule above, that means we could get to the end of the period, but would then stall, as the last block would be expensive. With the rule in the PR
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2092089819)
> Why does the seeder consider 'default port' for good nodes?

DNS cannot provide port numbers, but a port must be known when connecting to a node. So we assume the default port, and because of that assumption, DNS seeders need to return nodes that are listening on the default port.

💬 emsit commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2092136022)

> > I'd propose the following coinbase string referencing an article published today regarding testnet: "CCN 02/May/2024 Bitcoin Testnet Could Need Reset"
>
> Happy to add this, I considered my genesis block just a placeholder anyway. The only reason we might use something different is if review here drags on for a few months and people would prefer something fresher by then. I will add it in my next push unless other reviewers disagree with the choice.
>
Is that a joke?
A person who di
...

💬 ajtowns commented on issue "Change estimate_mode default to "ECONOMICAL" in these RPC calls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30009#issuecomment-2092147297)
> This code suggests it does, but I haven't tested:

`estimatesmartfee` rpc defaults to conservative, even if all the wallet stuff defaults to economical via defaulting to rbf-enabled.

💬 laanwj commented on issue "ops: Enable DNSSEC on all Bitcoin DNS Seed domain names":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19714#issuecomment-2092353360)
i checked the current (+30007) list of DNS seeds for having valid DNSSEC and it's still close to the list in the OP (`S` column):
```
Flags: x9
Status DNS name S Totals IPv4 IPv6
nconn/n nconn/n TTL nconn/n TTL
* mainnet
OK seed.bitcoin.sipa.be. 36/39 25/25 3600 11/14 3600
OK dnsseed.bluematt.me.
...

✅ laanwj closed an issue: ""Migrate Wallet" is unclear to translators"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29979)

💬 laanwj commented on issue ""Migrate Wallet" is unclear to translators":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29979#issuecomment-2092407883)
> Can we close this now then? We're not going to find a more appropriate word than "migrate" for this context, and it seems like there's therefore no action to be taken here.

Agree, i don't think using any another word is a substitute for good explanation in this case, and changing it at this point after having used 'migration' for years would only add to the confusion.