💬 hebasto commented on issue "ci: Enable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29804#issuecomment-2100269000)
> Not sure, the image is still missing, see also [#30060 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30060#issuecomment-2100256768)

Right (

https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/9691#issuecomment-2099267078

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: add markdown link check job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30034#discussion_r1593823364)
Thanks for providing the context. (I didn't run the check locally, so I wasn't aware). I presume the reason for the suppression is that the output is too verbose.

The reason could be put in the code:

```suggestion
.stdout(Stdio::null()) // suppress verbose output
;
```

(up to you if you want to keep stderr as explicit inherit, or use the default inherit)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: add markdown link check job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30034#issuecomment-2100286650)
utACK 9d2a8a8b1d67af14e4a5fc8276a1069b6ef9fe4a

with or without the nits

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "ci: add markdown link check job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30034#issuecomment-2100291908)
Thanks @maflcko , did a final force-push for that silly nit: `git range-diff 9d2a8a8...82c5f95`

Sorry to invalidate the ACK

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: add markdown link check job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30034#issuecomment-2100296942)
utACK 82c5f9531021c76180fa34fa9cbd243ad1c994f3

Thanks!

💬 josibake commented on pull request "refactor: Model the bech32 charlimit as an Enum":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30047#issuecomment-2100302186)
@theuni updated to remove `NO_LIMIT`. I also looked at a few alternatives to using an `Enum` but I think given the relatively simple usecase, an `Enum` works here with the benefit of not requiring an expansive refactor.

I'd be open to a more expansive refactor if there was a) conceptual buy in and b) additional use cases beyond supporting silent payments addresses (e.g. parsing bolt11/12 bech32 strings in Bitcoin Core, mercury layer bech32 addresses, etc).

⚠️ nimrare opened an issue: "libxcb-xinerama0 Library required by bitcoin-qt"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30061)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

I installed bitcoin core 26.1 on a Raspberry 5 (ARM Architecture) running Ubuntu 23.1. Upon running bitcoin-qt, I got the error that the library libxcb-xinerama0 is required but not installed.

It's easily fixed by installing it from the repositories (apt install libxcb-xinerama0), however, for a security conscious person this is a bit unsatisfying. Is there a reason this library is not
...

💬 hebasto commented on issue "libxcb-xinerama0 Library required by bitcoin-qt":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30061#issuecomment-2100340076)
> It's easily fixed by installing it from the repositories (apt install libxcb-xinerama0), however, for a security conscious person this is a bit unsatisfying.

It is expected: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/43a66c55ec8770cf7c21112aac9b997f3f2fb704/contrib/devtools/symbol-check.py#L125

🤔 rkrux reviewed a pull request: "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#pullrequestreview-2045275412)
Thanks for adding these tests.

Seems like this is in progress because there is test failure and a debugger is added.
Added few suggestions for now, will review again when the tests pass.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1593816229)
This test fails at this line, throwing 403 instead.
```
2024-05-08T10:36:33.356000Z TestFramework (INFO): Testing rpcwhitelistdefault=0 with no specified permissions
2024-05-08T10:36:34.102000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/Users/aither/projects/bitcoin/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 132, in main
self.run_test()
File "/Users/aither/projects/bitcoin/test/functional/rpc_whitelist.py", line 106, in run_test
...

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1593808338)
Same string formatting nit can be applied here as well.
```
Use f'{x}' for string formatting in preference to '{}'.format(x) or '%s' % x.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1593806337)
`with specified`
Extra space between

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1593813826)
This piece of code is duplicated in every test, good candidate for extracting out in a `getPermissions(user)` function.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1593810250)
Suggestion: The above test ending here can be put in a separate function so that there are mostly other test functions calls inside `run_test`.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1593818855)
Why is this path different than in other tests below?

📝 paplorinc converted_to_draft a pull request: "refactor: Speed up Base58 encoding/decoding by 400%/200% via preliminary byte packing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29473)
Continuing the base conversion optimizations, started in [TryParseHex](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29458) and [IsSpace](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29602) and [Bech32](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29607).

-------

To mitigate the quadratic complexity inherent in the sequential byte division of the Base58 encoding process, this update aggregates characters into groups of 7 and 9, fitting them into 64-bit long integers.
This refinement utilizes the inherent
...

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "contrib: Add asmap-tool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28793#issuecomment-2100376287)
ACK 6abe772a17e09fe96e68cd3311280d5a30f6378b

Did some light code review & some testing of `encode` -> `decode` -> `encode` with kartograf generated `final_results.txt` file, `diff`, and the handling of invalid text and mutated binary input files.

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "test: use assert_greater_than util":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30019#discussion_r1593896834)
> I see you are a newcomer too.

this isn't necessary...

```Python
assert_greater_than("0.001", balance - newbalance)
```
I wasn't suggesting comparing it to a string, of course, but to a decimal, as in the example I've provided, i.e.:
```Python
assert_greater_than(0.001, balance - newbalance)
```

This seems to be working for me, is it failing for you?

📝 brunoerg opened a pull request: "net: add ASMap info in `getrawaddrman` RPC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30062)
This PR adds two new fields in `getrawaddrman` RPC: "mapped_as" and "source_mapped_as". These fields are used to return the ASN (Autonomous System Number) mapped to the peer and its source. With these informations we can have a better view of the bucketing logic with ASMap specially in projects like [addrman-observer](https://github.com/0xb10c/addrman-observer).

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "net: add ASMap info in `getrawaddrman` RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30062#issuecomment-2100435272)
ping @0xB10C