💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "test: Add a few more corner cases to the base58 test suite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30035#discussion_r1597506189)
Done, thanks!

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "test: Add a few more corner cases to the base58 test suite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30035#discussion_r1597506230)
Added short explanations to the commit message

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "test: Add a few more corner cases to the base58 test suite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30035#discussion_r1597506366)
Thanks, done

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "contrib: lief updates":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30084#issuecomment-2106039274)
> Guix build, given it's still using 0.13.2?

Thanks for pointing out this interdependency. Looking at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27813 and related preceding changes, would you be concept ACK on updating the guix manifest to a recent lief (0.14 or maybe imminent 0.15), or prefer to hold off for now?

🤔 gatleas17 reviewed a pull request: "debugwindow: update session ID tooltip"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/788#pullrequestreview-2051276341)
Help!

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[27.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29888#issuecomment-2106108253)
I suggest to add https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/813.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "test: Assumeutxo: import snapshot in a node with a divergent chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29996#discussion_r1597568656)
Yes, that would be good.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "test: fix MiniWallet script-path spend (missing parity bit in leaf version)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30076#discussion_r1597569771)
Yes, this is also good.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "test: fix MiniWallet script-path spend (missing parity bit in leaf version)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30076#discussion_r1597570020)
Great, thanks for sharing, I'm digging into this!

💬 levantah commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2106151512)
Tested ACK, it works my current tip is

```
2024-05-12T07:22:24Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000165fe9709ac837645716d480a230a61ca5745530f6692a235d height=24361 version=0x2e5e2000 log2_work=65.708890 tx=94453 date='2024-05-12T07:22:17Z' progress=1.000000 cache=3.3MiB(27967txo)
```

But, the `bitcoin-cli` in 06c2c713c52b60231efc3e00d2c5eb0bf9e345f9 does not know anything about `testnet4` (different RPC port) and I would personally prefer also `-chain=test4` additional flag (both for `bitc
...

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "test: fix MiniWallet script-path spend (missing parity bit in leaf version)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30076#issuecomment-2106153073)
@theStack Thanks for the quick update on this, reACK [57eb590](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30076/commits/57eb59024b4d5b776ddb08736a81585c2ea0e734)

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "test: add conflicting topology test case":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30066#discussion_r1597573455)
Oh I see, it makes sense to me now.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "test: add conflicting topology test case":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30066#discussion_r1597573798)
However, I do feel that the description can be updated to let others know that this topology will be relaxed in the future and not now.

👍 rkrux approved a pull request: "test: add conflicting topology test case"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30066#pullrequestreview-2051309716)
tACK [fba1565](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30066/commits/fba1565f4b6bafbf2516f03184cf58aa80d9843f)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[DO NOT MERGE] cmake: Migrate CI scripts to CMake-based build system -- WIP":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29790#issuecomment-2106172833)
Rebased and updated with usage of https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/184.

👍 paplorinc approved a pull request: "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#pullrequestreview-2051341978)
Nice, only left a few nit comments

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#discussion_r1597600395)
nit: extra line

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#discussion_r1597601015)
nit:
```suggestion
* During reindex, only the block file statistics are updated.
```

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#discussion_r1597602370)
nit (in commit message):
```
This would means that MaxBlockfileNum
```
vs
```
This would mean that MaxBlockfileNum
```

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975#discussion_r1597601611)
nit:
```suggestion
// Account for the 4 magic message start bytes + the 4 length bytes (8 bytes total, defined as BLOCK_SERIALIZATION_HEADER_SIZE).

```