💬 theStack commented on pull request "wallet: Implement independent BDB parser":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26606#discussion_r1605552180)
nit: isn't thrown in the parser (commented out), hence can be removed here
```suggestion
```

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "lint/contrib/doc updates":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30084#issuecomment-2118449438)
> If anything, I think the docs could be updated in some way to say that running the linters outside the container, or with versions that differ from the CI is generally unsupported.

Thanks for the feedback, done. Open to further suggestions (like whether to update the other dependencies).

⚠️ asp2alirezasusanichezeh opened an issue: "#asusani"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30135)

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "#asusani"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30135)

💬 ariard commented on pull request "policy: restrict all TRUC (v3) transactions to 10KvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29873#issuecomment-2118488640)
I think 10kvb is okay as a limit though pray for someone telling it more to LN folks.

There is very likely 2018 / 2019 channels open with `max_accepted_htlcs` at max 483 both-sides. With no dynamic upgrades deployed, no way to restraint, without force-close and re-open. Worst than pinning exposure is no propagating TRUC transaction due to “naive” upgrade.

In the (far) future, 10kvb could be dynamic at the transaction-relay level, though this would assume LN upgrading its channel policy set
...

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "#asusani"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30135)

📝 rustyrussell opened a pull request: "doc: note that you can assume C++20."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30136)
We check this in configure.ac, line 99:

dnl Require C++20 compiler (no GNU extensions)

This was introduced in:

commit fa67f096bdea9db59dd20c470c9e32f3dac5be94
Author: MarcoFalke <*~=`'#}+{/-|&$^_@721217.xyz>
Date: Sun Aug 27 10:45:39 2023 +0200

build: Require C++20 compiler

Which git says was before v27.0rc1:

$ git describe --contains fa67f096bdea
v27.0rc1~224^2~4

<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "util: avoid using thread_local variable that has a destructor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30095#discussion_r1605655974)
If we are outlawing thread_local usage, then at the same time, this commit should remove other comments from our codebase suggesting further thread_local usage. i.e [ * If thread-safety is needed, the global could be made thread_local (given](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/058af75874ffa2b4064e3d6d30cc50f0ec754ba8/src/test/util/random.h#L17)

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "doc: note that you can assume C++20.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30136#discussion_r1605657935)
It's useful to document what version of the C++ standard can be used, but i don't think this needs to mention the version it was introduced (the document always applies to the branch it is in), nor is this really the place for documenting a compiler requirement.

Would word it as "Code needs to adhere to the C++20 standard.".

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "build: Remove `--enable-threadlocal`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30137)
Based on #30095 and #30099.
Would close #29952.
Up for debate.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Enable `thread_local` for MinGW-w64 builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30099#issuecomment-2118613875)
> After this and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30095, is there any need to keep the thread_local option at all?

Maybe not. See #30137.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "build: Remove `--enable-threadlocal`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30137#issuecomment-2118621410)
Concept ACK.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "wallet, tests: Avoid stringop-overflow warning in PollutePubKey":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30131#discussion_r1605667276)
Maybe directly assert `pubkey.size() >= 1` to clarify.

⚠️ Geremia opened an issue: "LevelDB error: Corruption: block checksum mismatch didn't trigger reindex."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30138)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

For the past 29 hours, it's been stuck trying to sync:
>**Number of blocks left** Unknown. Syncing Headers (843771, 100.0%)…

and

>Connecting to peers…

I'm also pruning (`prune=550`).

### Expected behaviour

It should sync the full chain and reindex if needed, not try to sync what it can't (due to possibly corrupt chainstate DB).

### Steps to reproduce

Open up `bitcoin-qt`. It
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Remove `--enable-threadlocal`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30137#issuecomment-2118669335)
Concept ACK.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "lint/contrib/doc updates":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30084#issuecomment-2118676930)
@jonatack @kevkevinpal, what are your thoughts on reopening PR #30106 and dropping the test runner `insuffient` spelling error from 30084?

Seems like this PR (30084) is scoped to more than just the spelling error and fixing the error could help prevent near term lint issues for open PRs.

Maybe I'm missing something and this was already addressed?

📝 fanquake unlocked a pull request: "lint: fixed typo in test_runner causing linter warning"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30106)
introduced in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/357ad110548d726021547d85b5b2bfcf3191d7e3

This typo is causing an error in the linter, fixing this should remove this warning

```
test/functional/test_runner.py:651: insuffient ==> insufficient
^ Warning: codespell identified likely spelling errors. Any false positives? Add them to the list of ignored words in test/lint/spelling.ignore-words.txt
```

[link to cirrus ci warning](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5926490804584448?logs=lint
...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "util: avoid using thread_local variable that has a destructor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30095#discussion_r1605695254)
Agree! i mean in a hypothetical future (say, C++30) when every compiler and OS finally implements thread-local storage correctly including destructors, it could be reconsidered, but i think a "no-thread-local" policy makes sense until then.

TBH in general i don't really like comments that suggest TODOs. It's better to keep track of those things in issues where discussion and context is visible.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "util: avoid using thread_local variable that has a destructor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30095#issuecomment-2118681020)
Code review ACK d35ba1b3f16071b8fe9b36398ba15352dbf2a54d

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: De-globalize fReindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#discussion_r1605695740)
I ended up deleting all of this in #30132.