💬 kosuodhmwa commented on issue "Log: "no wallet support compiled in" when i start bitcoind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30158#issuecomment-2128954064)
got it , thank you very much!! :-)

✅ kosuodhmwa closed an issue: "Log: "no wallet support compiled in" when i start bitcoind"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30158)

💬 kosuodhmwa commented on issue "Log: "no wallet support compiled in" when i start bitcoind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30158#issuecomment-2128954331)
closed

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "ci: add markdown link check job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30034#discussion_r1613126935)
Sure it could be, but as I see it would need us to write our own markdown parser and link checker.

I don't have the appetite for that myself, hence this approach.

Also see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29965 which may (I didn't fully check yet) permit you to run this lint individually in the future :)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: More accurate coverage reports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30156#issuecomment-2129004039)
utACK 949abebea0059edd929b653b4b475a5880fc0a3e

💬 zefir-k commented on issue "prune shall not delete blocks it did not download":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30163#issuecomment-2129025083)
> Using the same blocksdir for two different nodes is not supported. Nodes may download blocks in a different order and save them to different locations in the blocksfiles. This will lead to an error at some point, latest when one of the nodes can't find a block where it believes to be one.
>
> Currently, I don't think what you are trying to achieve is possible without copying blocks.
>
Hm, my experience differs: using this regularly and never ran into issues. Since the external HDD contai
...

⚠️ dergoegge opened an issue: "fuzz, wallet_bdb_parser: BDB builtin encryption is not supported"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30166)
```bash
$ echo "AwMAAABhMQUAAAAAAAUxYgAAAAkAAAIAMAkkYpAAAAAAAAAAAACCTU1NAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP////////8ICAgFCAgICAgICAgICAAICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAwMAAABhMQUAAAAAAAUxYgAAAAkwAAAJJGKQAADbMGKF////TU1NTQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP////////8ICAgFCAgICAgICAgIAAAAAP////////8ICAgFCAgICAgICAgICAAICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAwMAAABhMQUAAAAAAAUxYgAAAAkwAAAJJGKQAADbMGKF////Tf///////////////wMDAAAAYTIFAAAAAAAFMQgICAg
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "ci: add markdown link check job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30034#discussion_r1613164504)
OK I updated the error message.

Previously:

```
[Err ] ./.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/mypyc/external/googletest/README.md (57, 1) => CMakeLists.txt - Target filename not found.
[Err ] ./.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/mypyc/external/googletest/README.md (280, 10) => docs/PumpManual.md - Target filename not found.
[Err ] ./.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/mypyc/external/googletest/README.md (279, 47) => scripts/ - Target not found.

The following links could not be resolved:
m
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor prep for package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30072#discussion_r1613165490)
Will add that imo it's much clearer to have distinct flags each controlling small pieces of logic within validation (even if one flag could cover multiple things) while the dedicated `ATMPArgs` constructors make decisions on what combinations of the flags are allowed.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor prep for package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30072#discussion_r1613167778)
This is probably from when `CalculateMemPoolAncestors` took an in-out string param and we wanted to make a copy of the string before it got mutated. Probably best to just move the comment to the code where stuff is actually returned.

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "refactor prep for package rbf"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30072)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor prep for package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30072#discussion_r1613175739)
> "single transaction package settings" is exclusively describing the replacement transaction.

The replacement transaction is always going to be the one we're currently validating - maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying :sweat_smile: . I agree "single transaction package" doesn't mean much to me in this context, perhaps "disallowed when evaluating a multi-transaction subpackage or package" ?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "policy: bump TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION to 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29496#issuecomment-2129072586)
Rebased for #30072

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1613185703)
Oh I think I get it. In `ProcessPCP` (`mapport.cpp`) we call `PCPRequestPortMap` for every IPv6 address we have, as determined by `GetLocalAddresses()`.

Each port map request is made to the default gateway. This is scope-local addresses, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1610568498
So unlike with IPv4, where a gateway like 192.168.1.1 is reachable through both network connections, the IPv6 default gateway is only reachable through _one_ connection.

And indeed
...

✅ willcl-ark closed a pull request: "contrib: verify-binaries accept full arch-platform specifier"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28418)

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "contrib: Fixup verify-binaries OS platform parsing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30147#issuecomment-2129108419)
Yep I agree this is cleaner and works nicely in my initial manual testing :)

I will do a code review early next week, thanks!

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: add markdown link check job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30034#discussion_r1613202166)
nit: Is this needed? The stdlib should pick the correct value, based on your code.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/process/struct.Command.html#method.output

🤔 maflcko reviewed a pull request: "ci: add markdown link check job"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30034#pullrequestreview-2076417748)
re-ACK 838eacec6a5e31c4a7fd6f9c95510e275f27121a

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "ci: add markdown link check job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30034#discussion_r1613212380)
You're correct. It works fine without. Worth removing now, or should I just do it if I need to retouch again? I'm happy to do either

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Multiprocess bitcoin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10102#issuecomment-2129147575)
I noticed some other unexpected behaviour when interacting with `bitcoin-node` from an external process which might be of interest to investigate...

I made a (malformed) call to `MakeWalletLoader`, not including GlobalArgs, which cause the node to shut down whilst it had an open lock on another (default loaded) wallet. This resulted in preventing this wallet from being re-opened again at next startup.

I wonder whether a malformed call to `MakeWalletLoader` should shut down the node at all,
...