💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613862525)
Added a calculation comment to illustrate the situation:

```code
// = (2 * fee) - (2 * (fee + large_fee_diff)) + change_cost
// = (2 * 100) - (2 * (100 + 90)) + 125
// = 200 - 380 + 125 = -55
```

and asserted that my calculation is correct.

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#discussion_r1613850265)
Pulled `exact_target` out as another variable

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#issuecomment-2130175396)
> I'm not sure whether [44db79b](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/44db79b0c48d6b1a26dba6ab01c2a296d610c06b) is useful since it's fully replaced by the following commit.

Ah oops, yeah I guess the first commit was a vestige of my first attempt at this. I squashed it into the second commit.

Diff of before reviews to latest: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e95b9159380f2de7f9a6e7a202cc171ad285ee6c..2c18b86

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Low-level cluster linearization code":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30126#issuecomment-2130187888)
@instagibbs I've expanded the explanation. Happy to elaborate more if things are unclear.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1613903504)
The chrono timepoint/duration stuff kind of confuses me. Would this be the idea? (assuming `timeout` is per retry). `sock.Wait` takes milliseconds while the steady clock returns microseconds, so the cast seems unavoidable.
```diff
}

// Wait for response(s) until we get a valid response, a network error, or time out.
- while (true) {
+ auto cur_time = std::chrono::time_point_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(std::chrono::steady_clock::now());
+ auto
...

💬 theuni commented on pull request "util: add VecDeque":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30161#discussion_r1613915882)
Could do (i think 3?) memcmp here if `is_trivially_copyable_v`, but maybe it's not worth the complexity of differing offsets.

💬 epiccurious commented on pull request "doc: Change GiB to GB in release-process.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30171#issuecomment-2130214689)
> Should the value we display depend on platform then?

This makes sense to me for the UI, since the average user will be able to compare values to their local environments in the macOS Files and Windows Explorer applications.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "util: add VecDeque":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30161#discussion_r1613922119)
Trivially copyable does not imply a trivial `operator==`, I think.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "util: add VecDeque":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30161#discussion_r1613925002)
"Objects of trivially-copyable types that are not potentially-overlapping subobjects are the only C++ objects that may be safely copied with [std::memcpy](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/string/byte/memcpy) or serialized to/from binary files with [std::ofstream::write()](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/io/basic_ostream/write) / [std::ifstream::read()](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/io/basic_istream/read)."

I assume anything that can be memcpy'd can be memcmp'd.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "util: add VecDeque":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30161#discussion_r1613941027)
I certainly see why it's reasonable why trivial types would have a trivial comparison operator, but there is no guarantee for that. I think you can have a trivially-constructible type with an complex `operator==` (for such a type you'd expect that something that was memcpy'd you end up with a result that satisfies ==, but I don't think that's required, and it also doesn't work the other way around: objects could satisfy == without being bitwise identical).

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "fuzz: Handle missing BDBRO errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30172#discussion_r1613938921)
Is this still used?

💬 theuni commented on pull request "util: add VecDeque":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30161#discussion_r1613943540)
Ok, yeah, agreed.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1614026697)
I prefer the documentation in https://github.com/jonatack/bitcoin/commit/610397665795b702e380f879db43a000ed81aad3 because it makes clear that for the CLI a different method is needed (`-rpcwallet`).

💬 theuni commented on pull request "util: add VecDeque":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30161#discussion_r1614029973)
Just adding for posterity because I went down a rabbit hole for this:

It seems clang's `__is_trivially_equality_comparable` builtin would do what we want here:
> Returns true if comparing two objects of the provided type is known to be equivalent to comparing their object representations. Note that types containing padding bytes are never trivially equality comparable.

Not that it's worth using here.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1614031474)
nit, here and lines 1141 and 1149, can drop the trailing `.` as the other CLI error messages don't have one

```suggestion
throw std::runtime_error(strprintf("duplicate bitcoin-cli command %s", command));
```

🤔 TheCharlatan reviewed a pull request: "Encapsulate warnings in generalized node::Warnings and remove globals"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30058#pullrequestreview-2077784982)
Nice change, just left some cosmetic nits.
ACK 51cb837e0a392b96661e00f6e502fbe6458a4df5

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "Encapsulate warnings in generalized node::Warnings and remove globals":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30058#discussion_r1613992183)
Nit: This include could be dropped again.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "Encapsulate warnings in generalized node::Warnings and remove globals":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30058#discussion_r1614015484)
^ cc @hebasto

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "Encapsulate warnings in generalized node::Warnings and remove globals":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30058#discussion_r1613955561)
Nitty nit: Trailing whitespace. There are some other small formatting issues elsewhere too, maybe run `clang-format-diff` once over the commits?

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "Encapsulate warnings in generalized node::Warnings and remove globals":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30058#discussion_r1614030354)
I don't think this is needed.