✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Improve the bitcoin.conf instructions in init.md doc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30153)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "doc: update mention of generating bitcoin.conf"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30154)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: Assumeutxo: snapshots with less work should not be loaded":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29428#issuecomment-2148554999)
ACK df6dc2aaaeffc664006b86ee8c8797dc484ec40e

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: Assumeutxo: snapshots with less work should not be loaded"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29428)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "consensus: Store transaction nVersion as uint32_t":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29325#issuecomment-2148562853)
@maflcko @vostrnad @shaavan @naumenkogs reACKs would be appreciated

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Migrate legacy wallets to descriptor wallets without requiring BDB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26596#discussion_r1626748082)
Good point, I think the original intention was to be able to handle the legacy-sqlite case, but that's moot since we require BDB_RO later. I've changed this to check for just look for BDB files, and also added your test.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Automatically repair corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#discussion_r1626757956)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Automatically repair corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#discussion_r1626758407)
I've made `m_batch` public so that we can just pass the `WalletBatch` but still use the underlying batch object. However I'm not sure if that's something we want to do in the long term.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Automatically repair corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#discussion_r1626758476)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "kernel: Streamline util library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29015#issuecomment-2148598856)
CI failure suggests there's a silent merge conflict.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: Remove index-based Arg accessor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29997#issuecomment-2148603063)
ACK fa3169b0732d7eb4b9166e7ecc6b7cfb669a9b54

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "rpc: Remove index-based Arg accessor"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29997)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "refactor: Model the bech32 charlimit as an Enum":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30047#issuecomment-2148617880)
ACK 7f3f6c6dc80247e6dfb0d406dc53bc8198f029fd

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for `Crypter`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28074#issuecomment-2148626504)
ACK d7290d662f494503f28e087dd728b492c0bb2c5f

I get that any coverage of these functions is better than no coverage, but it seems less useful to me when we aren't checking the output. There may not be a crash, but each function could be doing something unexpected, and we should be checking to make sure that they aren't. I'm going to merge this for now though just so there is coverage, but a followup which verifies the behavior would be welcomed.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "refactor: Model the bech32 charlimit as an Enum"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30047)

🤔 achow101 reviewed a pull request: "rpc, wallet: fix incorrect segwit redeem script size limit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28307#pullrequestreview-2097634633)
ACK 2451a217dd2c21b6d2f2b2699ceddd0bf9073019

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc, wallet: fix incorrect segwit redeem script size limit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28307#discussion_r1626782997)
In b5a328943362cfac6e90fd4e1b167c357d53b7d4 "test: refactor, multiple cleanups in rpc_createmultisig.py"

Strictly speaking, this should also check for whether we have legacy wallets since the test is specifically for whether `addmultisigaddress` (a legacy wallet only rpc) matches `createmultisig`.

```suggestion
if wallet_multi is not None and not self.options.descriptors:
```

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc, wallet: fix incorrect segwit redeem script size limit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28307#discussion_r1626792838)
In 9be6065cc03f2408f290a332b203eef9c9cebf24 "test: coverage for 16-20 segwit multisig scripts"

nit: s/deduce/deduct

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Enable `importprivkey`, `addmultisigaddress` in descriptor wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30175#issuecomment-2148691438)
`addmultisigaddress` might be a little bit more complicated since users would expect it to behave the same way and be able to have the specific private keys from addresses. Given that we do not want to allow exposing child private keys, retaining that behavior would allow extracting specific child private keys in a rather roundabout way (`addmultisigaddress` which puts creates a descriptor with a child privkey, then `listdescriptors true` which outputs the descriptor with that privkey).

Also
...

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "fuzz: wallet, add target for `Crypter`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28074)