🤔 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)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "functional test: ensure confirmed utxo being sourced for 2nd chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29998#issuecomment-2148693400)
ACK 07aba8dd215b23b06853b1a9fe04ac8b08f62932

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "refactor: remove unused `CKey::Negate` method":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30218#issuecomment-2148694127)
ACK 8801e319d51209fe3a3b06e2aab5f96ceead290d

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "rpc, wallet: fix incorrect segwit redeem script size limit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28307)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "functional test: ensure confirmed utxo being sourced for 2nd chain"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29998)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "refactor: remove unused `CKey::Negate` method"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30218)

💬 Kordestan1993 commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for `Crypter`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28074#issuecomment-2148721299)
address wallet BTC
1ATUEQQ1PTJQgqiWg2MpRWJHAipnpkQr6U

🤔 achow101 reviewed a pull request: "Several randomness improvements"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29625#pullrequestreview-2097721638)
Reviewed up to 64bcc828cde51a5da551b49a31b9fe44e0a255c3

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Several randomness improvements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29625#discussion_r1626823379)
In 309f00b59485454117416dcfcae37e2c675069b7 "random: Improve RandomMixin::randbits"

Should probably include `bits > 64` here since it seems like larger numbers would be problematic below.

```suggestion
if (bits >= 64) return Impl().rand64();
```

Or maybe just assert that `bits` is in range.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2148751597)
> > Are you sure you want to put this on a common domain with other things?
>
> I don't think this will be an issue.

Actually on second thought I will switch this to a different domain.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2148783844)
Updated root domain to `achownodes.xyz`

📝 alfonsoromanz opened a pull request: "test: add validation for gettxout RPC response"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30226)
Add a new test in `test/functional/rpc_blockchain.py` to validate the gettxout RPC response.

Existing tests in various files (`test/functional/wallet_basic.py`, `test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py`, `test/functional/feature_block.py`, `test/functional/rpc_psbt.py`, `test/functional/wallet_fundrawtransaction.py`) only check UTXO existence or specific fields like value or confirmations.

This new test ensures all response elements are verified, including `bestblock`, `confirmations`, `va
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "util: add VecDeque":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30161#discussion_r1627251261)
Would early return for `capacity == 0` simplify the code?

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Intermittent issue in feature_proxy.py AssertionError: not(bytearray(b'node.noumenon') == b'fc00:1:2:3:4:5:6:7')":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29871#issuecomment-2149275714)
Similar one: https://drahtbot.space/temp_scratch/feature_proxy_181.tar.zstd

```
test 2024-06-04T20:41:24.281000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-i686-pc-linux-gnu/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 132, in main
self.run_test()

...

👍 AngusP approved a pull request: "test: Set mocktime in p2p_disconnect_ban.py to avoid intermittent test failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30174#pullrequestreview-2098492905)
re-ACK 4444de152f01368e603f2b089679a86eae02e34a

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "doc: fixup deps doc after #30198"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30227)
Forgotten in #30198.
Addresses: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30198#issuecomment-2148087913.