💬 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.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "consensus: Store transaction nVersion as uint32_t":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29325#issuecomment-2149356751)
ACK 2431ecff2fb6f4b68d3de0ea36e3bcc4403e94ba 🔳

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: ACK 2431ecff2fb6f4b68d3de0ea36
...

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "build: no-longer allow GCC-10 in C++20 check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30228)
Reverts part of fa67f096bdea9db59dd20c470c9e32f3dac5be94, now that we require a minimum of GCC 11.

See also:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28349#issuecomment-1745143612.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: no-longer allow GCC-10 in C++20 check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30228#issuecomment-2149383116)
Is there any user facing difference? If so, it would be good to show it in a comment.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: no-longer allow GCC-10 in C++20 check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30228#issuecomment-2149392998)
> Is there any user facing difference? If so, it would be good to show it in a comment.
```bash
./configure CC=gcc-10 CXX=g++-10
<snip>
configure: error: *** A compiler with support for C++20 language features is required.
```

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: no-longer allow GCC-10 in C++20 check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30228#issuecomment-2149410956)
Otherwise it would continue to compile (and miscompile `RenameOver`)?