💬 josibake commented on pull request "refactor, wallet: get serialized size of `CRecipient`s directly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30050#issuecomment-2174120310)
Updated to remove the visitor per @S3RK and @furszy 's feedback

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "test: write functional test results to csv":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30291#issuecomment-2174125844)
tACK [ad06e68](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30291/commits/ad06e68399da71c615db0dbf5304d0cd46bc1f40)

Looks good to me!

📝 instagibbs opened a pull request: "NOMERGE #28984 package rbf followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30295)

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1643277261)
done in follow-up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1643277352)
done in follow-up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1643277672)
done in follow-up, I had removed V3 in test, not the actual doc

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1643277948)
done in follow-up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1643278127)
wrote a better boundary test in this vein in follow-up, thanks. You actually need incremental added, not 1 sat.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1643278301)
took as inspiration to make an actual boundary-condition test in follow-up, thanks

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#issuecomment-2174159709)
opened followup at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30295

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1643279044)
done in follow-up

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: write functional test results to csv":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30291#issuecomment-2174186974)
ACK ad06e68399da71c615db0dbf5304d0cd46bc1f40

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: Validate oversized transactions or without inputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29862#discussion_r1643298389)
In 0aa7db42564408edb41b0d42103d39ba4c2787dc "Validate oversized transaction"

I think it would be more interesting for this test to be on the threshold exactly. The rest of the tx is 70 bytes, so `MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT / WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR - 70` should pass `CheckTransaction`, while `- 69` does not.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: write functional test results to csv"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30291)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: Added test coverage to listsinceblock rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30195#issuecomment-2174217522)
ACK 881724d443d11f984a721ef1edd5777c24d1ed29

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: fix `keys_to_multisig_script` (P2MS) helper for n/k > 16":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28312#issuecomment-2174231098)
ACK 5cf0a1f230389ef37e0ff65de5fc98394f32f60c

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: Added test coverage to listsinceblock rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30195#discussion_r1643329094)
There is a reorg happening, nodes 0 and 1 mine 6 blocks on top of the common ancestor, while 2 and 3 mine 7 blocks. When the network is rejoined, the 7 block branch reorgs the 6 block branch. However, `nodes1_last_blockhash` is the tip of the 6 block branch which is not in the main chain.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: fix `keys_to_multisig_script` (P2MS) helper for n/k > 16"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28312)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "ci: move ASan job to GitHub Actions from Cirrus CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30193#issuecomment-2174273029)
ACK 9eea51d9058ad638861aa4b94c1c6e71caeb8765

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: Added test coverage to listsinceblock rpc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30195)