💬 Sjors commented on pull request "contrib: add tool to convert compact-serialized UTXO set to SQLite database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27432#issuecomment-2177915400)
That results in 32de3c3dc85e602878f9e5b7e6ebcd7fe917d4345f7a07c0bfd4c82b4b5639db.

So your other approach would be to use all the CSV fields to calculate the MuHash for the entire UTXO set at block 840,000 and then compare that to the `muhash` value of `gettxoutsetinfo muhash 840000` (with `-coinstatsindex` enabled)?

💬 S3RK commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add anti-fee-sniping to `send` and `sendall`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28944#discussion_r1645537740)
I'm not clear why do we need a wallet lock here?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Support self-hosted Cirrus workers on forks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274#discussion_r1645611240)
If it is too much hassle to set up an arm, one could look into moving it to GHA. However, I am not sure if this is possible. Can macOS ARM run ARM Linux containers in docker?

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "ci: Move more tasks to GHA?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30304)
Motivated by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274 to make it easier to run the CI on forks, more tasks could be moved to GHA, similar to d97ddbe797f5b8b3bca0ee71b692e542b8990195?

The downside would be that it is harder to re-run a task (only maintainers can do it, not the pull request author).

Another downside would be that caching depends artefacts and docker images is hard on GHA. So ideally only tasks with `NO_DEPENDS=1` are moved for now. It would be:

* `ci/test/00_setup_en
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: Move more tasks to GHA?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30304#issuecomment-2178023089)
cc @Sjors @m3dwards

🤔 hodlinator reviewed a pull request: "fuzz: have package_rbf always make small txns"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30300#pullrequestreview-2127472207)
ACK 4ccb3d6d0d576d32da8a1b9c6e70962cbd0f19fe

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "fuzz: have package_rbf always make small txns":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30300#discussion_r1645663034)
Might as well
```suggestion
parent.vin.emplace_back(g_outpoints[iter++]);
```

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "fuzz: have package_rbf always make small txns":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30300#discussion_r1645714573)
Good that you removed the unnecessary `vin.empty()` check.

Until the first time `ConsumeBool()` returns true here, we'll be using a `child` with a default-initialized `vin[0]`. This was true before the change as well. Does some later code hook up default-constructed `CTxIn` to coinbase transactions or something?

It seems unnecessary to have created a `parent` at all if the `ConsumeBool()` returns false. But I guess it's good to test adding unrelated transactions between each `child`.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "fuzz: have package_rbf always make small txns":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30300#discussion_r1645678247)
I understand this comment as explaining why a random number of `vin`s of `parent` generated from fuzz data are overwritten with one input. Time to change/remove?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#issuecomment-2178131655)
Planning to rebase on master along with #30111 when it's merged

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: De-globalize validation caches":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30141#issuecomment-2178139748)
Thank you for the review @stickies-v,

63923c8da686da42f522771f338ea8f2a4f4e568 -> 6ad4aa82056030a8a72b1315676e0703c1500d0d ([noGlobalScriptCache_3](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/noGlobalScriptCache_3) -> [noGlobalScriptCache_4](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/noGlobalScriptCache_4), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/noGlobalScriptCache_3..noGlobalScriptCache_4))

* Addressed @stickies-v's [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: De-globalize validation caches":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30141#discussion_r1645730446)
Is there a reason you added a separate initialization function for the hasher?

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: De-globalize validation caches":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30141#discussion_r1645731158)
Mmh, this does not feel more readable to me, because of the two casts.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "doc: use TRUC instead of v3 and add release note":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30272#issuecomment-2178143370)
cc @murchandamus @ismaelsadeeq since you suggested the doc changes

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "upnp: fix build with miniupnpc 2.2.8":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30283#discussion_r1645743421)
nit: I guess given we assert >= 17, this could be = 17, but I'm not sure that is less confusing.

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "upnp: fix build with miniupnpc 2.2.8"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30283#pullrequestreview-2127591362)
ACK 8acdf66540834b9f9cf28f16d389e8b6a48516d5

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Won't compile with miniupnpc 2.2.8"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30266)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "upnp: fix build with miniupnpc 2.2.8"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30283)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Wallet: Nondescript error message for 502nd unconfirmed transaction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29711#issuecomment-2178172247)
Not sure what the status of this is, so removed it from any milestone for now.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[27.x] More backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30305)
Backports:
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30283