🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "net_processing: make any misbehavior trigger immediate discouragement"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29575)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: Validate oversized transactions or without inputs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29862)

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "test: Validate oversized transactions or without inputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29862#issuecomment-2181209430)
Thanks for the reviews!

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "netbase: extend CreateSock() to support creating arbitrary sockets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30202)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: clarify Cirrus self-hosted workers setup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30314#discussion_r1647945840)
> I don't know if it works out of the box for every distro out there

That's fine. Just assume it does until we know otherwise.

👍 theuni approved a pull request: "contrib: add R(UN)PATH check to ELF symbol-check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30312#pullrequestreview-2131062085)
utACK 4289dd02cce688a69c596f7cd5e47f831b00aa1b

💬 itornaza commented on pull request "Introduce Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30200#discussion_r1647945526)
non-blocking nit: In case you revise this file for a more serious reason, maybe consider adding an empty line here for more readability and consistence with the rest of this source file.

👍 itornaza approved a pull request: "Introduce Mining interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30200#pullrequestreview-2131043232)
Code review and std-tests ACK a9716c53f05082d6d89ebea51a46d4404efb12d7

Redirected to this PR from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#issuecomment-2139460402. I really like how clearly the mining interface is layed out after @ryanofsky comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#issuecomment-2108528652 to further support @Sjors work on integrating the noise protocol that seems to be needed for stratum v2.

I have closely followed the commit history, built and run all sta
...

💬 itornaza commented on pull request "Introduce Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30200#discussion_r1647947327)
non-blocking nit: For consistency with the rest of the headers in this file, you may want to convert the tabs after params to spaces.

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "build: add `-Wundef`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29876#pullrequestreview-2131081733)
Code review ACK 9e5bd977688f28a29806236f0faa55d5272f5b65

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Several randomness improvements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29625#issuecomment-2181274931)
Rebased after the merge of #30202.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "refactor: move m_is_inbound out of CNodeState":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30233#discussion_r1647999066)
Rebased

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "refactor: move m_is_inbound out of CNodeState":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30233#issuecomment-2181323382)
Rebased on top of master to cover https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30233#discussion_r1629164166, which was addressed by #29575

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "assumeutxo: Check snapshot base block is not in invalid chain"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30267#pullrequestreview-2131034995)
Code Review ACK 750f8b50a749e577fc11f2f9f79e06cdd29e66f5

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Check snapshot base block is not in invalid chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30267#discussion_r1647940464)
typo: parents

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Check snapshot base block is not in invalid chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30267#discussion_r1648003009)
This changes it such that the path is no longer included in the RPC error. I think that it wasn't really helpful anyway (the user already provided the path when calling the RPC, so why the need to report it back to the user?), but just wanted to mention it because in cases someone would miss that.

📝 theuni opened a pull request: "refactor: remove extraneous lock annotations from function definitions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30316)
These annotations belong in the declarations rather than the definitions. While harmless now, future versions of clang may warn about these.

Discovered these using the upstream WIP: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67520

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Several randomness improvements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29625#discussion_r1648006777)
I used the WIP above to check for other issues like this in our codebase. It only turned up a few false-positives because of duplicate annotations in declarations + definitions. Thankfully there were no cases of them _only_ in definitions. PR'd here: #30316.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "refactor: remove extraneous lock annotations from function definitions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30316#issuecomment-2181336426)
I should've mentioned in the description that all of these already have proper annotations in their corresponding declarations which is why they're safe to remove. But reviewers should obviously double-check that.

🤔 ryanofsky reviewed a pull request: "Introduce Mining interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30200#pullrequestreview-2131112731)
Code review ACK a9716c53f05082d6d89ebea51a46d4404efb12d7 with one minor suggestion in case you update. Only changes since last review were other small changes to the interface.