⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "fuzz: mini_miner_selection: ASSERT: mock_template_txids.size() <= blocktemplate->block.vtx.size()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30367)
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=69957

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/2f6dca4d1c01ee47275a4292f128d714736837a1/src/test/fuzz/mini_miner.cpp#L192

💬 maflcko commented on issue "fuzz: mini_miner_selection: ASSERT: mock_template_txids.size() <= blocktemplate->block.vtx.size()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30367#issuecomment-2199772546)

```
$ echo 'AyABAAAAACAg/wAAAAAA/yD/AQAAAAAg/yCu/w==' | base64 --decode > /tmp/oss-fuzz-crash
$ FUZZ=mini_miner_selection ./src/test/fuzz/fuzz /tmp/oss-fuzz-crash

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "refactor: add coinbase constraints to BlockAssembler::Options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30356#issuecomment-2199791658)
I renamed `coinbase_output_max_additional_size` to `coinbase_max_additional_weight`. With the current [Stratum v2 spec](https://github.com/stratum-mining/sv2-spec/blob/main/07-Template-Distribution-Protocol.md#71-coinbaseoutputdatasize-client---server) the latter is calculated as follows:

`coinbase_max_additional_weight = (coinbase_output_max_additional_size + 100 + 0 + 2) * 4`

- `coinbase_output_max_additional_size * 4`: Coinbase outputs are not part of the witness so their weight is simp
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "refactor: add coinbase constraints to BlockAssembler::Options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30356#discussion_r1660833557)
I ended up renaming `coinbase_output_max_additional_size` to `coinbase_max_additional_weight` to account for these issues, see below.

⚠️ fanquake opened an issue: "ci: failure in p2p_handshake.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30368)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/9741796701/job/26881733806#step:7:6601

```bash
node0 2024-07-01T10:31:12.195996Z [msghand] [net_processing.cpp:3664] [ProcessMessage] [net] received: sendheaders (0 bytes) peer=19
test 2024-07-01T10:32:32.120000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/runner/work/_temp/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/test
...

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "ci: Move more tasks to GHA?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30304)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: Move more tasks to GHA?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30304#issuecomment-2199810756)
Closing for now, but the discussion can continue. It should be possible and easy to switch more tasks over, starting with the ones mentioned in the starting post. This can be done, if people think it improves the UX on forks, or has other benefits. I just wanted to raise the discussion to explain that it is possible, if people find it useful, but I won't be working on it myself.

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "optimization: Speed up Base58 encoding/decoding by 400%/200% via preliminary byte packing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29473#issuecomment-2199819820)
@Sjors, this is the optimization I've mentioned to you in person, I'd appreciate a review if you think it's worthwhile:
<img src="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/assets/1841944/e6c76863-eb97-41d2-b518-14eccac4442a">

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "scripted-diff: Log parameter interaction not thrice"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30358)

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Make it possible to disable Tor binds and abort startup on bind failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22729#issuecomment-2199839216)
`8c3087150c...ffe9b27498`: spread the tor ports in the test framework, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22729#discussion_r1655133216

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Make it possible to disable Tor binds and abort startup on bind failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22729#discussion_r1660865278)
> I'm actually in favor of adding tor_port() to util.py and binding every bitcoind in the functional tests to a unique port by default.

Done, see if you like it. No new `bitcoind` config options introduced.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: FuzzedSock::Recv() don't lose bytes from MSG_PEEK read"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30273)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: Improve stability for txorphan and mini_miner harnesses"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30306)

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "[FEATURE REQUEST] Enable new Tor PoW feature for automatic creation of Bitcoin Core onion hidden service"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28499)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "[FEATURE REQUEST] Enable new Tor PoW feature for automatic creation of Bitcoin Core onion hidden service":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28499#issuecomment-2199888419)
@twofaktor thanks for the feature request, it does seem like it would be a nice-to-have.

However we are here 9 months later and nothing has changed upstream, at least insomuch as it's still not possible to configure `HiddenServicePoWDefensesEnabled` via the control port, as @recursive-rat4 correctly identified. It also does not appear that there are any current plans to add such functionality.

There seems little point to me in keeping this issue open indefinitely in _this_ repo, for someth
...

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "importing a wallet containing an hdseed overwrites target wallet hdseed"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28927)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "importing a wallet containing an hdseed overwrites target wallet hdseed":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28927#issuecomment-2199906283)
This issue hasn't had activity in a while and appears to have gone stale so I'm going to close it for now.

Feel free to open a new issue or comment here if you are still experiencing this problem so we can investigate further.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "fuzz: Fix stability, determinism issues":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29018#issuecomment-2199910861)
Reported the oss-fuzz bug on https://www.github.com/google/oss-fuzz/issues/12142

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Don't empty dbcache on prune flushes: >30% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28280#discussion_r1660943290)
Yes and no. Compilers do decide for themselves what to inline, but the `inline` keyword does increase compilers' eagerness to inline.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1660978352)
I thought about this further and removed the requirement to set `-walletbroadcast=0` when `-privatebroadcast=1`. The description of `-privatebroadcast` begins with

> Broadcast transactions submitted via sendrawtransaction RPC using short lived connections...

so it should be clear that this applies to the `sendrawtransaction` RPC. In addition I extended the text with

> Transactions submitted through the wallet are not affected by this option