⚠️ Satoshingmx opened an issue: "Bitcoin.org/https://www.bitcoin.org/www.bitcoin.org"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27416)
Bitcoin or Bitcoin/Bitcoin are not with any way or form part of Bitcoin.org aka Satoshi nakamoto has returned to
Fix many issues that where cause by updates unauthorized and should never been allowed by GitHub. And this is clear by doing something that would not pass but by removing and updating changes not allowed where allowed so Satoshi Nakamoto will show POW and finally take command over all bitcoin.org and exe.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Bitcoin.org/https://www.bitcoin.org/www.bitcoin.org"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27416)

💬 S3RK commented on pull request "doc: Add example of how to mix private and public keys in descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27414#discussion_r1156788080)
typo: to sign a transaction with the first ~~signature~~ key

💬 S3RK commented on pull request "doc: Add example of how to mix private and public keys in descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27414#issuecomment-1495422350)
ACK 42107710a35dd4b489757dd9317251f4b27cd3be

💬 S3RK commented on pull request "wallet: coin selection, don't return results that exceed the max allowed weight":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26720#discussion_r1156844031)
I haven't written a test for this, so all the following is not verified and just my guess based on the code understanding.

This is not a regression in this particular PR, but this could lead to misleading errors in a situation when a proper solution exists, but our coin selection failed to find it and only found solution that exceeded weight.
Let's imagine following scenario:
- UTXO pool: two big coins 50BTC, a ton of 0.001BTC.
- Target amount: 90BTC
- Proper solution: just take two big c
...

💬 S3RK commented on pull request "wallet: coin selection, don't return results that exceed the max allowed weight":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26720#discussion_r1156851716)
I wrote #24580 at some point to capture known to me inefficiencies of current coin selection. The scenario I described above is very close to case no.3 in `test_one_big_and_many_small_coins`

👍 Sjors approved a pull request: "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109)
re-ACK 86b43d7fdd086c308f58414f3718a9cbf106bd05

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet, gui: bugfix, getAvailableBalance skips selected coins":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26699#discussion_r1156881801)
I see. In that case, just add what you just wrote as a comment.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet, gui: bugfix, getAvailableBalance skips selected coins":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26699#discussion_r1156884391)
My main point was to clarify the comment "future, introduce a checkbox to customize this value". It could be done as source code comments or a Github issue.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet, gui: bugfix, getAvailableBalance skips selected coins":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26699#issuecomment-1495532740)
ACK 68eed5df8656bed1be6526b014e58d3123102b03

Remaining feedback is only about source code comments.

💬 meglio commented on pull request "doc: Add example of how to mix private and public keys in descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27414#discussion_r1156887830)
Thank you, fixed.

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "depends: add `NO_HARDEN=` option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27406)
ACK 24ef4bb6c2266e157008cbd2c394f9f83c7b5816, tested on Ubuntu 22.04.

Happy to re-ACK after fixing a [typo](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27406#discussion_r1156323737) :)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "tracepoints: Disables `-Wgnu-zero-variadic-macro-arguments` to compile without warnings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27401#issuecomment-1495607071)
Maybe add a check to `configure.ac` whether ignoring of `-Wgnu-zero-variadic-macro-arguments` is [really](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26916#issuecomment-1400156218) required?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: add `NO_HARDEN=` option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27406#discussion_r1156956396)
Thanks, fixed.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: add `NO_HARDEN=` option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27406#issuecomment-1495616682)
Pushed to fix the typo.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: refactor: replace unnecessary `BytesIO` uses"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27389)

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "depends: add `NO_HARDEN=` option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27406)
re-ACK 436df1e826cae036caed3e983715a4ed4e441321

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "util: Use steady clock instead of system clock to measure durations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27405#issuecomment-1495674216)
Concept ACK

💬 Ayush170-Future commented on pull request "logging, net: add ASN from peers on logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27412#discussion_r1157016059)
Yeah, that does make more sense. I don't see any harm in automatically logging the asmap information.

💬 Ayush170-Future commented on pull request "logging, net: add ASN from peers on logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27412#issuecomment-1495685701)
Concept ACK.