💬 darosior commented on pull request "descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838#discussion_r1673572894)
I still think this behaviour should be documented in the help of `importmulti` and `importdescriptors`.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "net: additional disconnect logging":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28521#issuecomment-2222360783)
Rebased after #29431

@davidgumberg this PR makes it easier to do something like `cat ~/.bitcoin/debug.log | grep disconnect`, and avoid the need for e.g. `grep -n2` (or more) to get additional context.

I switched to `LogDebug` in the lines touched by this PR.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "refactor: add coinbase constraints to BlockAssembler::Options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30356#discussion_r1673640115)
Thanks.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Template Provider (take 3)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29432#issuecomment-2222418506)
@ryanofsky wrote:

> If it would help, I could make a draft PR for a test program that will do what you describe: connect to bitcoin-node over a unix socket if it is running, or start bitcoin-node if it is not running, and then call a mining interface function like `getTipHash()` and print the result.

Yes that would be very helpful.

At least one large objection I have to the sidecar approach is that it tends to be very clunky, having to deal with our p2p, rpc and zmq interfaces which are
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "system: use %LOCALAPPDATA% as default datadir on windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27064#discussion_r1673700081)
Not a big deal, just don't want it to get missed when releasing 28.0

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "Tr partial descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30243#issuecomment-2222479283)
You can squash some commits.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "refactor: add coinbase constraints to BlockAssembler::Options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30356#issuecomment-2222490758)
Spurious CI / ASan failure, see #30419.

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "locks: introduce mutex for tx download, flush rejection filters on UpdatedBlockTip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30111#discussion_r1673668471)
IIUC `ActivateBestChain` will fire `ActiveTipChange` as long as the current instance is the active chain state. `InvalidateBlock` and `ActivateBestChain` are both called on active chain state so it doesn't seem like there's a situation where `ActiveTipChange` won't be fired before this point. Could this comment be misleading?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "contrib: use c++ compiler rather than c compiler for binary checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30387#issuecomment-2222552415)
> Getting a check failure during a guix build:

I think we should avoid `#include <iostream>` in our test stubs, [which](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/header/iostream)
> behaves as if it defines a static storage duration object...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1673772773)
Looks like this was duplicated from the comment below. Dropped.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1673775142)
Fixed.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "contrib: use c++ compiler rather than c compiler for binary checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30387#discussion_r1673776901)
```suggestion
std::printf("42");
```

as suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30387#issuecomment-2208993921.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "contrib: use c++ compiler rather than c compiler for binary checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30387#discussion_r1673776130)
```suggestion
#include <cstdio>
```

as suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30387#issuecomment-2208993921.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1673779622)
Done

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#issuecomment-2222579946)
Rebased after silent merge conflict with #29625 which moved `xoroshiro128plusplus.h`. Addressed comments by @itornaza.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Template Provider (take 3)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29432#issuecomment-2222600328)
I am just catching up on this thread so I haven't really made up my mind on the conceptual question overall. But if we could wave our magic wand to have multiprocess plus sv2 based on that that sounds like a great achievement for the project overall. Adding multiprocess support would take its time though, these would then be two large projects that have been around for a long time but struggled to get enough review power. If sv2 could help move multiprocess forward that would be great but given
...

📝 glozow opened a pull request: "remove truc_policy from libbitcoin_common_a_SOURCES"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30427)
Hebasto pointed out that it doesn't need to be there since it's in `libbitcoin_node_a_SOURCES`

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Template Provider (take 3)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29432#issuecomment-2222638193)
It seems to me two topics are being debated here, one about software design and the other about how we get users to run software.

## Technical design

I agree with @dergoegge that there have been no _technical_ objections to a multi-process approach, i.e., a `stratumv2` sidecar talking to `bitcoind` via some sort of communication protocol. Instead, I find the arguments for a multi-process architecture to be compelling and the correct _technical_ design. Specifically, exposing a somewhat gen
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "remove truc_policy from libbitcoin_common_a_SOURCES":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30427#issuecomment-2222672689)
In theory `libbitcoin_wallet` may want to use it at some point? Though, I guess it can be moved back then, if needed.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Template Provider (take 3)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29432#issuecomment-2222675998)
> It seems to me two topics are being debated here, one about software design and the other about how we get users to run software

I think this is mostly about engineering resources in Bitcoin Core