✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Shutdown during reindex-chainstate can block forever"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23234)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "init: change shutdown order of load block thread and scheduler"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30435)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#discussion_r1679727768)
```suggestion
def test_descriptor_import(self, node, wallet_name, key, timestamp, expected_error_message=None):
```

`should_succeed == not expected_error_message`

💬 maflcko commented on issue "getaddressinfo: complains missing `isscript` when called on unknown witness version":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30456#issuecomment-2231372884)
Unrelated note: Fuzz coverage is zero, so it seems like adding coverage here could turn up other bugs.

Ref: https://maflcko.github.io/b-c-cov/fuzz.coverage/src/wallet/rpc/addresses.cpp.gcov.html

💬 setavenger commented on pull request "Silent payment index (for light wallets and consistency check)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28241#issuecomment-2231387636)
> Getting a mismatch again. This time for block 716120 (00000000000000000009bc9db59a266e367f54fdd4cda7b5ddb31f6ae9723083).

We had an issue with that very block before as well. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28241#issuecomment-2076895408
Is it possible that you reverted the fix for that issue somehow? The tweaks seem to be the same as back then.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Silent payment index (for light wallets and consistency check)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28241#issuecomment-2231392644)
This is quite weird. @josibake added a test case for this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28241#issuecomment-2079095313

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Implement BIP352":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122#issuecomment-2231396250)
I think you lost https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30046/commits/e11d764a6ce72cd571ad9cf818c6918dd16b02f6 in the rebase?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "policy: Add PayToAnchor(P2A), `OP_TRUE <0x4e73>` as a standard output script for spending":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30352#discussion_r1679768600)
I'm actually having trouble figuring out where this stuff is exposed since we wouldn't be issuing these addresses as a wallet. Mind if I punt on this?

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "doc: getaddressinfo[isscript] is optional"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30457)
`isscript` is unknown for unknown witness versions, so it should be marked optional in the docs

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "Fuzz coverage for wallet RPCs is zero"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30458)
Fuzz coverage for wallet RPCs is zero, however it could help turn up bugs such as https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30456.

Ref: https://maflcko.github.io/b-c-cov/fuzz.coverage/src/wallet/rpc/addresses.cpp.gcov.html

_Originally posted by @maflcko in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30456#issuecomment-2231372884_

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Fuzz coverage for wallet RPCs is zero":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30458#issuecomment-2231427446)
I presume this is possible to implement by DRYing some code from the `rpc` fuzz target into a `wallet_rpc` fuzz target.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "policy: Add PayToAnchor(P2A), `OP_TRUE <0x4e73>` as a standard output script for spending":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30352#discussion_r1679783383)
done

💬 instagibbs commented on issue "getaddressinfo: complains missing `isscript` when called on unknown witness version":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30456#issuecomment-2231435940)
@maflcko feels related to me ;)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Silent payment index (for light wallets and consistency check)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28241#issuecomment-2231438781)
I added e11d764a6ce72cd571ad9cf818c6918dd16b02f6 which seems to fix the mismatch. Comparing the rest now.

💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#discussion_r1679800434)
Fixed. Thanks!

📝 gabrielsellan-paylivre opened a pull request: "Alterando readme"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30459)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Alterando readme"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30459)

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "Alterando readme"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30459)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

🤔 fjahr reviewed a pull request: "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#pullrequestreview-2180929310)
Concept ACK

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#discussion_r1679832936)
You should use the `fastprune` option as well and check if there has already been some pruning happening when the test runs, i.e. check that there is some pruneheight. There isn't much of a difference if the option is set but nothing has actually been pruned yet.