💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: Set `CMAKE_SYSTEM_VERSION` for CMake builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30465#issuecomment-2232957753)
> What change in behaviour should be expected here?

For example, when building for macOS, the `CMAKE_SYSTEM_VERSION` value is used to define `DARWIN_MAJOR_VERSION` and `DARWIN_MINOR_VERSION`, which in turn affect the default build options.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Have createNewBlock() return a BlockTemplate interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30440#discussion_r1680816119)
I took the patch.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Template Provider (take 3)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29432#issuecomment-2232977932)
Rebased to include the latest interface changes and to take advantage of mocked sockets in #30205.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[27.x] More backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30467)
Backports:
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29855
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30357
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30394 (modified test commit)
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30435

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "init: change shutdown order of load block thread and scheduler":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30435#issuecomment-2232979945)
Backported to 27.x in #30467.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "net: fix race condition in self-connect detection":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30394#issuecomment-2232980520)
Backported to 27.x in #30467.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "psbt: Check non witness utxo outpoint early":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29855#issuecomment-2232980891)
Backported to 27.x in #30467.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Fix cases of calls to `FillPSBT` errantly returning `complete=true`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30357#issuecomment-2232981582)
Backported to 27.x in #30467.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "qa: Functional test improvements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30463#discussion_r1680830600)
Can our previous [conversation](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/226#discussion_r1632362329) be helpful?

📝 stratospher opened a pull request: "test: bump mocktime only after node has received and sent bytes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30468)
Fixes an intermittent failure for `p2p_v2_misbehaving.py` reported in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30420#discussion_r1680462164.

A [different error message](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/262260ce1e919613ba60194a5861b0b0a51dfe01/src/net.cpp#L1970) `"socket no message in first %i seconds"` will be displayed if `m_last_send=0` or if `m_last_recv is 0`. Fix this by:
1. mocktime bump is done after all the bytes are received. (`m_last_recv is not 0 now`)
2. wait until bytes
...

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "test: Fix intermittent failure in p2p_v2_misbehaving.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30420#discussion_r1680837624)
done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30468

📝 fjahr opened a pull request: "index: Fix coinstats overflow and introduce index versioning"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30469)
Closes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26362

This continues the work that was started with #26426. It fixes the overflow issue by switching most of the values tracked in the index from historical totals to values per block. The only effect of this is that it requires iterating over all the entries to get to these historical values, however nothing changes for the capabilities of the RPCs we have today because the switched values were always report per block and the totals were used
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "WIP: Fix coinstatsindex overflow issue":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26426#issuecomment-2233006443)
#30469 continues the work here

💬 fjahr commented on issue "signed overflow in coinstats index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26362#issuecomment-2233007278)
#30469 is a new try at fixing this

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "index: Check all necessary block data is available before starting to sync":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29770#issuecomment-2233022252)
just rebased

📝 Igor258 opened a pull request: "btc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30470)
<!--
*** 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: "btc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30470)

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "btc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30470)
<!--
*** 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
...

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "qa: Functional test improvements"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30463#pullrequestreview-2182628847)
ACK a8e3af1a82dd584a1cc3ffbe587e66889f72e3c7

I'm able to run individual tests from an out-of-source build with the instructions provided. I tried running a bunch of other tests than `wallet_disable` too, including all the ones that reference `__file__` and those seem to work fine too.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1680885121)
I admit I am somewhat confused.

Do we assume that for IPv6, address translation is never done (e.g. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6296) and that for IPv6 we only need to pinhole the firewall?

> For IPv6 we know what internal address we want, and what external address we want

You mean that both internal and external are the same and we get that from `GetLocalAddresses()`?