💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fix: Make TxidFromString() respect string_view length":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30436#issuecomment-2242466297)
Checked that the code didn't change in the last push, only the commit message, which looked fine on a glance.

If you re-touch you can change "and scan past" to "and may scan past", or "and possibly scan past". Otherwise, it seems to imply this bug was actually hit.

Also, you can adjust the pull request description with a motivation and fix. Otherwise, it is just two random links, and reviewers will have a hard time seeing the motivation and gist of the changes.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fix: Make TxidFromString() respect string_view length":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30436#issuecomment-2242466411)

re-ACK 788fe9cc9ab979c5e14f544ae05dc46436892b81 🔃

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: re-ACK 788fe9cc9ab979c5e
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Stratum v2 connman":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30332#issuecomment-2242491437)
> reduce CI load

Some more machines were added a few weeks back to deal with increased overall activity, so I think the load should be handleable now, unless someone pushes to 10 different pull requests every 20 minutes in a loop.

Looks like you fixed it in the meantime, but if CI load comes up again, you may create an issue so that it can be fixed.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: build zeromq with CMake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29723#issuecomment-2242543346)
> CMake compiles 7 fewer source files compared to Autotools. It skips::

That's expected. We aren't opting in to either of these features.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "crypto, refactor: add new KeyPair class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30051#issuecomment-2242545417)
Update https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b8b3a9f18670ec7bf246a57950cdae7e034a264d -> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/56267cf84281789186035f09898cce3d749748ec ([apply-taptweak-method-04](https://github.com/josibake/bitcoin/tree/apply-taptweak-method-04) -> [apply-taptweak-method-05](https://github.com/josibake/bitcoin/tree/apply-taptweak-method-05) ([compare](https://github.com/josibake/bitcoin/compare/apply-taptweak-method-04..josibake:apply-taptweak-method-05))

Realised I u
...

💬 josibake commented on pull request "crypto, refactor: add new KeyPair class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30051#discussion_r1686283547)
Updated.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Have createNewBlock() return a BlockTemplate interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30440#discussion_r1686287447)
The only way this _should_ fail is `coinbase_script` is invalid (e.g. too large). But that currently results in a `throw std::runtime_error` inside `BlockAssembler::CreateNewBlock`.

Changed the three lines to `CHECK_NONFATAL`.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Have createNewBlock() return a BlockTemplate interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30440#discussion_r1686288232)
Done

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Have createNewBlock() return a BlockTemplate interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30440#issuecomment-2242552923)
I split `getCoinbaseMerklePath()` and `submitSolution() out of this PR and moved them to [TODO].

Since it's astronomically unlikely multiprocess will be in the upcoming v28.0 release, we can add these functions later. They both use the new `BlockMerkleRoot` which I need to study in more detail myself.

Rebased and addressed comments above: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30440#pullrequestreview-2186655119

Marked as no longer draft.

👋 Sjors's pull request is ready for review: "Have createNewBlock() return a BlockTemplate interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30440)

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "crypto, refactor: add new KeyPair class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30051#issuecomment-2242574270)
CI failure seems unrelated, please restart or rebase so we can ACK - and don't worry about our reacks :)

> Update https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b8b3a9f18670ec7bf246a57950cdae7e034a264d -> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/56267cf84281789186035f09898cce3d749748ec ([apply-taptweak-method-04](https://github.com/josibake/bitcoin/tree/apply-taptweak-method-04) -> [apply-taptweak-method-05](https://github.com/josibake/bitcoin/tree/apply-taptweak-method-05) ([compare](https://git
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "locks: introduce mutex for tx download, flush rejection filters once per tip change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30111#discussion_r1686303768)
The `PeerManagerImpl::ProcessMessages` implementation has multiple early `return` statements. In such a case, the Developer Notes [suggest](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/developer-notes.md#threads-and-synchronization) to:
> Combine annotations in function declarations with run-time asserts in function definitions

i.e., `AssertLockNotHeld(m_tx_download_mutex);`

💬 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#issuecomment-2242578323)
ACK a512245e217199208807214b09bdb256362d08af

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "rest: Reject truncated hex txid early in getutxos parsing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30482#discussion_r1686306726)
Sure, but you did change it, so unless there's any particular reason, I think the original order makes more sense

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "rest: Reject truncated hex txid early in getutxos parsing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30482#discussion_r1686309888)
I understood, that's why I recommended the name change. We don't say `trim` is fragile, just because more values become valid after they're trimmed, we call it lenient, right?

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "rest: Reject truncated hex txid early in getutxos parsing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30482#discussion_r1686312388)
The reason is that it's not a setter, but a complex method that changes the internal state.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "rest: Reject truncated hex txid early in getutxos parsing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30482#discussion_r1686313096)
I don't see the point of bloating the build logs with this, a tracking issue seems more appropriate if we're worried it'll be forgotten.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "locks: introduce mutex for tx download, flush rejection filters once per tip change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30111#discussion_r1686314984)
Do we need to hold `m_tx_download_mutex` for this call: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/c85accecafc20f6a6ae94bdf6cdd3ba9747218fd/src/net_processing.cpp#L6327-L6328 a few lines down?

💬 darosior commented on pull request "fuzz: Deglobalize signature cache in sigcache test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30447#discussion_r1686316001)
nit: this would invalidate existing seeds.

⚠️ Sjors opened an issue: "Spurious markdown linter failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30496)
The linter job failed for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30440

```
One or more markdown links are broken.

Relative links are preferred (but not required) as jumping to file works natively within Emacs.

Markdown link errors found:
[Err ] ./pyenv/README.md (12, 1) => /terminal_output.png - Target filename not found.


^---- ⚠️ Failure generated from lint check 'markdown'!
Check that markdown links resolve
```

The PR does not touch any markdown files.

...