🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: reduce keypool size in `scriptpubkeyman` target"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30494)

💬 theStack commented on pull request "crypto, refactor: add new KeyPair class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30051#discussion_r1686876369)
> Spent some time thinking about this and realised the main issue here is we start with a valid secret key, create a keypair (which generates the public key in the process), and then extract the public key from the keypair and serialise it. Instead, we can just get the public key directly from the secret key via `CKey::GetPubKey`. This makes the original code more clear, eliminates the unnecessary if branches and makes the diff _much_ simpler.
>

Not sure if we care that much about signing s
...

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "policy: enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30493#issuecomment-2243571732)
Thanks @reardencode for the review and ACK as its obvious full-rbf should be default. There is some politics involved in it which I wanted to highlight:

---


I don't know the reason for deleting this comments and others who reacted with emojis, however it will be better for bitcoin if we can get some ACKs to merge it. I did not mention the vulnerability in rationale because other things are sufficie
...

👍 itornaza approved a pull request: "crypto, refactor: add new KeyPair class"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30051#pullrequestreview-2192299471)
trACK 9afa2c9e50370b2918377f3f3eac0950a4296ec0

Reviewed the changes in the `key_tests.cpp` since my last review on this PR. Again, all unit and functional including the extended tests pass. Just dropped a name candidate if you consider renaming `KeyPair::data()` and run out of options.

💬 itornaza commented on pull request "crypto, refactor: add new KeyPair class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30051#discussion_r1686990120)
If there is not a better alternative, I would suggest `secp256k1_keypair()` as a candidate for renaming this `data()` member function to further signify its use through the cast and be called like so:

`reinterpret_cast<const secp256k1_keypair*>(keypair.secp256k1_keypair())`

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "policy: enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30493#issuecomment-2243587592)
Concept ACK

Given the majority of the hashrate using `mempoolfullrbf`, Bitcoin Core should adapt its default behavior to match its expectations to the blocks being published.

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "policy: enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30493#discussion_r1686996487)
This file is named incorrectly.

👋 naiyoma's pull request is ready for review: "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858)

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "policy: enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30493#discussion_r1687024893)
I can rename it if one of the maintainers can review this pull request because I cannot assign a version that would include this PR.

💬 naiyoma commented on pull request "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1687028156)
reverted back to `with open(self.nodes[0].datadir_path / "bitcoin.conf", "a", encoding="utf8") as f:`

💬 naiyoma commented on pull request "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1687030146)
added

💬 naiyoma commented on pull request "Test/rpc whitelistdefault test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29858#discussion_r1687035192)
I've added more descriptive docstrings to each function.

🤔 achow101 reviewed a pull request: "policy: Add PayToAnchor(P2A), `OP_TRUE <0x4e73>` as a standard output script for spending"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30352#pullrequestreview-2192397657)
Concept ACK

The code, docs, and the OP sometimes use `OP_TRUE` and sometimes `OP_1`. I would prefer if everything could refer to that opcode in the same way as it can be confusing when switching between the two. I would prefer if we used the `OP_1` notation since the reliance on unknown segwit version behavior is an integral part of this.

💬 achow101 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_r1687048238)
In 8d956ccb86d70e2059a5e2ccd8e63b7f7c8e3842 "Add release note for P2A output feature"

nit: typos

```suggestion
and a newly recognised output template. This allows for key-less anchor
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "policy: Add PayToAnchor(P2A), `OP_1 <0x4e73>` as a standard output script for spending":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30352#discussion_r1687063256)
done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "policy: Add PayToAnchor(P2A), `OP_1 <0x4e73>` as a standard output script for spending":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30352#issuecomment-2243693286)
@achow101 swapped OP_1 for OP_TRUE everywhere :+1:

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "policy: enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30493#issuecomment-2243719422)
> Thanks @reardencode for the review and ACK as its obvious full-rbf should be default. There is some politics involved in it which I wanted to highlight:

Sorry for the confusion. To clarify, I had deleted my own comment. I wanted to think a bit more about it before commenting again.

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "policy: enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30493#issuecomment-2243737536)
> > Thanks @reardencode for the review and ACK as its obvious full-rbf should be default. There is some politics involved in it which I wanted to highlight:
>
> Sorry for the confusion. To clarify, I had deleted my own comment. I wanted to think a bit more about it before commenting again.

1. What did you think when you commented "Concept ACK"?
2. Why did you delete it?
3. What do you think about this pull request now?

Its okay, if you refuse to answer something and not forced to do i
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1687083132)
In 872c06dacde6c45c2add69c8c15c94571b08119d "policy: Allow dust in transactions, spent in-mempool"

Could you document what the return value is?

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1687085679)
In 872c06dacde6c45c2add69c8c15c94571b08119d "policy: Allow dust in transactions, spent in-mempool"

I'm a little confused about this return value. The usage of this function suggests that the return value is the wtxid of a parent transaction that has unspent dust. However, this appears to be returning the child txid.