💬 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.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1687087037)
In 872c06dacde6c45c2add69c8c15c94571b08119d "policy: Allow dust in transactions, spent in-mempool"

`CheckEphemeralSpends` appears to only return txids, not wtxid, suggest renaming this variable:

```suggestion
const auto parent_txid = ephemeral_violation.value();
```

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1687062365)
In 872c06dacde6c45c2add69c8c15c94571b08119d "policy: Allow dust in transactions, spent in-mempool"

nit: Use `contains`, here and elsewhere.

```suggestion
Assume(!map_tx_dust.contains(tx->GetHash()));
```

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1687094839)
In 872c06dacde6c45c2add69c8c15c94571b08119d "policy: Allow dust in transactions, spent in-mempool"

It's not clear to me why there is a rule that a descendant must also spend the dust if they spent any other output from an ancestor. This rule does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the PR description.

ISTM it would be easier and just as effective to check that all dust outputs end up being spent rather than this slightly convoluted check.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1687135318)
Imagine three transactions:

TxA, 0-fee with two outputs, one non-dust, one dust
TxB, spends non-dust
TxC, spends dust

All the dust is spent if `TxA+TxB+TxC` is accepted, but the mining template may just pick up `TxA+TxB` rather than the three "legal configurations:
0) None
1) `TxA+TxB+TxC`
2) `TxA+TxC`

By requiring the child transaction to sweep any dust from the parent txn, we ensure that there is a single child only, and this child is the only transaction possible for bringing f
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "policy: enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30493#issuecomment-2243815571)
@1440000bytes hello from your friendly neighborhood moderator. This is just a reminder to keep all discussions technical. Pull request comments should be focused on the code in question. Discussions about personal opinions, moderator or maintainer actions (including responses to this comment) can be opened [here](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/issues)

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "policy: enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30493#issuecomment-2243823599)
> @1440000bytes hello from your friendly neighborhood moderator. This is just a reminder to keep all discussions technical. Pull request comments should be focused on the code in question. Discussions about personal opinions, moderator or maintainer actions (including responses to this comment) can be opened [here](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/issues)

Code in question:

```diff
-static constexpr bool DEFAULT_MEMPOOL_FULL_RBF{false};
+static constexpr bool DEFAULT_MEMPOOL_FULL_RBF{
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1687148241)
I can update the documentation reflecting this if you find the explanation compelling.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "policy: enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30493#discussion_r1687154537)
Release note fragments should have the PR number in them, and this is PR 30493, not 28132. The release version is not relevant for release note fragments.