💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Add wallet method to detect if a key is "active"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27216#discussion_r1161130756)
okay yes

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Add wallet method to detect if a key is "active"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27216#discussion_r1161130759)
ok?

> "If the address is reserved for use as a change output. It may or may not have already been used as change."

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Add wallet method to detect if a key is "active"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27216#issuecomment-1500927311)
@jonatack thanks so much for the great review, addressed comments (1 or 2 questions along the way) rebase on master and also rebased the GUI follow up

💬 dimitaracev commented on pull request "validation: Replace MinBIP9WarningHeight with MinBIP9WarningStartTime":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27427#discussion_r1161135520)
IMO, it makes sense for it to to be updated to the day of the release with the assumption that the main chain does not contain any warning bits up until then. What are your thoughts?

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "test: add coverage to rpc_scantxoutset.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27422#issuecomment-1500937726)
ok I see so this is a scenario where no command is entered. Should there also be a test for when something other than `start` `abort` or `status` is entered?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Make `CCheckQueue` RAII-styled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26762#issuecomment-1500980698)
Updated f1370b2c1586f7fe487d9f17ee53bcd9b87a9f23 -> d462e3da7fc6be75269e88928fd80fc98c405474 ([pr26762.05](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/commits/pr26762.05) -> [pr26762.07](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/commits/pr26762.07), [diff](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/compare/pr26762.05..pr26762.07)):

- addressed @martinus's comments

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Make `CCheckQueue` RAII-styled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26762#discussion_r1161160170)
Thanks! [Updated](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26762#issuecomment-1500980698).

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Make `CCheckQueue` RAII-styled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26762#discussion_r1161160203)
Thanks! [Updated](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26762#issuecomment-1500980698).

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Make `CCheckQueue` RAII-styled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26762#discussion_r1161160213)
Thanks! [Updated](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26762#issuecomment-1500980698).

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "test: add coverage to rpc_scantxoutset.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27422#issuecomment-1500982428)
Yes can be something like
`assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "Invalid action 'word'", self.nodes[0].scantxoutset, "word")`

🤔 kouloumos reviewed a pull request: "tracing: Only prepare tracepoint arguments when actually tracing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26593#pullrequestreview-1376804705)
<details><summary> I've measured the number of executed instructions for each tracepoint based on the current and new implementation and verified that the overhead for tracepoints' arguments preparation - when enabled but not hooked - has been eliminated. Click to expand for details. </summary>
<br/>

master (49b87bfe7e2799d25ce709123ecafa872b36e87a)

Tracepoint|Disabled|Enabled (not hooked)|Enabled (hooked)
:---|:---|:---|:---
mempool:added|1|24|24
mempool:removed|1|136|136
mempool:rep
...

💬 kouloumos commented on pull request "tracing: Only prepare tracepoint arguments when actually tracing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26593#discussion_r1161156029)
Regarding listing available tracepoints, there is another addition when using `info probes` in `gdb`, which now also shows semaphores. A snippet from my binary:
```
(gdb) info probes
Type Provider Name Where Semaphore Object
stap net inbound_message 0x00005625b02d4106 0x0000000000ab1724 /src/bitcoind
stap net outbound_message 0x00005625b029f395 0x0000000000ab1722 /src/bitcoind
stap validation block_connected 0x00005625b04b914d 0x00000000
...

💬 kouloumos commented on pull request "tracing: Only prepare tracepoint arguments when actually tracing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26593#discussion_r1161158136)
I see that there is a `PASTE` macro that can be used instead of directly using the token-pasting operator (##), but I can't figure out why it exists and if it offers any advantage.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/db720b5a703c90625fa7a4773bd2db5672427cbe/src/util/macros.h#L8

💬 dhruv commented on pull request "rpc: simpler setban and new ban manipulation commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19825#issuecomment-1501027430)
I'm ok with marking this up for grabs or closing it.

✅ dhruv closed a pull request: "rpc: simpler setban and new ban manipulation commands"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19825)

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "contrib: followups to #27358 (verify-binaries)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27440)
Followup to #27358, fixing up the example command docs and other requests. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27358#issuecomment-1500389847.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "contrib: allow multi-sig binary verification v2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27358#discussion_r1161264962)
See 27440.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "contrib: allow multi-sig binary verification v2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27358#discussion_r1161264975)
done in 27440

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "contrib: allow multi-sig binary verification v2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27358#discussion_r1161264990)
added to 27440.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "contrib: allow multi-sig binary verification v2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27358#issuecomment-1501099918)
Covered most of the followup requests in #27440.