💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Mark `x86_64-linux-gnu` release binaries as CET-enabled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30685#discussion_r1726997573)
OK. What can you suggest?

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "wallet: Write best block to disk before backup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30678#discussion_r1727012811)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30678#discussion_r1725697479

I think that's right, but I don't see these sqlite or bdb implementation details being relevant here. My point is that before unloading a wallet, and before backing up a wallet, it would seem like a good idea to flush wallet state that's in memory to disk, so information is not lost. So it would seem logical to do that in the Flush method and to call Flush before backing up the wallet.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1727016049)
Comparing the output of `PRINT_ALL_FUZZ_TARGETS_AND_ABORT=1 src/test/fuzz/fuzz` for both autotools and cmake can be used to verify that all harnesses are ported.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#issuecomment-2304631078)
Doesn't look like `ReceivedTx` ever returns a package to validate in any of the fuzz tests (500 CPU hours each):

* http://bitcoind-fuzz.dergoegge.de:8000/bitcoin-pr30110/harnesses/txdownload_impl/coverage_report/coverage/workdir/bitcoin/src/test/fuzz/txdownloadman.cpp.html#L352
* http://bitcoind-fuzz.dergoegge.de:8000/bitcoin-pr30110/harnesses/txdownloadman/coverage_report/coverage/workdir/bitcoin/src/test/fuzz/txdownloadman.cpp.html#L213
* http://bitcoind-fuzz.dergoegge.de:8000/bitcoin-pr3
...

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "Refactor: MiniWallet functionality for more readable code in functional test `rpc_signtransactionwithkey.py`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30667#pullrequestreview-2254476437)
I'm going to close this pull request for now. If you'd like to work on the issue, here are some hints before you open a new pull request.

1. Please ensure your code works before submitting a pull request. There is a lot of documentation for the functional test suite if you need help https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/functional/README.md
2. Write code a bit more carefully. `node` isn't an attribute; you forgot an `s`. `MiniWallet` does not have a `sendrawtransaction` functio
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Refactor: MiniWallet functionality for more readable code in functional test `rpc_signtransactionwithkey.py`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30667#discussion_r1727027744)
Ah apologies, I was too hasty and didn't notice that this is for the funding transactions. You can ignore that.

✅ glozow closed a pull request: "Refactor: MiniWallet functionality for more readable code in functional test `rpc_signtransactionwithkey.py`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30667)

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#issuecomment-2304734471)
> Doesn't look like ReceivedTx ever returns a package to validate in any of the fuzz tests (500 CPU hours each):

At a minimum `TESTED_TX_RESULTS` is missing `TxValidationResult::TX_RECONSIDERABLE`, so nothing is ever failing for the right reason to try a package.

I restricted the set of possible transactions down to just a parent/child combo in TRANSACTIONS and was able to trigger it quickly, so it's likely reachable with that one change.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "Introduce waitTipChanged() mining interface, replace RPCNotifyBlockChange and drop CRPCSignals":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30409#discussion_r1727105521)
In commit b4d37fa70506129ba4a4d218bc49ce8ca9d8380c

I think there is a significant change in behaviour here between `waitTipChanged`, or rather `g_best_block`, and the rpc notification through `blockTip`. AFAICT the `blockTip` notification reports on completed operations in `ActivateBestChain` and `InvalidatedBlock`, while `g_best_block` is updated through the lower-level `ConnectTip` and `DisconnectTip`, which may respectively be called iteratively by `ActivateBestChain` and `InvalidateBlock`
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Mark `x86_64-linux-gnu` release binaries as CET-enabled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30685#issuecomment-2304745347)
The PR description has been updated with a runtime check example.

🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "[27.x] Even more backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30558#pullrequestreview-2254624031)
code review ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/885c4b7bc65c294b4b2fac91392d23a37a1f6485 but 8932090f9ecd933c86ee7800c0858e8d1c0bd40b is missing backport metadata in the commit message.

I verified that all backport commits are clean, except:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/8932090f9ecd933c86ee7800c0858e8d1c0bd40b backported from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/590456e3f1043ba0680e0afec9fd7653db1098bb: merge conflicts from 539404fe0f and 8950053636 which have b
...

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "Fix maybe-uninitialized warning in IsSpentKey"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30691)

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "test: [refactor] Use m_rng directly"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30571#pullrequestreview-2254625428)
Code review ACK 38b03bc3af9fbf483b5a29a54a5ffb36c67b6b41. Just another random seed bug in the prevector tests fixed since last review!

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "test: [refactor] Use m_rng directly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30571#discussion_r1727126557)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30571#discussion_r1725758066

> Starting with commit https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/fae43a97ca947cd0802392e9bb86d9d0572c0fba, the seed is static const per process

Wow, I didn't notice `ctx_seed` was statically caching a random value before this so I've been misunderstanding what the `SeedRandomForTest` function has been doing the whole time. I think this could be made clearer by:

- Renaming `SeedRand::SEED` to `SeedRand::FIXED_SEED`
...

📝 virtu opened a pull request: "WIP: seeds: Add additional seed source and bump uptime requirements for Onion and I2P nodes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30695)
This builds on #30008 and adds data [exported](https://github.com/virtu/seed-exporter) by [my crawler](https://github.com/virtu/p2p-crawler) an additional source for seed nodes. Data covers all supported network types.

### To dos
- [ ] Remove manual nodes
- [ ] Remove WIP label and rebase once #30008 gets merged

### Motivation
- Further decentralizes the seed node selection process (in the long term potentially enabling an _n_-source threshold for nodes to prevent a single source from e
...

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "kernel: pre-28.x chainparams and headerssync update"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30658#pullrequestreview-2254691819)
ACK 221809b81cfcecb04050915eebacffda2599da42

Checked chain params against my nodes (all except testnet3, I just sanity checked that against a block explorer). Checked I get the same headerssync params.

💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#discussion_r1727193200)
Fixed

⚠️ hodlinator opened an issue: "Unit test failures when using multiple jobs and RANDOM_CTX_SEED"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30696)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

While testing #30571 using:
```
RANDOM_CTX_SEED=1 make -j16 check
```
...I discovered that 97e16f57042cab07e5e73f6bed19feec2006e4f7 from #29625 leads to test failures within the first 10 seconds in **blockfilter_index_tests/blockfilter_index_initial_sync**, **argsman_tests/util_datadir** or **addrman_tests** (probably more).

Running without the environment variable, or single-thread
...

💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#discussion_r1727194205)
Done. Thanks!

💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#discussion_r1727195499)
Fixed