💬 Bandarfaqih commented on issue "Enhancing Bitcoin Privacy Protocol Bip Proposal":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455#issuecomment-1505791936)
I have discussed this with the BITCOIN development team and they were welcoming the idea but incentive me to do a discussion feature here in the BTC community before further implementation to have a more mature final consensus proposal for the development and processing of the BIP therefore everyone is welcome to discuss further technical implementation and thoughts.

⚠️ Bandarfaqih opened an issue: "Thanks. However as I said last time you posted this. This is not the right place to post this."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27456)
Thanks. However as I said last time you posted this. This is not the right place to post this.

_Originally posted by @fanquake in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455#issuecomment-1505791472_

I have discussed this with the BITCOIN development team and they were welcoming the idea but incentive me to do a discussion feature here in the BTC community before further implementation to have a more mature proposal for the development and processing of the BIP therefore
...

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Thanks. However as I said last time you posted this. This is not the right place to post this."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27456)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Thanks. However as I said last time you posted this. This is not the right place to post this."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27456)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Enhancing Bitcoin Privacy Protocol Bip Proposal"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455)

💬 Tracachang commented on issue "Export a watch wallet only (with descriptors and without private keys) for an air gap setup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24829#issuecomment-1505803844)
> Ok I just pulled v24.0.1 and repeated steps with CLI and GUI, same outcome -- are you still unable to do this?

Just tried again following this commands and I am still unable to see taproot in GUI

```
$ bitcoin-cli createwallet original
{
"name": "original",
"warning": ""
}

$ bitcoin-cli -rpcwallet=original listdescriptors | jq .descriptors -c >> ~/Desktop/watchonly.json
$ bitcoin-cli -named createwallet wallet_name=watchonly disable_private_keys=true
{
"name": "watchonly
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "validation: implement MaybeInvalidateFork() and call from rpc getchaintips":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27434#issuecomment-1505813377)
Since I'm already here, I added a commit that fixes the incorrect usage of the term "orphan blocks" in rpc `getchaintips` code

cc: @MarcoFalke (fa0dfdf447d5b84a1849dc823d8508463600136a) and @mrbandrews (87049e832d97d4f2808c0b479b21fc7b16c86934)

💬 benthecarman commented on pull request "Allow configuring target block time for a signet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27446#issuecomment-1505813908)
If anyone is interested in testing, I am running this for a custom signet.

```
[signet]
signetchallenge=512102f7561d208dd9ae99bf497273e16f389bdbd6c4742ddb8e6b216e64fa2928ad8f51ae
signetblocktime=30
addnode=45.79.52.207:38333
dnsseed=0
```

Block explorer: https://mutinynet.com
faucet: https://faucet.mutinynet.com

There is also a rapid gossip sync server and some lightning nodes as well

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Export a watch wallet only (with descriptors and without private keys) for an air gap setup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24829#issuecomment-1505817580)
> Just tried again following this commands and I am still unable to see taproot in GUI

at all? or just in the watch-only wallet?

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1164567117)
Is there a reason for this restriction?

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1164574104)
IIRC updating this RPC would require pretty significant changes to it that felt out of scope for this PR. I've left it as something to do in a followup in order to keep the scope of the PR limited to just the bare minimum to work with PSBTv2.

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Write instructions on offline signing.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9492#issuecomment-1505838532)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/external-signer.md was added by @Sjors over 2 years ago. I also found some good answers about `signrawtransaction` on stack exchange. There is also https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/psbt.md which is about as old. I think PSBT was added to Bitcoin after this issue was opened and although the guides are more geared to multisig, they cover a lot.

@adamjonas do you think those docs are good enough to close this issue? Otherwise I
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Alerting blockchain reorgs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14915#issuecomment-1505843460)
NACK, I don't think there is a really great use for this for most users. Reorgs are currently very rare and when they happen they are 1 block at most. The GUI should and does show users if their transactions are unconfirmed, that should be the most important thing. As for (b) an advanced user can use `-blocknotify` and some external script to detect that more than one block at the same height has been processed.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "Fix logging RPC and -debugexclude with 0/none values, add test coverage, improve docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#discussion_r1164585860)
> Well I meant something like a switch statement with `"-debug"` and `"-debugexclude"` literal strings as cases.

The condition in a [switch](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/switch) statement must be of integer or enum type, or of a class type implicitly convertible to one.

But we can still use conditionals. Do you like this better?

```diff
static constexpr std::array DEBUG_LOG_OPTS{"-debug", "-debugexclude"};

+static bool EnableOrDisable(const std::string& opt, const st
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "doc: Consider installing doc/ with make install":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16897#issuecomment-1505850816)
Is this something that we actually want to add? IMO adding a load of (mostly) markdown files to this dir would be clunky at best...

If we don't plan for this then I think we can close the issue.

If we do then it would probably make sense to wait until the cmake project has resolved one way or another before making (low priority) changes to the make process?

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Fix logging RPC and -debugexclude with 0/none values, add test coverage, improve docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#discussion_r1164601290)
Yeah 😬 waddaya think?

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "test: add coverage to rpc_scantxoutset.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27422#issuecomment-1505870199)
Thank you for picking that up.
I will take a look at that.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "Fix logging RPC and -debugexclude with 0/none values, add test coverage, improve docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#discussion_r1164606990)
Sure, will update. And add the comments mentioned in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#discussion_r1164530898.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "test: added coverage to rpc_scantxoutset.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27453#issuecomment-1505878687)
LGTM Ack ecb79aed4d847d8c95936ac80b7e137f9c17b6f8

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: when a block is disconnected, update transactions that are no longer conflicted"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27145#pullrequestreview-1380282608)
Haven't finished checking the latest changes but, if you like it, https://github.com/furszy/bitcoin-core/commit/8bb14c1eaf09b0bca9efa78e1a7a7a00c61c0a29 is all yours. During the review, the functional test wasn't clear enough for me so I spent a bit of time making it more friendly.