💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "Pre-28.x branch off version bump and doc updates":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30719#discussion_r1731952540)
nit: Adjusted this in the [Wiki Page](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/28.0-Release-Notes-Draft). Line wrap issue. Also moved to P2P section.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "Pre-28.x branch off version bump and doc updates":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30719#discussion_r1731954716)
nit: Adjusted this in the [Wiki Page](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/28.0-Release-Notes-Draft). Line wrap issue.

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "[WIP] seeds: Add additional seed source and bump uptime requirements for Onion and I2P nodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30695#discussion_r1731977769)
Mine is here if you want to add it:

https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/seeds.txt

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Bugfix: Ensure Atomicity in Wallet Settings Updates from Chain Interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30697#issuecomment-2311352168)
Any reason not to just lock the mutex across the three steps?

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "rpc: add `revelant_blocks` to `scanblocks status`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30713#discussion_r1731984776)
Since status stops working when the scan completes, it seems like we should clear `g_relevant_blocks` here?

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Pre-28.x branch off version bump and doc updates":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30719#issuecomment-2311368646)
>Bump to 28.99 in preparation for the 28.x branching

This should be post-branching...?

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "rpc: add `revelant_blocks` to `scanblocks status`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30713#discussion_r1732046737)
Yes, thank you. Will update.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Pre-28.x branch off version bump and doc updates":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30719#issuecomment-2311499781)
> This should be post-branching...?

I don't think it particularly matters since that step has to be done in the 28.x branch too, in addition to the other version numbers being bumped.

👍 1440000bytes approved a pull request: "chainparams: Remove seed.bitcoinstats.com"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30720#pullrequestreview-2262048238)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30720/commits/c88a7dc53e3be7489605c3326cf768df5437393a

Not sure if this should be added in release notes.

💬 virtu commented on pull request "[WIP] seeds: Add additional seed source and bump uptime requirements for Onion and I2P nodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30695#discussion_r1732113690)
nice, added!

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: add `revelant_blocks` to `scanblocks status`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30713#discussion_r1732132002)
That'd introduce a race, where the relevant blocks are cleared before the reserver is destructed (and thus the status call may return an empty list where previously it didn't for the same call)

Not sure if it matters, or worthy to address.

💬 virtu commented on pull request "[WIP] seeds: Add additional seed source and bump uptime requirements for Onion and I2P nodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30695#issuecomment-2311586771)
> I was manually curating I2P nodes based on trusted colleagues (akin to addnode peer selection), filtered by connection reliability and regularly seeing blocks from them. (Edit: I now see that you have ones that I'd recommend, so seems good. There were a couple that were missing, but I see that they, like me, began pruning.)

Good to know the automatic process is getting all of cjdns nodes you were tracking (modulo pruning).

Data from @luke-jr's seed is now included as well. As before: 512
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: ConnectionRefusedError: [WinError 10061] No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30390#issuecomment-2311591619)
> **Notable**: I removed the case for "-342 Service unavailable, RPC server started but is shutting down due to error". Seems like we should be failing if the server is shutting down instead of _silently ignoring it_.

That'd revert 62c304ea481d474bc87d950e21907b8b05134fe7 and thus break existing tests, no?

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: ConnectionRefusedError: [WinError 10061] No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30390#issuecomment-2311611155)
For reference: You can use `git log -S "unique_code_blob"` to see when (and hopefully why) a piece of code was added. In this case it would be something like:

```
$ git log -S ' != -342'
commit 62c304ea481d474bc87d950e21907b8b05134fe7
Date: Sat Oct 6 13:42:11 2018 +0800

tests: Allow closed http server in assert_start_raises_init_error

💬 virtu commented on pull request "seeds: Pull additional nodes from my seeder and update fixed seeds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30008#issuecomment-2311628787)
just rebased #30695 since #30008 got merged and noticed it accidentally removes all hardcoded onion and i2p seeds

🤔 virtu reviewed a pull request: "chainparams: Remove seed.bitcoinstats.com"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30720#pullrequestreview-2262243539)
ACK

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Add dumptxoutset height param, remove shell scripts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29553#issuecomment-2311682864)
re-utACK 46c8d75d24d3355ec468f7f608effe94636e16db

#30690 just modified the script this PR deletes.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: ConnectionRefusedError: [WinError 10061] No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30390#issuecomment-2311690611)
Other than that the patch

> Seen recently here (`wallet_bumpfee.py --descriptors`) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/9863555844/job/27236587622#step:27:12496:

This one looks different, because `node1` never actually starts to start up. It doesn't even get to emit an `10061` error.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: ConnectionRefusedError: [WinError 10061] No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30390#issuecomment-2311697202)
As for the ignored_errors counter, I presume it will just count `errno.ECONNREFUSED` for WinError 10061?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "bench: [refactor] iwyu":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30716#issuecomment-2311698582)
> I still see IWYU warnings

Thanks, fixed.