📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "doc: Clarify libbitcoin_consensus in design/libraries.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30802)
Now that the shared library has been removed in commit 80f8b92f4f2311b9e9a25361c9dd973244e6f95c, update the documentation to drop the no-longer applicable prefix "Stable...".

💬 Sjors commented on issue "Testnet4 consensus failure due to timewarp related "softfork"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2327029294)
It's too hot to turn on my S9 :-)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1742404263)
Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30802

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1742404977)
Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30802

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "doc: Clarify libbitcoin_consensus in design/libraries.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30802#pullrequestreview-2278039267)
ACK fad22fcc83bc009a8c3892cac3570cd399ae28f7

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "build: Minor build syystem fixes and amendments"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30803)
This PR addresses the following comments:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1742342524
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1728692369
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1736110362

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1742421067)
Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30803.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1742421343)
Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30803.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1742421605)
Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30803.

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "doc: Clarify libbitcoin_consensus in design/libraries.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30802#pullrequestreview-2278050191)
Concept ACK.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "doc: Clarify libbitcoin_consensus in design/libraries.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30802#discussion_r1742425451)
Why `libbitcoin_node` removed? The diagram below still shows this dependency.

👍 maflcko approved a pull request: "build: Minor build system fixes and amendments"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30803#pullrequestreview-2278054511)
review ACK c393acadf213ddf58a69759eaf341595ccbf4889

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Minor build system fixes and amendments":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30803#discussion_r1742427765)
```suggestion
# However, as of 2024, mainstream distributions do not yet provide
# CMake config files for ZeroMQ packages.
# If they do in the future, find_package(ZeroMQ) may be used instead.
```

nit: Could remove the TODO above and clarify that it is waiting on the distros.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: Clarify libbitcoin_consensus in design/libraries.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30802#discussion_r1742432173)
Well, it is used by everything that uses common. Probably best to just refer to the diagram.

Let me know if I should remove the "used by" completely.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Template Provider (take 3)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29432#issuecomment-2327073294)
I pushed the rebase, so that stratum v2 miner will produce valid testnet4 blocks. See #29775. Tagged [sv2-tp-0.1.8 ](https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/releases/tag/sv2-tp-0.1.8) and will binaries shortly.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Minor build system fixes and amendments":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30803#discussion_r1742434506)
Thanks! Reworked per your feedback.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "[WIP] Cluster mempool implementation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#pullrequestreview-2277909745)
had a look at some tests that are disabled or have TODOs

💬 glozow commented on pull request "[WIP] Cluster mempool implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#discussion_r1742339252)
9047d620b81
Suggestion for adding the deltas to chunk feerates instead of deleting the fields:
```
diff --git a/test/functional/mining_prioritisetransaction.py b/test/functional/mining_prioritisetransaction.py
index a8183dc8e14..6c3e02b8862 100755
--- a/test/functional/mining_prioritisetransaction.py
+++ b/test/functional/mining_prioritisetransaction.py
@@ -101,21 +101,19 @@ class PrioritiseTransactionTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
self.nodes[0].prioritisetransaction(txid=txid_c, f
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "[WIP] Cluster mempool implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#discussion_r1742343258)
9047d620b81 Just deleting the clusterid is sufficient
```suggestion
del last_entry["clusterid"]
```

💬 glozow commented on pull request "[WIP] Cluster mempool implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#discussion_r1742376309)
d0576c134a5
I don't think it's possible to adapt this test so that the tx has 100 direct conflicts, given that it needs to be within 1000vB (the only transactions allowed to have sibling eviction are TRUC children). Having 100 inputs makes it at least 3000-something vB. This would be the case for any new rule that requires 100 inputs.

So this test could just be deleted until we allow sibling eviction for transactions that don't have this size restriction.