💬 edilmedeiros commented on pull request "contrib/signet/miner: increase miner search space":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30130#issuecomment-2329741824)
Returned to draft so I can refactor this PR on top of #28417 recently merged.

💬 russeree commented on issue "Testnet4 consensus failure due to timewarp related "softfork"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2329743955)
> > I think there is a small risk, that we will see a huge double-spending attempt in testnet4, because after block 00000000000000263393ce5f648afd53676f13d360cc9f264b89351623bf1242, there are transactions in the old chain, which are not picked by nodes, mining the new chain. Which means, that suddenly, when the deep reorg will revert hundreds of blocks, all of those transactions will suddenly become unconfirmed.
> > So, if anyone has any coins, which were received after block number 42335, then
...

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "cli: restrict multiple exclusive argument usage in bitcoin-cli"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30148)

🤔 BrandonOdiwuor reviewed a pull request: "test: Use std::span and std::string_view for raw data"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30796#pullrequestreview-2281002924)
Concept ACK

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "fuzz: make FuzzedDataProvider usage deterministic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29043#issuecomment-2329761067)
ACK 01960c53c7d71c70792abe19413315768dc2275a

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "fuzz: make FuzzedDataProvider usage deterministic"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29043)

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Testnet4 consensus failure due to timewarp related "softfork"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2329788335)
> My question is why did we merge code into Core that forked T4 without contacting any of the larger swaths of hashrate and or having the HR to outrun the previously canonical chain?

There was no indication at the time that anyone would mine blocks that were outside of MAX_TIMEWARP of 600. And generally, the assumption is that if someone is running code from an unmerged PR, they should be following it and be aware that it might majorly change before it is merged.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: fixing failing system_tests/run_command under some Locales":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30788#issuecomment-2329801442)
ACK ae48a22a3df086fb59843b7b814619ed5df7557b

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "test: "system_tests/run_command" unit test fails with different locale"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30608)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: fixing failing system_tests/run_command under some Locales"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30788)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "lint: Speed up and fix flake8 checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30723#issuecomment-2329824409)
ACK fafdb7df34507eee735893aa871da6ae529e6372

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "lint: Speed up and fix flake8 checks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30723)

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "contrib: fix check-deps.sh to check for weak symbols":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30415#issuecomment-2329845810)
Rebased 2bca4af323c5b505689c5203e6ddba8becac5dc8 -> 76ef8113f70070ab1deeeb142977d46d8132c36e ([`pr/weakcheck.7`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/weakcheck.7) -> [`pr/weakcheck.8`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/weakcheck.8), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/weakcheck.7-rebase..pr/weakcheck.8)) updating this to work with cmake and dropping suppression no longer needed after #30377

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "ci: parse TEST_RUNNER_EXTRA into an array":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30244#issuecomment-2329850413)
ACK 8131bf7483c0ea10d3573c9f2e977d19d8569b7f

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "ci: parse TEST_RUNNER_EXTRA into an array"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30244)

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "Ephemeral Dust"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#pullrequestreview-2278092199)
Looks good. New rules seem easier to reason about (up to 1 as long as 0-fee, must spend all of my parent's dust no matter what).

Can you remind me of the use cases of a keyed dust output again? It seems slightly safer to require ephemeral dust be P2A, as it would allow anybody to clean them up in case something goes wrong, but perhaps too narrow.

Additionally, could add a release note fragment.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1742455118)
```suggestion
return state.Invalid(TxValidationResult::TX_NOT_STANDARD, "dust", "tx has more than 1 dust output");
```

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1744281879)
could go in test_framework/mempool_util.py?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1742455496)
```suggestion
return state.Invalid(TxValidationResult::TX_NOT_STANDARD, "dust", "tx with dust output must be 0 fee");
```

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1744291930)
```suggestion
self.log.info("Test that ephemeral dust is allowed for non-0 dust values")
```