📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[24.x] Additional backports for 24.1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27474)
Backports:
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27473

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Mishandled "unknown" Address Type"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27472)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "bugfix: Properly handle "unknown" Address Type"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27473)

👍 pablomartin4btc approved a pull request: "bugfix: Properly handle "unknown" Address Type"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27473#pullrequestreview-1388202032)
Reproduced the issue manually from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27472. Agree with above to add more test coverage if possible.

ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/0d6383fda04a99726654945a737bbb1369e0e44a.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "bugfix: Properly handle "unknown" Address Type":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27473#issuecomment-1511452937)
Backported to 24.x in #27474.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "[24.x] Additional backports for 24.1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27474#issuecomment-1511457643)
Suggest adding https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/f73782a9032a462a71569e9424db9bf9eeababf3.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "test: fix bumpfee 'spend_one_input' occasional failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27471#issuecomment-1511463221)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e07dd5fff9eb64d7615ab515b351e296c00b1861.

🤔 instagibbs reviewed a pull request: "mempool: disallow txns under min relay fee, even in packages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#pullrequestreview-1388204359)
re-ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933/commits/bf77fc9cb45209b9c560208c65abc94209cd7919

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "mempool: disallow txns under min relay fee, even in packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#discussion_r1168777037)
should this just be None and have a check that it's non-None later? or is this value important?

🤔 theStack reviewed a pull request: "bugfix: rest: avoid segfault for invalid URI"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27468#pullrequestreview-1388246220)
post-merge ACK 11422cc5720c8d73a87600de8fe8abb156db80dc

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "blockstorage: do not flush block to disk if it is already there":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039#discussion_r1168814404)
Thanks good eye. If I retouch I'll fix this.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: wallet, do not translate init options names":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25666#discussion_r1168816041)
For translators, it will be better to drop the middle sentence or put a place holder instead of the option name.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "mempool: disallow txns under min relay fee, even in packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#issuecomment-1511498138)
> (the user-facing effect is that submitpackage now throws a different and more helpful JSONRPCError)

For those following at home, the legacy reason it was giving was the first transaction in package's individual submission error, aka missing mempool min fee.

💬 carnhofdaki commented on pull request "Allow configuring target block time for a signet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27446#issuecomment-1511500618)
This comment is longer showing full hands-on examples and listing used scripts which may help you easily test with Bitcoin Core on many different networks. The version of `bitcoind` used was few-days-old `master` (b22c275582) + cherry-picked d8434da3c14ed6723d86ef2cd266008d366e1413 (this patch, applied by running `git cherry-pick d8434da`) … here we go:

Just showing a proof that even the `txoutsetinfo muhash` with an up-to-date `coinstatsindex` works:

```
$ bch.sh gettxoutsetinfo muhash

...

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "blockstorage: do not flush block to disk if it is already there":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039#discussion_r1168822308)
This pause is intended to guarantee that `time1` (L140) and `time2` (L162) will be different if any file modification happens between the two readings. On windows for example with its 2 second resolution, all kinds of stuff could be happening to that file during those 22 lines and the timestamp would still not change.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "wallet: improve IBD sync time by skipping block scanning prior birth time":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27469#discussion_r1168831940)
Any reason to use `int64_t`, when the block time is denoted in a type-safe `NodeSeconds`?

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[23.x] Additional backports for 23.x"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27475)
Any further backports for 23.x. Currently just:
* 1bdbbbdc46c4e50bf07bc362e7e391ea1a53ea2f from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25436 - which fixes building QT in depends with GCC > 12.1

We could also add #27462, to fix building BDB with newer Clangs on aarch64.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "depends: fix compiling bdb with clang-16 on aarch64"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27462)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: fix bumpfee 'spend_one_input' occasional failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27471)

💬 theuni commented on pull request "depends: fix compiling bdb with clang-16 on aarch64":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27462#issuecomment-1511612965)
Wait, did we ever figure out why this only happens when not cross-compiling? That's fishy to me.