💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "streams: cache file position within AutoFile":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30884#issuecomment-2354110008)
untested reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30884/commits/a240e150e837b5a95ed19765a2e8b7c5b6013f35
Changes since https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/4cfff4e58c6d806e4bc5a12386f84ff207c83419 should not change any behavior, they just improve the `AutoFile` interfaces to be safer by

1. Ensuring we only perform XOR operations or `AutoFile::tell()` if the file has a sensible seek pointer; e.g. if you try to ftell a pipe: `ftell(stdout)` -1 will be returned, and `errno` will be s
...

💬 petertodd commented on issue "Use IPv4-encoded IPv6 address to get IPv4 node address with port number from DNS seeds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30900#issuecomment-2354114841)
@1440000bytes As you can see by clicking through to the removal pull-req, the problem wasn't "insufficient nodes", it was failing to implement filtering properly: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29911

Re: censorship, that's just nonsense. If government is blanket censoring specific ports they can pretty much just as easily censor the DNS seeding mechanism itself. There's no need to include complex new code for such a niche use-case - you can easily bootstrap a node by getting the IP
...

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#issuecomment-2354129815)
> (I think this could be merged much more quickly if it only contained [6ccf7cb](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/6ccf7cb946bd3772b5fba92246be7e2281f59d09) and proposed the validation in a separate pull.)

I do agree and thought many times about it haha... I'll split it out tomorrow. Thanks.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "wallet: Fix error messages telling user to specify wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30912#issuecomment-2354152837)
How can it be a duplicate if it still says "filename" everywhere after the first commit of #26990? I mean I'm happy to close this trivial PR if #26990 wants to rename that too (if it's correct to do so) but how can they be duplicates if they do different things?!

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "wallet: Fix error messages telling user to specify wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30912#issuecomment-2354178930)
As they both touch the same lines, I thought you may not have been aware of that pull and that the natural course of action would be to leave feedback there rather than both pulls proposing to improve the same message. If you disagree with that I apologize.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "wallet: Fix error messages telling user to specify wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30912#issuecomment-2354207416)
> If you disagree with that I apologize.

I wasn't aware of the PR and actually agree with that, I just thought (already from the first comment) you wanted to say that the PRs are duplicates, as in addressing the same issue, which they are not.

✅ mzumsande closed a pull request: "wallet: Fix error messages telling user to specify wallet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30912)

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1762081524)
I found "filename" confusing, see #30912 - if there isn't a deeper reason behind it that I'm unaware of, it could be renamed to `walletname`.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1762106926)
Good point. I was curious, as I've moved this error message around a few times for different refactorings; it looks like it originated back in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10931.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1762109275)
@pablomartin4btc maybe a test could be added to `interface_bitcoin_cli.py` that passing a filename raises (error code -18 "Requested wallet does not exist or is not loaded").

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1762117682)
good catch!! that was unintentional, reverted now

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1762117778)
done

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1762118393)
done

✅ glozow closed a pull request: "TxDownloadManager refactor followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30820)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "TxDownloadManager refactor followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30820#issuecomment-2354268095)
closing, squashed into #30110. will reopen if followups need to happen again.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1762123098)
I think it would be beneficial to explain the alternatives. The `-rpcwallet` parameter depends on how the wallet is loaded. It can either be the wallet directory name located inside the `-walletdir` (the default value is `datadir/net/wallets/wallet_name`, in which case only `wallet_name` is used in this option), or the absolute path to the wallet directory, which is the complete path `datadir/net/wallets/wallet_name`.

You can note the difference by loading an existing wallet in two different
...

👋 theuni's pull request is ready for review: "build: speed up by flattening the dependency graph"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30911)

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "cli: improve error message on multiwallet and add validation to cli-side commands":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26990#discussion_r1762156524)
... and I think in both of these cases `walletname` would be correct and `filename` incorrect, it would just be a different wallet name depending on how it's loaded.

It could actually also be a filename: Put a legacy wallet `oldwallet.dat` into the datadir, run with `-deprecatedrpc=create_bdb` and `loadwallet "oldwallet.dat"` will load it successfully, in this special case the filename is the walletname. But even here, where `filename` would make sense, `walletname` is correct too, so it just
...

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "doc: fixed inconsistencies in documentation between autotools to cmake change":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30875#issuecomment-2354365190)
Concept ACK

Nit: could also fix

```diff
--- a/test/util/test_runner.py
+++ b/test/util/test_runner.py
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
# file COPYING or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.
"""Test framework for bitcoin utils.

-Runs automatically during `make check`.
+Runs automatically during `ctest --test-dir build/`.

Can also be run manually."""
```

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "28.0rc1 synchronizes much slower on Windows"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30833)