💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptor: Add proper Clone function to miniscript::Node":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30866#discussion_r1788418189)
It's not strictly necessary but I decided to do it this way to follow the pattern used for all other descriptors. The multipath expanded descriptors are treated as separate descriptors everywhere, and doing a deep copy retains that behavior which will allow for future changes that may modify specific descriptors.

⚠️ vasild opened an issue: "Listen on random port by default (not 8333)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31036)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

Connections to port 8333 can be recognized right away as Bitcoin P2P connections. While it is still possible to recognize Bitcoin P2P connections regardless of the port, random ports would make network-wide monitoring harder.


### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.

Network-wide monitoring.

### Describe the solution you'd like

The listening address and port of a node are propagated and saved in other nodes
...

💬 vasild commented on issue "Prioritize processing of peers based on their CPU usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31033#issuecomment-2394932171)
Good questions that I do not have an answer to.

I guess this should start with planting some metrics - CPU time used by each peer in the last 1, 5 and 15 minutes and assessing what a "usual" situation looks like.

Specific to CPU DoS via invalid transactions: for peers that send us such transactions, maybe multiply the CPU time by a factor e.g. 10x or 100x. Or the other way around - nullify CPU time spend on definitely-good-and-positive things like new blocks or new transactions that we acc
...

💬 azazar commented on issue "[Testnet] Insufficient data or no feerate found":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31032#issuecomment-2394951796)
The Testnet is becoming more frustrating. Testnet coins are nearly impossible to get without an ASIC, and now sending them has become a hassle too.

💬 JayBitron commented on issue "Unable to cross compile on linux for macos (28.x branch)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31027#issuecomment-2394960152)
@hebasto can you try compiling yourself, including the qt wallet

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "doc: Archive 28.0 release notes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31035#issuecomment-2394995331)
Does not exactly match the release notes on the v28.0 tag:
```
git diff f019fcec4126aa2618734016711063d3b44260fc:doc/release-notes/release-notes-28.0.md v28.0:doc/release-notes.md | wc
333
```
It does match the one on the website, minus Jekyll metadata wrapping and two EOL space differences.

ACK f019fcec4126aa2618734016711063d3b44260fc

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add multiprocess binaries to release build":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30975#issuecomment-2395041597)
Added a commit to enable multiprocess on more CI environments.

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Unable to cross compile on linux for macos (28.x branch)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31027#issuecomment-2395054359)
I'm getting the same error but inside a guix build: https://gist.github.com/pinheadmz/a2603f7f62c7627f33a10d8f39443f20

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Unable to cross compile on linux for macos (28.x branch)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31027#issuecomment-2395065939)
Update: re-downloaded Xcode and re-extracted the SDK, guix build is proceeding again

👍 tdb3 approved a pull request: "[28.x] doc: Sync 28.0 release notes with website"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31034#pullrequestreview-2349595994)
ACK 89d34cffedcb6ec752fa2ca355ad32e1e413b2f0

Release notes in #31034 and #31035 match
git diff 89d34cffedcb6ec752fa2ca355ad32e1e413b2f0:doc/release-notes.md f019fcec4126aa2618734016711063d3b44260fc:doc/release-notes/release-notes-28.0.md

👍 tdb3 approved a pull request: "doc: Archive 28.0 release notes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31035#pullrequestreview-2349596049)
ACK f019fcec4126aa2618734016711063d3b44260fc

Release notes in #31034 and #31035 match
git diff 89d34cffedcb6ec752fa2ca355ad32e1e413b2f0:doc/release-notes.md f019fcec4126aa2618734016711063d3b44260fc:doc/release-notes/release-notes-28.0.md

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "doc: Archive 28.0 release notes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31035)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "[28.x] doc: Sync 28.0 release notes with website"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31034)

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "rpc: add getorphantxs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30793)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#issuecomment-2395092244)
I just pushed from 114a5405c41 to 693a1d079ea for this review https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#pullrequestreview-2343039535
I'll push again to address the silent merge conflict, and also address https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#pullrequestreview-2342669240

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "Listen on random port by default (not 8333)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31036#issuecomment-2395099390)
This would make the DNS seeds in their current from unusable (see #30900 for a related suggestion, though that would only remedy that for IPv4).

💬 itornaza commented on issue "depends: llvm-ranlib (etc): "No such file or directory" on Intel macOS 15.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30978#issuecomment-2395110662)
To get a better understanding I run some experiments on the `depeds/hosts/darwin.mk` file.

When either:

1. Comment out the lines with the definitions of `darwin_RANLIB`, `darwin _STRIP`, `darwin_OBJDUMP`, `darwin_NM`, and `darwin_DSYMUTIL`, or

2. Set the values there as
```
RANLIB := llvm-ranlib
STRIP := llvm-strip
NM := llvm-nm
OBJDUMP := llvm-objdump
DSYMUTIL := dsymutil
```

instead of

```
darwin_AR=$(shell $(SHELL) $(.SHELLFLAGS) "command -v llvm-ar")
darwin_DSYMUTIL
...

💬 luke-jr commented on issue "rfc: DATUM mining interface requirements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31002#issuecomment-2395111539)
Bitcoin Core has been working toward trying to centrally dictate mining policy, so should really not be used for mining. OCEAN/DATUM's goal is to decentralise mining, not merely switch the central dictator from Bitmain/Foundry to Bitcoin Core.

That being said, there is already a generic/standard mining interface: getblocktemplate. It has worked for years and nothing additional is needed for DATUM.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2395115546)
All non-determinism issues have been resolved.

Guix build hashes for both `aarch64` and `x86_64`:
```
5214a1585050ee8504bf20db8bc70bc8e0f7282ef8eb453290ab8e909b32bd83 guix-build-27f3847d9f97/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
b714cadb11d1250f7f5f27ed9d0d1ad10550e279de4f15e40c9008392b5189c3 guix-build-27f3847d9f97/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-27f3847d9f97-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
06d41ffcf080d583e0cfb41c55286300e0f36d05d32f546177b54cb8d3e7531f guix-build-27f3847d9f97/out
...

✅ Sjors closed an issue: "rfc: DATUM mining interface requirements"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31002)