🤔 Imebeez reviewed a pull request: "[28.x] backports and finalize"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30959#pullrequestreview-2356142508)
N-2

🤔 Imebeez reviewed a pull request: "[26.0] Finalize or rc4"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28959#pullrequestreview-2356143151)
N-2

🤔 stratospher reviewed a pull request: "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#pullrequestreview-2054783141)
ACK b588ff8. went through the noise protocol spec. also sharing a [pictorial represantion of the NX handshake](https://github.com/stratospher/blogosphere/blob/main/noise.pdf) if it's useful to other reviewers.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1776344227)
b4a84ab: any reason for skipping 29?

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1791964862)
b588ff8: nit: could move the MixHash log up (after `DecryptAndHash`)and before Validate log for more clarity.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1791274447)
b588ff8: shouldn't this be "Noise_NX_Secp256k1+EllSwift_ChaChaPoly_SHA256" (from spec)?

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1792116481)
b588ff8: typo - s/ephmeral/ephemeral in a few places.

since the template provider behaves as the server and only performs the responder handshake flow, it might be useful to mention initiator handshake flow is just for tests.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1792055061)
b588ff8: (micro nit/feel free to ignore) could `return m_cs1.EncryptMessage` to keep it consistent with how it's done in `DecryptMessage`.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1792872756)
b588ff8: `(valid_from < now) && (valid_to > now)`

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#discussion_r1792239111)
d08a2ebf: sv2 is OFF when fuzzing - so we need to turn it ON here to fuzz locally. Also the sv2 fuzz tests aren't run on the CI.

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "Halt processing of unrequested transactions v2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30572#issuecomment-2401651398)
> Is anyone running this currently with the code set to always enforce or just log? it would be useful to know at what rate nodes are currently seeing unsolicited.

I switched one of my monitoring nodes to run https://github.com/0xB10C/bitcoin/commit/ba39837d999407a55c3784059f7cf07bdbdfce76 to collect some data on this. Having a glance at the logs since yesterday, I've mostly seen the same few peers sending me unsolicited transactions - at a rate of a few per minute.

> I'm particularly inte
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "refactor: include the proper header rather than forward-declaring RemovalReasonToString"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31058)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "RFC: build: support for pre-compiled headers.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31053#issuecomment-2401784317)
> Combining with #30911 produces even more of a speedup (with Make, ninja is about the same).

Why are ninja builds not affected?

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-2401821128)
`a51c2cdda5...09a7394759`: silence the bogus GCC warning about uninitialized `std::optional`

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-2401828752)
`09a7394759...6b10008441`: rebase due to conflicts

💬 dergoegge commented on issue "Disallow building fuzz binary without `-DBUILD_FOR_FUZZING`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31057#issuecomment-2401942272)
> I build with these options to be able to be able to know if changes not related to fuzzing will break the build.

I assumed (incorrectly) that almost no one would be doing this anymore since building the fuzz binary is no longer the default behavior. What I'm proposing would require you to do a separate build with `-DBUILD_FOR_FUZZING=ON`, which is of course annoying if you just want to check that the fuzz binary compiles.

Another assumption I have (perhaps also incorrect) is that no one
...

💬 VivaRado commented on issue "support BIP39 mnemonic in descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19151#issuecomment-2402017418)
So we delete the comment about BIP39 UI implementation because @junderw down voted, without probably even looking at the code. @junderw your behavior is not appreciated. If you do not have something constructive to add, avoid negative displays of grandeur.

💬 Xaspr commented on issue "Unable to sync blockchain on laptop: ERROR: ReadBlockFromDisk: Deserialize or I/O error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29255#issuecomment-2402048557)
Thanks for the heads up. I'm now doing IBD with 28.0 on the same Windows installation. On earlier versions, the issue came up after a few days. I will check in again after a week if the issue is solved with blocksxor.

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1793328846)
Similarly, the `AddKnownTx` won't be ever called upon this return.

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1793322248)
673d6ee17dd48281fa42983f8b95553d5494e914

In this particular commit the updated value of `add_extra_compact_tx` is dropped on the floor. I think this is fixed in the final version on this PR :)
(and `AddToCompactExtraTransactions` is not called anymore inside ` if (state.GetResult() == TxValidationResult::TX_MISSING_INPUTS) {` )

I'm not much worried about the quality of intermediate commits, but it makes following the changes a bit difficult.