💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet: add target for `CreateTransaction`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29936#discussion_r1801153793)
Thanks, in case I touch it again I can address it.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "CI: Add label to scripted-diffs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31089#issuecomment-2414031525)
Agree with @maflcko that this isn't adding much as-is. My suggestion was for @DrahtBot to add the label only once it had actually run the scripted-diff successfully.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: getdescriptorinfo also returns normalized descriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29396#issuecomment-2414064252)
Are you still working on this?

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "refactor: extract CCheckQueue's data handling into a separate container "Bag""
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27331)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "refactor: extract CCheckQueue's data handling into a separate container "Bag"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27331#issuecomment-2414068322)
This PR does not seem to have attracted much attention from reviewers. As such, it does not seem important enough right now to keep it sitting idle in the list of open PRs.

Closing due to lack of interest.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "chainparams: Re-add seed.bitcoinstats.com":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31086#issuecomment-2414068733)
It currently doesn't give me any results for `x9`, IIRC the most common filter:
```
host x9.seed.bitcoinstats.com.
```

💬 furszy commented on pull request "bench: add support for custom data directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31000#discussion_r1801282821)
> I quickly glanced over this PR only, do I understand it correctly that we're treating benchmarks as tests here (I'm not sure I agree with that concept)

I'm not sure this is the best place for the conversation, but generally speaking, benchmarks are a form of testing. The difference is that they evaluate performance against previous runs rather than behavior.

> adding parameters to the benchmark setup that only apply to a smaller subset of the benchmarks?

This applies to every benchmar
...

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "RFC: Instanced logs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30338)

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "wallet: Deniability API (Unilateral Transaction Meta-Privacy)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27792)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Deniability API (Unilateral Transaction Meta-Privacy)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27792#issuecomment-2414103373)
This PR does not seem to have attracted much attention from reviewers. As such, it does not seem important enough right now to keep it sitting idle in the list of open PRs.

Closing due to lack of interest.

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "Deniability - a tool to automatically improve coin ownership privacy"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/733)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Deniability - a tool to automatically improve coin ownership privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/733#issuecomment-2414104356)
This PR does not seem to have attracted much attention from reviewers. As such, it does not seem important enough right now to keep it sitting idle in the list of open PRs.

Closing due to lack of interest.

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "validation: Replace MinBIP9WarningHeight with MinBIP9WarningStartTime"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27427)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "validation: Replace MinBIP9WarningHeight with MinBIP9WarningStartTime":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27427#issuecomment-2414108679)
Closing this as it has not had any activity in a while. If you are interested in continuing work on this, please leave a comment so that it can be reopened.

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "rpc: Add test-only RPCs under `-test=<option>` flag"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30717)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: Add test-only RPCs under `-test=<option>` flag":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30717#issuecomment-2414111881)
This PR does not seem to have attracted much attention from reviewers. As such, it does not seem important enough right now to keep it sitting idle in the list of open PRs.

Closing due to lack of interest.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "doc: Fix gen-manpages to check build options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29457#issuecomment-2414116587)
Are you still working on this?

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "refactor: Remove redundant definitions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29492#issuecomment-2414119022)
Are you still working on this?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Remove redundant definitions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29492#discussion_r1801314662)
I wonder why clang-tidy can't pick this one up. Ref: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31051/files

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "rpc: method removeprunedfunds should take an array of txids":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29468#issuecomment-2414141562)
> Doing batches of RPC calls is definitely slower than if we handled this case internally.

Do you have any performance analysis to look into the difference between both approaches? That would be helpful to assess the merit of this PR.