💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#issuecomment-2416279768)
Cobcept ACK

💬 ryanofsky commented on issue "Error: specified data directory "\\IP.Ad.re.ss\release\Folder"does not exist":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25868#issuecomment-2416281089)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25868#issuecomment-1235378136

> Looks like the issue is related to Windows native format implementation of [`QSettings`](https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qsettings.html)...

@hebasto do you remember what this comment is referring to? I don't see how the qsettings implementation would affect this, since the setting seems like it is read successfully.

re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25868#issuecomment-1476482356

> I wonder if this is rel
...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "rpc: net: follow-ups for #30062":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30183#issuecomment-2416283036)
Code and doc review ACK b33eb137e39c434a7be69e1453a708b0c52553c4

📝 dergoegge opened a pull request: "validation: Improve input script check error reporting"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31097)
An input script might be invalid for multiple reasons. For example, it might fail both a standardness check and a consensus check, which can lead to a `mandatory-script-verify-flag-failed` error being reported that includes the script error string from the standardness failure (e.g. `mandatory-script-verify-flag-failed (Using OP_CODESEPARATOR in non-witness script)`), which is confusing.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: Assert that when we add the max orphan amount that we cannot add anymore and that a random orphan gets dropped":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31040#discussion_r1802780229)
nit
```suggestion
for _ in range(MAX_ORPHANS):
```

🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "Package validation: accept packages of size 1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#pullrequestreview-2371892884)
Concept ACK

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#discussion_r1802786666)
I think this check can be dropped, operation should be safe and no-op if package is empty? I'm fine with it either way, just simplifies the code a bit.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#discussion_r1802783016)
I wouldn't remove this, but rather update to:

```
// IsChildWithParents() guarantees the package is not empty.
assert(!package.empty());
```

After all, if the package is empty, we'd have UB a few lines down.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: Assert that when we add the max orphan amount that we cannot add anymore and that a random orphan gets dropped":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31040#discussion_r1802787555)
The comment here says that the first orphan has been dropped and the PR title says "a random orphan gets dropped". I don't know so much about it, what is the expected behavior?

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "Introduce `g_fuzzing` global for fuzzing checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31093#issuecomment-2416333030)
The CI failure is a little puzzling:

```
[13:26:14.486] Run bitset with args ['/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src/test/fuzz/fuzz', '-runs=1', PosixPath('/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/qa-assets/fuzz_corpora/bitset')]INFO: Running with entropic power schedule (0xFF, 100).
[13:26:14.486] INFO: Seed: 1575764882
[13:26:14.486] INFO: Loaded 1 modules (622699 inline 8-bit counters): 622699 [0x557b75e3b468, 0x557b75ed34d3),
[13:26:14.486] INFO: Loaded 1 PC tables (6226
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptor: Add proper Clone function to miniscript::Node":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30866#discussion_r1802790813)
Not entirely sure either.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Cleanup accidental encryption keys in watchonly wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28724#discussion_r1802795139)
Done

💬 darosior commented on pull request "validation: Improve input script check error reporting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31097#issuecomment-2416362911)
utACK f859ff8a4e9c3aa23bf5be6eceb7099ca72b2290

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#discussion_r1802828070)
I'm bad at reading the spec, is that defined behavior? https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/transform

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#discussion_r1802834385)
ok I'm convinced, removed

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "Package validation: accept packages of size 1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#pullrequestreview-2371973137)
concept ACK

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#discussion_r1802832478)
Given that this assert exists, I'm worried we have other places with very strict assumptions on what `IsChildWithParents` can guarantee. Perhaps it's safer to just have the RPC code or `ProcessNewPackage` to direct a single transaction to ATMP instead.

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "wallet: Deniability API (Unilateral Transaction Meta-Privacy)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27792#issuecomment-2416411781)
An alternative for anyone reading this pull request in future: https://github.com/kristapsk/bitcoin-scripts/blob/master/ricochet-send.sh

It's a bash script that uses bitcoin core wallet.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Bump minimum supported macOS to 13.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31048#issuecomment-2416412158)
Guix Build
```bash
d454a81e02e24f26f4d163f27ee2b16b83c8f1dfcfe0384ab544b704e27fed09 guix-build-a0e089a71dc4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
f5b3771bbb5e2c14e6d91d6a76711df0a9b8ab1b66e118eb6c5aba5686c91902 guix-build-a0e089a71dc4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-a0e089a71dc4-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
229f0eef5808a7266ac48b9b02dd84b7a7960353125ed7052510a8014074c0da guix-build-a0e089a71dc4/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-a0e089a71dc4-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
0dc7197f0284cf783
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#discussion_r1802841920)
I'd rather not; we almost immediately handle singletons via `AcceptSubPackage` internally, I'm not convinced this is more risky than adding more complexity on top.