✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Update README.md to Format Header Correctly"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31126)

💬 stevenroose commented on pull request "Update README.md to Format Header Correctly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31126#issuecomment-2427777849)
Who released the kraken?

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Update README.md to Format Header Correctly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31126#issuecomment-2427799816)
The krAIken?

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "test: Shut down framework cleanly on RPC connection failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#issuecomment-2427838505)
(Rebased onto latest master).

💬 wiz commented on issue "Testnet4 consensus failure due to timewarp related "softfork"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2427918316)
I figured the community had started mining it by now - will take a look

⚠️ casey opened an issue: "getblockchaininfo `verificationprogress` never reaches 1.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31127)
In the output of `bitcoin-cli getblockchaininfo`, `verificationprogress` sometimes never reaches 1.0, and fluctuates around 0.99999.

```
{
...
"verificationprogress": 0.9999945316157191,
...
}
```

This was reported in #26433, and closed because `verificationprogress` is only an estimate. I would have commented in that issue, but it's locked. The rationale for closing the issue was because the OP in the issue wanted to use `verificationprogress` to check if the chain is synced,
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#issuecomment-2427979944)
> @glozow we may want to consider relaxing `package-not-child-with-unconfirmed-parents` to allow people to submit just the cpfp alone? Should be done in a separate PR regardless.

That works without validation changes if you make the split happen within RPC or ProcessNewPackage.

💬 jonatack commented on issue "getblockchaininfo `verificationprogress` never reaches 1.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31127#issuecomment-2428007153)
Maybe it could return 1 instead of the estimate, when "blocks" equals "headers" or "initialblockdownload" is false.

💬 sipa commented on issue "getblockchaininfo `verificationprogress` never reaches 1.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31127#issuecomment-2428013831)
The verification progress estimate is computed by first determining an estimate on the total number of transactions to date (based on the current time, and a known growth rate), and then dividing the actual number of transactions in the chain by that.

If we want something that looks nicer, it's possible to instead of using the current time, use the timestamp of the best known block header. This will give wildly inaccurate results while headers are still syncing, though.

💬 kevkevinpal 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#issuecomment-2428044905)
> > I'm a bit confused to the behavior i'm observing on this PR. Not necessarily anything to do with the test, but how orphans are handled.
> > I tried adding another part to the test case to check we can clear the orphanage by propagating parent transactions: [Christewart@04815c4](https://github.com/Christewart/bitcoin/commit/04815c463d331f674f67fdcb3b8da601484d7a33)
> > It appears that to _totally_ clear the orphanage, we need to propagate the parent transaction for the last child transactio
...

💬 kevkevinpal 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#issuecomment-2428049870)
> Concept ACK for the test While we are trying to add another orphan transaction when the max amount is reached , why are we dropping a random orphan and not just the incoming orphan ? Even in the condition of the node getting DOSed , having to remove a random transaction translates to some amount of work done while its not the case when we just drop the incoming transaction.

If we drop the incoming orphan then an attacker can quickly fill up a node's orphan pool with tx's that will never get
...

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#pullrequestreview-2383546169)
Concept ACK, did a first pass

💬 glozow commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1809704580)
`StageAddition` and `StageRemoval` seem a bit more intuitive, but it's a nit

💬 glozow commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1809737214)
Question: why isn't this a `shared_ptr` / what's the purpose of the `unique_ptr`? I get that there should only ever be one changeset, but I'm confused by the fact that this carries a copy of the underlying raw pointer, as the `unique_ptr` then doesn't seem very unique.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1809735446)
Similarly, `m_stage_tx` and `m_all_conflicts` could be `m_to_add` and `m_to_remove`?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1809741165)
You could use `m_subpackage.m_total_modified_fees, m_subpackage.m_total_vsize` here? Unless you feel that `CTxMemPoolChangeSet::GetAggregateFeeRate` will be useful in the future.

👍 rkrux approved a pull request: "rpc: Add support to populate PSBT input utxos via rpc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30886#pullrequestreview-2383677163)
tACK 87ceb610a72fda00e02f98426c6ee66b34fd6f54

Rebuilt and reran functional tests.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "rpc: Add support to populate PSBT input utxos via rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30886#discussion_r1809795132)
Thanks, this pure function implementation is nice!

📝 Jessiejaymz810s opened a pull request: "Pending changes exported from your codespace"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31128)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

✅ Jessiejaymz810s closed a pull request: "Pending changes exported from your codespace"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31128)