💬 russeree commented on issue "Testnet4 consensus failure due to timewarp related "softfork"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2428390283)
> @wiz, @russeree: Are you still mining on Testnet4?

Currently no, I assumed honest HR had started mining on T4 now so I pointed my miners back at Mainnet. Should I reconsider?

💬 laanwj commented on issue "getblockchaininfo `verificationprogress` never reaches 1.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31127#issuecomment-2428465504)
Looks like a duplicate of #26433.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "rpc: Add support to populate PSBT input utxos via rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30886#issuecomment-2428493112)
This is far easier to use compared to the earlier way of `signrawtransactionwithwallet` where few details need to be passed manually such as txid, vout, scriptPubKey, witnessScript, amount!

```
➜ bcli28 signrawtransactionwithwallet 0300000001f70daae6a5f540e7ff0216e443f6422200f13c2d3c57fa10ab0cff3f1f2abf3f0000000000fdffffff0120e20f2401000000160014e2370a8c1504f239194d158eb0b1450c932b56a900000000 "[{\"txid\":\"3fbf2a1f3fff0cab10fa573c2d3cf1002242f643e41602ffe740f5a5e6aa0df7\", \"vout\": 0, \"s
...

⚠️ Sandra-Amina-Boss opened an issue: "Bitcoin"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31129)

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "Bitcoin"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31129)

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "rpc: net: follow-ups for #30062":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30183#issuecomment-2428563086)
re-ACK a16917fb5981d1465ffd4c036586f8729e683b73

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "util: Remove RandAddSeedPerfmon":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31124#issuecomment-2428566032)
Concept ACK.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on issue "Mining Interface doesn't allow for Bitcoin Core to create blocks when it wants":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31109#issuecomment-2428571666)
> But aren't we holding cs_main throughout the process?

There are brief times where the lock is not held once the `ActivateBestChain` stage is reached during validation.

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "fees: Remove CLIENT_VERSION serialization"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29702#pullrequestreview-2384347523)
ACK fa8bd0be8432fda3c7312050433a6deb6722a073

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: add *FLAGS to gen_id":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31125#issuecomment-2428614747)
Concept ACK.

📝 fanquake locked 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
...

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31126)
This pull request updates the `README.md` file to improve its readability by formatting the first line as a markdown header. The change involves adding a hashtag at the beginning of the line, transforming "Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree" into "# Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree". This modification enhances the document structure, making it easier for users to identify the title at a glance.

No changes have been made to functions, global data structures, or external interfaces. Th
...

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Bitcoin"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31129)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "rpc: net: follow-ups for #30062"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30183)

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "Package validation: accept packages of size 1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#pullrequestreview-2384578222)
lgtm ACK 92ed1bd586f7048f75b38024521696ff04e5f69c

Though @stickies-v's [suggestion](92ed1bd586f7048f75b38024521696ff04e5f69c) would be a nice addition. This was non-obvious to me.

🤔 rkrux reviewed a pull request: "rpc: add getorphantxs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30793#pullrequestreview-2384597940)
Post Merge tACK 98c1536852d1de9a978b11046e7414e79ed40b46

Successful make and functional tests.

I tried to test this RPC in my local by connecting 2 nodes in the regtest env. However, I couldn't get an orphan transaction generated. I tried 2 ways:
1. Set `mempoolexpiry` to 1hr in one node and broadcast the child transaction 15mins after the parent transaction from the other node. Initially I expected the parent transaction to get dropped after an hour but now it didn't. My guess it's becau
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Rename `PACKAGE_*` variables to `CLIENT_*`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31042#issuecomment-2428794373)
Rebased due to the conflict with the merged https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26334.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2428837974)
Rebased.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "rest: Support transaction broadcast in REST interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31065#issuecomment-2428844570)
> One thing to consider is that this PR changes the REST interface from being read-only to also being able to "modify" node state (mempool in this case). This PR might introduce new considerations for someone exposing the REST interface to a local or even a public network: Someone who previously could only query information can now also publish transactions via the node.

Yes. Could it bring a security issue? Maybe someone could use this endpoint maliciously to spend resources?

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "fees: document non-monotonic estimation edge case":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31080#discussion_r1810430953)
```suggestion
* Note: In certain rare edge cases, monotonically increasing estimates may not be
* guaranteed. Specifically, given two targets N and M, where M > N, if a sub-estimate
* for target N fail to return a valid fee rate, while target M has valid fee rate for that
* sub-estimate, target M may result in a higher fee rate
* estimate than target N.
*
* See: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11800#issuecomment-349697807
```
I think the s
...