💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "consensus: fix `OP_1NEGATE` handling in `CScriptOp`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29589#discussion_r1828276434)
This would mean that C++ (`IsSmallInteger` in solver.cpp) would have a different notion of a small interger.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "netinfo: add peer services column and outbound-only option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30930#issuecomment-2455664500)
ACK 87532fe55856efc063cf81244800da37a015ba75

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "[WIP] wallet: standardize change output detection process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25979#issuecomment-2455667569)
Hey @furszy, is this ready for review?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2455676532)
The questionable patch has been dropped.

My Guix build:
```
aarch64
73c719eba2956cefdad25d796b8c2a43c5831f39e3120c477f645d4aa6c95c6d guix-build-8c4cfec49fae/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
15cc088261e6b823a14ccbde8f606d4c7da857af9bdb3ca98820847f25eb4982 guix-build-8c4cfec49fae/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-8c4cfec49fae-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
4e2c83139e5bd2ed56b64143e258ea4e02ac29bb5bc64629bf63b2a8f9d32a82 guix-build-8c4cfec49fae/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-8c4
...

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "netinfo: add peer services column and outbound-only option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30930)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r1828373196)
The patch has been [dropped](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2455676532) in favour of amending the Guix script.

💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "build: Make G_FUZZING constexpr, require -DBUILD_FOR_FUZZING=ON to fuzz":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31191#issuecomment-2455681258)
> I think it lowers the barrier to start trying new tools if using them only requires toggling build options not creating entirely new build configurations.

I see what you're saying about tools being more accessible if they're able to be used within a single build. However, I do think with cmake it's straightforward to maintain separate builds for different purposes. And fuzz testing might be involved enough to warrant its own build.

I don't see many advantages to fuzzing in a normal build
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "doc: Extend developer-notes with file-name-only debugging fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30670#issuecomment-2455681847)
ACK 1b0b9b4c7873ff0c6323de0c7f439466eed06049

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "doc: Extend developer-notes with file-name-only debugging fix"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30670)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: add coin selection parameter `add_excess_to_recipient_position` for changeless txs with excess that would be added to fees":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30080#issuecomment-2455717534)
It's not entirely clear to me why BnB should care about whether the excess is going to the recipient or not. I don't think that should change the algorithm at all, so the changes to `SelectCoinsBnB` seem unnecessary.

Additionally, this implementation modifies the target, and I think that's rather dangerous to do. I think the obvious way to implement this feature is to just detect when the fee paid is greater than the fee needed, and send the excess to the recipient specified, just as we alrea
...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "BlockAssembler: return selected packages vsize and feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30391#discussion_r1828414346)
@glozow, is the idea of making `CFeeRate` a wrapper around `FeeFrac` better, as suggested https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#issuecomment-2254263266? If so, then no changes are needed, and we can proceed with this approach while pursuing that direction and mark this comment as resolved.
Otherwise, I'm happy to change this to `FeeFrac` as you suggested if it's a blocking comment.

⚠️ 1440000bytes opened an issue: "Authentication with KYC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31217)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

I want to see nodes doing KYC like https://github.com/cashubtc/nuts/pull/106 (account model)

### Is your feature related to a problem, if so please describe it.

Yes, the problem is everyone in the world thinks core has done nothing. But I think they have done a lot.

### Describe the solution you'd like

Close this issue.

### Describe any alternatives you've considered

_No response_

### Please leave any additional context

_No respon
...

⚠️ Sandra-Amina-Boss opened an issue: "Hm"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31218)
https://github.com/Axe-gift/lib-exchange-client/tree/master/javascript

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Hm"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31218)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Hm"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31218)

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1828421634)
I'll squash in the next force push

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Authentication with KYC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31217)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet: add target for spkm migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29694#discussion_r1828420886)
I think it would also be good to cover hd chain before hd chain split.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet: add target for spkm migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29694#discussion_r1828423452)
It would be nice to have multisig scripts here as the handling of ismine for that is quite complicated and having fuzz testing of it would be great.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet: add target for spkm migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29694#discussion_r1828421887)
Would it be possible for `script_count` to really be watchonly script count and just have it increment only when a watchonly script is added?