👍 theStack approved a pull request: "Ephemeral Dust"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#pullrequestreview-2414414598)
ACK 131bed19bdfc922328cad9781fa9122b6810a8fd

💬 theStack commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1828578790)
nit: should ideally be already part of the commit that introduces this function for minimal diff (here and in header)

💬 theStack commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1828577696)
nit: missing closing double quote

📝 secp512k2 opened a pull request: "doc: Fix word order in developer-notes.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31220)
This pull request fixes a word order error in developer-notes.md.

Before:

"In cases where do you call .c_str(), you might want to additionally check that the string does not contain embedded '\0' characters..."

After:

"In cases where you do call .c_str(), you might want to additionally check that the string does not contain embedded '\0' characters..."

Explanation:

The sentence had incorrect word order, making it grammatically incorrect. Rearranging "do you" to "you do" correct
...

👍 rkrux approved a pull request: "test: enable running independent functional test sub-tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30991#pullrequestreview-2414999263)
ACK e96823bdcc2317fbf0bed64e53a1b3e5bb8f00f6

Thanks for quickly addressing the feedback.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "test: enable running independent functional test sub-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30991#discussion_r1828979986)
> or other methods.

Nit: This can be reworded though because the following snippet works.

```
def calculate(self, val):
return val

def sample_calculator(self):
self.log.info("Sample calculator running")
x = self.calculate(2 + 3)
self.log.info(f'Calculated x to be: {x}')
```

```
➜ bitcoin git:(09-2024-run-ind-functional-test) ✗ build/test/functional/feature_config_args.py --test_methods test_log_buffer test_args_log sample_calculator
``
...

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "test: enable running independent functional test sub-tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30991#discussion_r1828966839)
Ok I didn't know that all tests will not have the test prefix. Sounds good then.

💬 remyers 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-2456675338)
> 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 already do when there are change outputs.

Thanks for the feedback. I agree and think for our use we can even do that diff outside of bitcoind. I'll update the PR.

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Fatal LevelDB error: Corruption: block checksum mismatch on Linux ext4 SATA SSDs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30692#issuecomment-2456696504)
> I can test this out on a Ryzen CPU with ZFS on SSD (but with only dual channel DDR4).
>
> * Is there anything else about the config that you can provide so I can try to reproduce?
>
> * What is your ZFS pool setup like?
>
> * Is your SSD also SATA-connected like OP?
>
> * Are you running any Bitcoin Core options that may be relevant?

OK I could not reproduce this on either a native ZFS zpool nor an "ext4 on ZFS" zpool (configurations found here: https://github.co
...

💬 vasild commented on issue "Setting torcontrol overrides proxy address":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25265#issuecomment-2456720675)
> According to my understanding bitcoin core designed automatically to configure tor when using `torcontrol,`

It automatically configures the location of the Tor proxy, used for outgoing connections to Tor. Don't confuse this with the creation of the Tor hidden service for accepting incoming connections from Tor, that is controlled by `-listenonion=0|1`.

@kroese, it is a bit unclear from the OP, did it connect to torcontrol and retrieve an invalid proxy from there? That is, `127.0.0.1:9050
...

💬 kroese commented on issue "Setting torcontrol overrides proxy address":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25265#issuecomment-2456762045)
@vasild I cannot remember anymore, it was two years ago that I ran into this behaviour. So feel free to close it.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "optimization: Speed up Base58 encoding/decoding by 400%/200% via preliminary byte packing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29473#issuecomment-2456773318)
Thanks for checking it out @achow101.
I could make the diff minimal, but given that it's not that important, I will leave it as is - until someone starts complaining that `listunspent` is slow :)

👍 vasild approved a pull request: "test: create assert_not_equal util"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29500#pullrequestreview-2415263506)
Almost ACK 1d722660a6, modulo squash of the two commits.

This is a nice addition.

It is better to squash the two commits into one because IMO it does not make sense to first add the import in one commit and in another commit to use it. That way it becomes difficult to review whether an unnecessary import was added to some file. Also some python linter that tests each commit could be upset about the unused imports in the first commit.

I found it easier to read the diff itself instead of
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Update secp256k1 subtree to v0.6.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31216#issuecomment-2456856188)
> v0.6.0 was just released, main change is that it has the musig module which #29675 needs.

Should we disable the musig module in this PR and enable it only when it is needed?

💬 vasild commented on pull request "ci: skip Github CI on branch pushes for forks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30487#issuecomment-2456862790)
Concept ACK

> A use case that was mentioned to me offline is that some people, before opening a PR to the main repo, like to push their branch and have CI check it.

FWIW I do that but I have a dedicated dummy branch which is associated with a PR to merge it into my copy of `master`. So I never merge that PR and keep `push -f`ing into the dummy branch to test.

✅ ryanofsky closed an issue: "bench: `linearizeoptimallyexample11` benchmark now running 4x slow than previously"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31178)

🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "build: Make G_FUZZING constexpr, require -DBUILD_FOR_FUZZING=ON to fuzz"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31191)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "intermittent issue in wallet_upgradewallet.py: AssertionError: bdb magic does not match bdb btree magic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31210#issuecomment-2456883152)
Not sure how to fix this. IIUC neither podman (https://github.com/containers/podman/issues/11415#issuecomment-912015581), nor docker (https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/rootless/#known-limitations) support rootless zfs.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "build: Make G_FUZZING constexpr, require -DBUILD_FOR_FUZZING=ON to fuzz":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31191#issuecomment-2456883737)
Went ahead and merged this since it has enough ACKs, and it sounds like the concerns I have about drawbacks of this PR don't seem to be shared by the other reviewers. I think it would be nice if fuzzing could be turned on without turning every else off, and this approach will probably make me a little less likely to start writing fuzz tests, and prefer writing unit tests instead for convenience. But status after this PR isn't worse than the status before #31093, and this approach can always be r
...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "net: Use actual memory size in receive buffer accounting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31164#discussion_r1829166070)
yes, explaining it more would make sense!

but i think it's out of scope for this PR