💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#issuecomment-2470681103)

rebased due to conflict with merge of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30592

going to go over all outstanding comments

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#issuecomment-2470706357)
The functional test runs correctly on my local environment:
``64/313 - rpc_settxfeerate.py passed, Duration: 1 s``

I don't know if anything needs to be done in the IC to run the tests correctly.
Help regarding this is greatly appreciated.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838215999)
should be the same, or even better since it's not being fetched from the mempool?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838230470)
If it's not in mempool or the package, then it can't have unconfirmed dust. Is there a scenario you're concerned about?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838232378)
might be heretical but I find as-is easier to read? Can add to follow-up if demand is there.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838237284)
I probably used it more than once before, will remove in follow-up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838238296)
good idea, will rename in follow-up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838239454)
think we're sticking with 0-fee both base and modified

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838240592)
will touch on follow-up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838241720)
will touch on followup

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838243525)
will handle on follow-up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838244559)
will touch in follow-up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838246221)
It shouldn't effect the complexity much, as the cost is scanning all the parents' outputs

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838251721)
will touch in follow-up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838253911)
I'll consider the other comment's suggestions, but this really is just a belt and suspenders, the caller is given no guarantees on if you're calling with nullptrs.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838255351)
good point, will take a look in followup

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838256440)
maybe touch in follow-up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838257019)
will touch in follow-up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838257543)
will touch in follow-up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838261372)
will do in follow-up