💬 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

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838262310)
was a history error, not touching

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838262727)
will remove in follow up

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838264232)
will add in followup

🤔 BrandonOdiwuor reviewed a pull request: "cmake: Set top-level target output locations"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31161#pullrequestreview-2429867678)
Concept ACK

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1838264675)
will add in follow-up

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: Fix difficulty target generation in `p2p_headers_presync`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31213#discussion_r1837870794)
```suggestion
// should return the values below.
//
// RPC commands to verify:
// getblockheader 000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f
// getblockheader 0000000000000000000320283a032748cef8227873ff4872689bf23f1cda83a5
```

nit: Perhaps add the rpc commands that can be used to verify the values to the comment