💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#discussion_r1838824308)
fix-ups should be squashed according to `contributing.md` guidelines.

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#discussion_r1838902865)
That was a mistake in the previous commit, as it's the ``settxfee`` function and not ``settxfeerate``.

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "test: create assert_not_equal util":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29500#issuecomment-2471793963)
rebased to [6590b26](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29500/commits/6590b267015ad094dfcbacad521c30207fe199bd)

and I can address your latest comments soon

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#issuecomment-2471842227)
> Feerate estimate from fee estimation algorithm should be used in most cases, and when that algorithm is deem inaccurate by users should they should pass the fee rate for each individual transaction.

I agree that the algorithm should be used in most cases, and actually that's how it's working according to the RPC call definition. By default it uses the dynamic fee so this is only an extra option to set a static fee in case anyone needs too.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/b96cfae733
...

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#discussion_r1839061111)
Good point, added!

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#discussion_r1839068782)
That's what we have the `-deprecatedrpc` parameter for

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#discussion_r1839069865)
This file didn't exist before 2024, so it should just say 2024

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "WIP: scripted-diff: Type-safe settings retrieval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31260#issuecomment-2472025885)
Updated 416860fc360b3d5aa1a0782ab8f8454b46e6d657 -> 47e30b40eca0eabf85d45e91fc247a74f3a346e8 ([`pr/scripty.1`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/scripty.1) -> [`pr/scripty.2`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/scripty.2), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/scripty.1..pr/scripty.2)) getting the remaining binaries (not just test_bitcoin and bitcoind) to build, simplifying the way optional and default values are used, making many other cleanups and
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#discussion_r1839083891)
Looking back it seems like we haven't hidden them, just deprecated. That's also what I would suggest here.

💬 adamandrews1 commented on pull request "addrman: cap the `max_pct` to not exceed the maximum number of addresses":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31235#issuecomment-2472050919)
Code Review ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9c5775c331e02dab06c78ecbb58488542d16dda7

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#discussion_r1839107296)
Do you have an example of deprecated RPC so I can compare on how it was done before?

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "Ephemeral Dust"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "policy: ephemeral dust followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31279#issuecomment-2472070642)
Time to sweep the ephemeral top 9 commits

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: Settxfeerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31278#discussion_r1839141717)
Checking a few of these should give you an overview: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?q=is%3Apr+Deprecate+in%3Atitle+rpc+in%3Atitle+is%3Aclosed+

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1839154278)
Was just focused on handling edge cases (and preventing harder to notice issues later). Not sure if there's a scenario involving orphaning that might play out (haven't thought through all scenarios).

👍 tdb3 approved a pull request: "doc: mention `descriptorprocesspsbt` in psbt.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31277#pullrequestreview-2431387717)
ACK ebb6cd82baf8406454b18afcb8ccb4e1dde0d43e

Good catch

💬 sipa commented on pull request "doc: mention `descriptorprocesspsbt` in psbt.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31277#issuecomment-2472112979)
ACK ebb6cd82baf8406454b18afcb8ccb4e1dde0d43e

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: Rework wallet_migration.py to use previous releases":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31248#discussion_r1839276726)
Done. Also added a test for non-existent wallets and this uncovered a bug.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: remove BDB dependency from wallet migration benchmark":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31241#issuecomment-2472224245)
While this does remove the BDB requirement, it doesn't remove the reliance on legacy wallet specific code that will be removed. Would it be possible to change this to create a wallet with a `LegacyDataSPKM` without utilizing any of the legacy wallet functions?

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "test: create assert_not_equal util":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29500#issuecomment-2472249506)
yes @rkrux you are right if I want to use a scripted diff then all the changes must be done using the script

I can remove the scripted diff and just squash them into a single diff since right now the script is getting very large already if that is preferred by others