💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "validation: Remove RECENT_CONSENSUS_CHANGE validation result":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31269#issuecomment-2472317962)
To be able to differentiate `RECENT_CONSENSUS_CHANGE` errors, you'd need to revalidate txs up to three times instead of two (did this fail standardness? because of consensus rules? because of recent consensus rules?), which is probably more hassle (it's marginally easier for an attacker to use up CPU cycles) than it's worth (non-consensus compatible nodes stay well-connected for longer so are less likely to follow low-work chains). It's probably better dealt with via things like block-only-peers
...

💬 Talej commented on pull request "doc: corrected lockunspent rpc quoting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31275#issuecomment-2472323358)
Corrected additional RPC examples for gettxspendingprevout, createrawtransaction, signrawtransactionwithkey & addmultisigaddress

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "Package validation: accept packages of size 1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31096#discussion_r1839601505)
So you'd rather not take `else if (package.size() == 1 || //` still? I think it's an improvement for code comprehension if we end up handling single-tx here.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Spurious (?) valgrind failure for p2p_compactblocks.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27741#issuecomment-2472823441)
Steps to reproduce on a fresh Ubuntu 24.04:

```
export DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive && apt update && apt install curl wget htop git vim ccache -y && git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git --depth=1 ./b-c && cd b-c && apt install build-essential cmake pkg-config python3-zmq libzmq3-dev libevent-dev libboost-dev libsqlite3-dev libdb++-dev clang llvm valgrind -y && cmake -B ./bld-cmake -DBUILD_GUI=OFF -DBUILD_FUZZ_BINARY=OFF -DBUILD_BENCH=OFF -DWITH_ZMQ=OFF
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1839750202)
By "for listening" you mean "for learning new transactions and blocks", right? So, in that setup the node is not listening (not accepting inbound connections), has only one connection to a known honest node and broadcasts its own transactions using private broadcast? That seems like an useful setup that would be nice to have support for. But the current semantic of `-connect` is "only connect to the specified node(s)" which is at odds with "connect to random nodes for transaction broadcast". I d
...

⚠️ Sandra-Amina-Boss opened an issue: "Peue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31281)
Bitcoin on Coinbase: https://www.coinbase.com/price/bitcoin?utm_campaign=rt_i_m_w_m_acq_ugc_soc_0_asset&utm_source=ugc&utm_platform=Android

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Peue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31281)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Peue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31281)

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: " refactor: Make node_id a const& in RemoveBlockRequest "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31282)
Currently, `valgrind` is not usable on a default build with GCC. Specifically, `p2p_compactblocks.py --valgrind` gives a false-positive in `RemoveBlockRequest` when comparing `node_id` with `from_peer`. According to the upstream bug report, this happens because both symbols are on the stack and the compiler can more aggressively optimize the compare (order). See https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472329#c7

It is possible to work around this bug by pulling at least one value from the stack.
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: mention `descriptorprocesspsbt` in psbt.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31277)

🤔 Sjors reviewed a pull request: " refactor: Make node_id a const& in RemoveBlockRequest "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31282#pullrequestreview-2432510141)
Concept ACK

Only studied the main one line change.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request " refactor: Make node_id a const& in RemoveBlockRequest ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31282#discussion_r1839882117)
fa91206b3c570dc17ee18565ade04067a88e4ef8: this seems fine to me. The code is nicer and happens to fix a false positive.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: scope pkg-config to Linux only":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31276#issuecomment-2473092574)
Guix build (aarch64):
```bash
02cdb4ec345e0e4b2f3876dded48a468c864fe58515ae7e4d7f9a8c1c4911337 guix-build-7edc54b086ac/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
83d376375b1d5309108acc9e02711138c826d38fca0a73e7cc6048b21f3c4ab1 guix-build-7edc54b086ac/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-7edc54b086ac-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
25677323242badfd9be8c5fdbc71ecf9b663239842deb244bbca4bc90a311d4d guix-build-7edc54b086ac/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-7edc54b086ac-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
de94c7
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: scope pkg-config to Linux only":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31276#issuecomment-2473152977)
Dropped another patch and pruned a Qt libtool archive.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Introduce ensure_for helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30893#discussion_r1840013926)
reverted it

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Introduce ensure_for helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30893#discussion_r1840014484)
done

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Introduce ensure_for helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30893#discussion_r1840014778)
done

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: Introduce ensure_for helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30893#issuecomment-2473228711)
Addressed latest feedback from @maflcko

👍 vasild approved a pull request: "ci: skip Github CI on branch pushes for forks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30487#pullrequestreview-2432802018)
ACK 8610bcef9d030013f9e36cffe0c58dd2cfe85d66

👍 vasild approved a pull request: "addrman: cap the `max_pct` to not exceed the maximum number of addresses"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31235#pullrequestreview-2432819520)
ACK 9c5775c331e02dab06c78ecbb58488542d16dda7