💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: warn on shutdown for big UTXO set flushes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31534#discussion_r1894920990)
The *large* part is important, we're not always displaying this, only when flushing is expected to take a long time

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "coins: warn on shutdown for big UTXO set flushes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31534#discussion_r1894921918)
It is grammatically incorrect to write "large N GiB".

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "coins: warn on shutdown for big UTXO set flushes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31534#discussion_r1894926926)
K, rephrased it to `Flushing large (1 GiB) UTXO set to disk, it may take several minutes`

👍 tdb3 approved a pull request: "coins: warn on shutdown for big UTXO set flushes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31534#pullrequestreview-2519642270)
re ACK 5709718b830161b7c2ba0db545ef0cfa98423597

👍 1440000bytes approved a pull request: "coins: warn on shutdown for big UTXO set flushes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31534#pullrequestreview-2519647341)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31534/commits/5709718b830161b7c2ba0db545ef0cfa98423597

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "guix: disable gcov in base-linux-gcc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31450#pullrequestreview-2519657730)
Post-merge ACK f6496a838828aa6d5a2a40380c2338fda2e0d812.

👍 tdb3 approved a pull request: "qa: Limit `-maxconnections` in tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31537#pullrequestreview-2519666841)
tested ACK d9d5bc2e7466033d989432f53a112325fa3d6d4a

Tested using NetBSD 10 (master fails with `Warning: Reducing -maxconnections from 125 to 96, because of system limitations`, while the PR branch does not).

Also simulated the fd constraint on Debian 12.8 with `ulimit -n256`. Master saw the warning (and test failure). The PR branch did not.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#issuecomment-2558527144)
I have pushed a substantial change to the `TxGraphImpl::GroupClusters` function. In a benchmark with 64000 transactions being combined into 1000 clusters, this makes it go from ~140ms to ~16ms. I will add the benchmark to this PR when I clean it up.

📝 sipa opened a pull request: "cluster mempool: add TxGraph reorg functionality"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31553)
Part of cluster mempool (#30289). Builds on top of #31444.

During reorganisations, it is possible that dependencies get add which result in clusters that violate policy limits (cluster count, cluster weight), when linking the new from-block transactions to the old from-mempool transactions. Unlike RBF scenarios, we cannot simply reject these policy violations when they are due to received blocks. To accommodate this, add a `TxGraph::Trim()`, which removes some subset of transactions (includin
...

💬 theStack commented on issue "RFC: support for writing UTXO set dump (`dumptxoutset` RPC) to a named pipe":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31373#issuecomment-2558601261)
> i'll review/test your PR when ready.
>
> i think 1 ,3 and 4 could/should be optional as it also can be handled by the process reading the pipe

Yes, I agree that named pipe creation (1) / deletion (4) and the call of the tool (3) shouldn't be done by the RPC itself. My plan was to base the change on #27432 and then provide an additional mode where the user has to provide the path to the bitcoin-cli binary rather than an input file, which would roughly do the following:
```
fifoname=/tmp
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#issuecomment-2558616951)
@alfonsoromanz While https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30909 is stalling a bit it seems like it is the way we'll move forward when there is some more review since there was no push back on concept/approach. So I would suggest you proceed here assuming that #30909 is acceptable. Ideally you would change this PR to have the second test standalone, if that's not possible you can base it on #30909.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Move kernel-related cache constants to kernel cache":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31483#issuecomment-2558635023)
Thank you for the suggestions @hodlinator, I appreciate the time you took for this. I was originally intent on tackling the 32bit case in a follow-up, mainly because I was thinking whether we should trap the max amount of cache at `numeric_limits<size_t>::max()`. That might be a bit friendlier than just running into an assert, some kind of allocation failure, or much less cache being allocated than requested. With your suggestions, I agree that this should be handled in this PR now.

🤔 PlatinumWrist5055 reviewed a pull request: "[28.x] 28.1rc2 backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31469#pullrequestreview-2519727585)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31418

💬 PlatinumWrist5055 commented on something "":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/0725a374941355349bb4bc8a79dad1affb27d3b9#commitcomment-150656825)
0725a374941355349bb4bc8a79dad1affb27d3b9

💬 PlatinumWrist5055 commented on something "":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/5be34bacf6d07fb73a0cedfb63a384968d538f3e#commitcomment-150657416)
src/qt/rpcconsole.cpp

💬 pythcoiner commented on issue "RFC: support for writing UTXO set dump (`dumptxoutset` RPC) to a named pipe":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31373#issuecomment-2558813248)
i'll take a look at 27432 then

💬 Msirma4life commented on something "":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ce6df7df9bab2405cfe7d6e382f5682cf30de476#r150659924)
[$motivation4eva](url)

👍 zaidmstrr approved a pull request: "rpc: Add signet_challenge field to getblockchaininfo and getmininginfo"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31531#pullrequestreview-2520063454)
Tested ACK [ecaa786](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31531/commits/ecaa786cc103cf7cc63ae899ec13d81a54e2fd1e)
I tested the changes on the default signet and the result provided by both `getblockchaininfo` and `getmininginfo` RPC includes `signet_challenge` field. I also manually reviewed the new code for any errors and missing statements.
The updated test `test/functional/feature_signet.py ` also works fine.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "ci: detect outbound internet traffic generated while running tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31349#discussion_r1895605317)
Yeah, I was thinking the same... Should I change it to the following?

```diff
- if [ ! -e "$f" ] && [ "$FILE_ENV" != "./ci/test/00_setup_env_native_asan.sh" ] ; then
+ if [ ! -e "$f" ] && [ "$CONTAINER_NAME" != "ci_native_asan" ] ; then
```

👍 vasild approved a pull request: "doc: Install `net/py-pyzmq` port on FreeBSD for `interface_zmq.py`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31526#pullrequestreview-2520424440)
ACK 0a76c292ac8fa29166a7ec6efda1fafce86af0d3

Without `net/py-pyzmq`:

```
$ .../interface_zmq.py
...
2024-12-23T11:21:49.815000Z TestFramework (WARNING): Test Skipped: python3-zmq module not available.
```

After `pkg install net/py-pyzmq` the test runs and passes, thanks!