🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "rpc: Extend scope of validation mutex in generateblock"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31563#pullrequestreview-2522632931)
re-ACK fa63b8232f38e78d3c6413fa7d51809f376de75c

nice test!

💬 Candyman1878 commented on issue "b-msghand invoked oom-killer: Master (v28.99) crashing during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31561#issuecomment-2561981985)
I'm having a lot of trouble switching over my assets due to me not having access to my coin-daddy account or being able to update my email and phone number

⚠️ Aaronminer1 opened an issue: "Single-Glyph Bitcoin Transaction System"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31568)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

# Single-Glyph Bitcoin Transaction System

## 1. Core Concept

A single glyph would encode an entire Bitcoin transaction, including:
- Transaction ID
- Input/Output addresses
- Amounts
- Signatures
- Timestamp
- Network data

Think of it like a visual hash that contains all transaction information in a single symbol, but unlike a hash, it's:
- Fully decomposable
- Visually unique
- Instantly verifiable
- Human-distinguisha
...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "test: Add mockable steady clock, tests for PCP and NATPMP implementations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31022#discussion_r1897481126)
Correct. Thinking of it, we could define a constant for this in the MockableClock like `INITIAL_MOCK_TIME`. This would document it at the same time as preventing that mistake being made in future tests that use the mockable steady clock.

The alternative was to make the mock time in MockableClock an optional, but this would mean it could no longer simply be an atomic value, so was kind of a hassle compared to starting at non-zero.

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "rpc: Extend scope of validation mutex in generateblock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31563#issuecomment-2562085838)
reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/fa63b8232f38e78d3c6413fa7d51809f376de75c

Verified that the functional test added here usually fails on master[^1] (17/20 runs failed for me)

```console
$ git clean -dfx && git switch --detach fc7b2148 && git cherry-pick fa63b823
$ CC=clang CXX=clang++ cmake -B build && cmake --build build -j $(nproc)
$ ./build/test/functional/rpc_generate.py
[...]
2024-12-26T01:19:59.394000Z TestFramework (INFO): Generate blocks in parallel
2024-12-26T0
...

💬 i-am-yuvi commented on pull request "Extend signetchallenge to set target block spacing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29365#issuecomment-2562463835)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31446

This should fix the issue with CI failure!!

👍 i-am-yuvi approved a pull request: "Extend signetchallenge to set target block spacing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29365#pullrequestreview-2523126624)
Tested ACK 6ce1b0ed7b8e4115f5ffed4c51c1d4eb0d6d5ddf

Tested using various signet challenges(30s, 1min, 5 mins, 30mins, etc), worked as expected.

📝 vtjl10 opened a pull request: "fix: typos in documentation files"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31569)
This pull request contains changes to improve clarity, correctness and structure.

**Description correction:**
Corrected `block chain` to `blockchain` x2
Corrected `OLD_CMAKE_REQURED_FLAGS` to `OLD_CMAKE_REQUIRED_FLAGS` x4

Please review the changes and let me know if any additional changes are needed.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "fix: typos in documentation files"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31569)

💬 starius commented on pull request "Extend signetchallenge to set target block spacing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29365#issuecomment-2562913180)
I'll rebase after https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31468 is merged to make CI green.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Send correct notification during snapshot completion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31556#discussion_r1898015187)
I used `ensure_for` because otherwise the added test might not always have failed on master before (if the first check had been done immediately, before the incorrect notification was processed by the wallet, the balance would have still been 34).

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Send correct notification during snapshot completion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31556#discussion_r1898025732)
done

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Send correct notification during snapshot completion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31556#discussion_r1898025835)
removed, that was not on purpose

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Send correct notification during snapshot completion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31556#discussion_r1898026354)
Makes sense to me! I think that the code is self-explanatory enough that it's not necessary to keep the lines as comments, so I just removed them.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Send correct notification during snapshot completion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31556#issuecomment-2562963913)
[ca07531](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ca0753160a8ebc113e08d62c7b6cbe8fa98455e6) to [bc43eca](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/bc43ecaf6dc0830a27296d3a29428814fed07bb1):
Addressed feedback by @fjahr

📝 brunoerg opened a pull request: "test: descriptor: fix test for `MaxSatisfactionWeight`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31570)
To get the maximum size of a satisfaction for a descriptor with no max sig, the parameter `use_max_sig` should be false.

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "rpc: Extend scope of validation mutex in generateblock"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31563#pullrequestreview-2523410930)
utACK fa63b8232f38e78d3c6413fa7d51809f376de75c

I think in theory it would be sufficient to lock `m_chainstate_mutex` for the active chainstate instead of `cs_main` during `createNewBlock`, but I don't think it matters.

👍 murchandamus approved a pull request: "Remove unused variable assignment"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31497#pullrequestreview-2523421684)
I surmise that I was resetting `should_cut` in the loop that performs the "cut" operation, because performing the cut removes the need for a cut. I agree that the assignment to false is unnecessary, as the variables are recreated at the start of the loop, and starting with fresh variables each loop is easier to parse than instantiating outside of the loop and cleaning up after the operations.

ACK b9766c9977e58a9ebc358d9879576376e76a72b1

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "b-msghand invoked oom-killer: Master (v28.99) crashing during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31561#issuecomment-2563058140)
The node in question finished sync after I ran it inside heaptrace and is humming along just fine now. I printed out the flamegraph although I have trouble interpreting it:


💬 i-am-yuvi commented on issue "test: WARNING: ThreadSanitizer: lock-order-inversion (potential deadlock) (pid=32090)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30764#issuecomment-2563080650)
What's the status of this?? @maflcko ??