💬 i-am-yuvi commented on issue "test: 999 of 999 multisig":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28179#issuecomment-2563083221)
What's the status of this??? @Sjors?? If no one is working I can take this up??

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "Add checkblock RPC and checkBlock() to Mining interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31564#pullrequestreview-2523480948)
The newly introduced `CheckNewBlock()` looks very similar to the existing `TestBlockValidity()` which was just removed from the mining interface in bfc4e029d41ec3052d68f174565802016cb05d41 - it just seems to be a bit more verbose and allows the multiplier for the PoW. Did you consider merging these functions, so that we don't have multiple functions in validation that basically do the same thing?

👍 tdb3 approved a pull request: "test: descriptor: fix test for `MaxSatisfactionWeight`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31570#pullrequestreview-2523544300)
ACK 00ec80b24ec32ac695d947587dd0f860fc6f1efa
lgtm

🤔 tdb3 reviewed a pull request: "Add checkblock RPC and checkBlock() to Mining interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31564#pullrequestreview-2523532175)
Concept ACK

> Instead of a multiplier I could also allow a custom target. This would give weak block systems more flexibility on how to derive their difficulty.

I'd be in favor of this. It's more flexible, could prevent interface churn, and if the user wishes to create the custom target from a simple multiplication they could do the multiplication on their end.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "Add checkblock RPC and checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31564#discussion_r1898141894)
`CheckWeakProofOfWork()` seems really similar to `CheckProofOfWorkImpl()`. Maybe I'm missing something simple. What was the rationale for creating the new function vs adding an argument?

✅ pilab-gwon closed an issue: "[Testnet] Insufficient data or no feerate found"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31032)

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "validation: Send correct notification during snapshot completion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31556#issuecomment-2563545464)
re-ACK bc43ecaf6dc0830a27296d3a29428814fed07bb1

⚠️ SwimmingRieux opened an issue: "failure in wallet_sendall.py --descriptors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31571)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

When I try to run functional tests using `build/test/functional/test_runner.py`, only 1 test gets failed:


error :
`Temporary test directory at /tmp/test_runner_₿_🏃_20241227_142837
usage: create_cache.py [options]
create_cache.py: error: unrecognized arguments:
...

💬 jaeheonshim commented on issue "Stale code (that has no effect)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31558#issuecomment-2563689342)
With the current unit tests, I don't think ceil away from zero will pass unit tests. The way the logic is currently implemented, negative values are rounded up towards zero unless they are greater than -1, in which case they are instead rounded down towards -1. I'm not sure if this is the intended behavior, but if a fix like this were to be implemented:

```
double value = nSatoshisPerK * nSize / 1000.0;
nFee = static_cast<CAmount>(std::copysign(std::ceil(std::abs(value)), value));
```

T
...

📝 jaeheonshim opened a pull request: "refactor: Remove redundant edge case in fee rate rounding logic"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31572)
Positive fractional fee rates are already rounded away from zero, so the first half of this if-statement is unnecessary:

```
if (nFee == 0 && nSize != 0) {
if (nSatoshisPerK > 0) nFee = CAmount(1);
if (nSatoshisPerK < 0) nFee = CAmount(-1);
}
```

Addresses #31558. This fix improves code readability.

🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "net, net_processing: additional and consistent disconnect logging"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28521)

💬 furszy commented on pull request "test: descriptor: fix test for `MaxSatisfactionWeight`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31570#discussion_r1898539802)
Haven't verified all the scenarios but maybe you could verify that `max_sat_nonmaxsig < max_sat_maxsig` (or <= if that causes any complication).

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add checkblock RPC and checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31564#discussion_r1898543849)
Just that I didn't want to touch `CheckProofOfWorkImpl`.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add checkblock RPC and checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31564#issuecomment-2563756657)
> The newly introduced `CheckNewBlock()` looks very similar to the existing `TestBlockValidity()`

It looks like I ended up with a similar design after a long detour. I'll look into combining these.

> Instead of a multiplier I could also allow a custom target

@instagibbs is there any reason you went for a multiplier?

🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "coins: warn on shutdown for big UTXO set flushes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31534)

💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#issuecomment-2563810059)
> @alfonsoromanz While #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.

Thanks for the feedback @fjahr! I will be working on this

⚠️ otech47 opened an issue: "Running out of memory on a 2GB box - Initializing chainstate Chainstate [ibd] @ height -1 (null)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31573)
I have a server running a pruned bitcoind node as a Docker container with 2G RAM. There are some other services using maybe 500MB of the RAM but I got into a state where bitcoind tries to initialize the chainstate but then starts sucking up all the available RAM so it gets killed with OOM error. Docker then restarts it and it loops like this forever

I tried to configure bitcoind to be constrained to low memory but it doesn't seem to have any effect

```
[main]
printtoconsole=1
rpcallowip
...

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "wallet: refactor: various master key encryption cleanups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31398#pullrequestreview-2524287853)
Concept ACK, nice code dedup.

💬 danielabrozzoni commented on pull request "rpc: combinerawtransaction now rejects unmergeable transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31298#discussion_r1898656359)
I don't think it's needed to clear the script witness, as it's not taken into account when calculating the txid

📝 SecondPort opened a pull request: "Fix memory issue during chainstate initialization on 2GB box"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31574)
Fixes #31573

---

For more details, open the [Copilot Workspace session](https://copilot-workspace.githubnext.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31574?shareId=adfd9f84-4320-4707-98a2-35d355535cbf).