💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "rpc: add `revelant_blocks` to `scanblocks status`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30713#discussion_r1904320752)
In commit "rpc: add relevant_blocks to scanblocks status" (4c9dc4bbe6b23ae7dba7badbdb6dd6c3d0f74e08)

Think this is missing a word, suggest "ensure this is _called_ before"

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "rpc: add `revelant_blocks` to `scanblocks status`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30713#discussion_r1904339347)
In commit "rpc: add relevant_blocks to scanblocks status" (4c9dc4bbe6b23ae7dba7badbdb6dd6c3d0f74e08)

Lock order here seems a little subtle. Would be good to have a comment saying it is important to lock this before calling reserve so if a scan is currently happening but is about to finish, an accurate "relevant_blocks" value can be returned before the scanning thread clears it.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "rpc: add `revelant_blocks` to `scanblocks status`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30713#discussion_r1904332839)
In commit "rpc: add relevant_blocks to scanblocks status" (4c9dc4bbe6b23ae7dba7badbdb6dd6c3d0f74e08)

Clearing `relevant_blocks` before checking `g_scanfilter_in_progress` seems not very nice, because it means if scanblocks start is called while another scan is in progress, instead of just returning an "already in progress" error, it will do that but also partially erase the state of the in-progress scan.

This behavior is not just a limitation of the new feature, but also a regression, beca
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "rpc: add `revelant_blocks` to `scanblocks status`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30713#discussion_r1904300535)
In commit "rpc: add relevant_blocks to scanblocks status" (4c9dc4bbe6b23ae7dba7badbdb6dd6c3d0f74e08)

It would be good to declare these next to `g_scanfilter_` variables so all global state is declared in one place, and so other functions besides `scanblocks` can see this information (other RPCs and maybe tests should be able to access it). Would suggest renaming `relevant_blocks` to `g_scanfilter_relevant_blocks` and `cs_relevant_blocks` to `g_scanfilter_relevant_blocks_mutex`. (The "critical
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Move kernel-related cache constants to kernel cache":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31483#issuecomment-2573467782)
Updated ad80e410b3bf8814cb5b997715ee8cb28f2a2a66 -> 54bdaaefbc683a61f3051dd90bbaf69de5d6cac5 ([kernel_cache_sizes_5](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernel_cache_sizes_5) -> [kernel_cache_sizes_6](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernel_cache_sizes_6), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernel_cache_sizes_5..kernel_cache_sizes_6))

* Addressed @hodlinator's [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31483#discussion_r1903999989), took sugg
...

💬 i-am-yuvi commented on pull request "qa: Improve framework.generate* enforcement (#31403 follow-up)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31599#issuecomment-2573527165)
> Also, a rebase would be good

Done!

💬 i-am-yuvi commented on pull request "func test: Expand tx download preference tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31437#issuecomment-2573560025)
Concept ACK

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add waitNext() to BlockTemplate interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31283#issuecomment-2573570012)
Rebased on the latest #31581.

I added a commit that on testnet3 and testnet4 returns a new template after 20 minutes, to take advantage of the min difficulty rule.

Since `miner_tests.cpp` uses mainnet, I created `testnet4_miner_tests.cpp` to cover this behaviour in the unit tests. A functional test could be added later using the testnet4 blocks added by #31583.

I also switched to using `NodeClock::now()` to be able to use mock time in tests.

💬 1440000bytes commented on issue "Fake bitcoin core website at the top of duckduckgo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31602#issuecomment-2573668394)
I submitted an [abuse report](https://abuse.cloudflare.com/phishing) for this related domains to cloudflare because its being used for DNS. They have forwarded the report to the responsible hosting provider (IQWeb FZ-LLC).

I see a warning now when I open this link in the browser:


💬 theuni commented on issue "cmake inconsistently overriding `-O3` (sometimes)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31491#issuecomment-2573690501)
I'd say this actually isn't a special case, rather it's fixing a logical bug in the current impl.

Currently, we essentially do: `echo "$CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE" | sed "s/-O3/-O2/"`.

Instead, I think we only want to do that if we're not overriding the user. Essentially the same as: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/28.x/configure.ac#L298

So basically the user will always get -O2, unless they change the optims by setting them in the supported/documented variable: `-DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_
...

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#pullrequestreview-2532569808)
Thanks for your feedback @Sjors and your review @TheCharlatan

I've forced pushed to see [diff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cd48e2ccaf24c9594f5987a29e02b924573134ed..ededdd13f3263df08f7878aa2514d3796436cbfb):
1. Add the `-maxcoinbaseweight` option with default as `8000`.
2. Address review comments from @TheCharlatan

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1904497444)
This is gone now.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1904447541)
done

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1904402308)
> Is there a material difference between this test block and the previous one that actually exercises the default coinbase weight?

There is no any material difference, removed.

> Could more exact weight accounting where the total weight is checked with assert_equal instead of assert_greater_than_or_equal in verify_block_template be useful?

It would be useful, but the reason why I am not is because there is a little disparity between the target weight and the actual weight.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1904495041)
I think it has.

I've even modified it to also use the correct weight and clarify the log.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1904497231)
fixed

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1904447430)
done.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1904495815)
This is fixed now.

💬 Eunovo commented on issue "assumevalid is not always applied when reindexing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31494#issuecomment-2573704148)
I added a test reproducing this bug https://github.com/eunovo/bitcoin/commit/5e1ff5fe2c7374f97eb56454099c1b235c75e23c

💬 Eunovo commented on issue "assumevalid is not always applied when reindexing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31494#issuecomment-2573707408)
> * always enable assumvalid while connecting blocks in the context of reindexing

Isn't it still valuable to check that the current block is an ancestor of the most work chain?