💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "doc: Clarify comments about endianness after #30526":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31596#discussion_r1904818269)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31596#discussion_r1901981925

Thanks, fixed in a followup branch.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "doc: Clarify comments about endianness after #30526":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31596#discussion_r1904820403)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31596#discussion_r1901655760

> Could we unify the rest as well

To follow up, I looked at occurrences of `"txid"`, `"wtxid"`, and `"hash"` (quoted strings) in the RPC code and found dozens of fields that could be updated to be consistent. It seems more challenging than I expected to update all the documentation, and now I'm also wondering if might actually be harmful to mention reversed bytes in some cases but not others, because this might give t
...

💬 starius commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#issuecomment-2574305884)
@achow101 I tried the updated version (2da3f0e659d3e89da0cdf525f8ce370bb35365a1).
I tested GUI flow - it works the same (doesn't produce a transaction).
I also re-tested `walletprocesspsbt` flow - now it is also broken:

```
walletprocesspsbt "cHNidP8BAH4CAAAAAfkoG4WU8+OG7ihR9ax1V+NQK6C9ZIEbsNH8qfB/A90YAAAAAAD9////AlcDAAAAAAAAF6kUp6q1daWOXVcRwue0FRtYgEAxvTCHKCMAAAAAAAAiUSBug0N9qhtsEJizov7RUbZtdDokLCvlo5+zNl+ocwJn636BAwAAAQErECcAAAAAAAAiUSBZP7q1V48G5XegaVSU+plRyc0hddLNxEwKjgaxGnEVXwEDBAEAAAA
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#issuecomment-2574390155)
> @achow101 I tried the updated version ([2da3f0e](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/2da3f0e659d3e89da0cdf525f8ce370bb35365a1)). I tested GUI flow - it works the same (doesn't produce a transaction). I also re-tested `walletprocesspsbt` flow - now it is also broken:

Ah, the sighash stuff needs a bit more work, and it also has impacts outside of MuSig support.

For the GUI workflow, if you apply https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/850 on top of 3649c2e, it should "work". However
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "ci: build msan's libc++ with _LIBCPP_ABI_BOUNDED_*":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31612#issuecomment-2574425798)
@maflcko, good question. I guess the answer is "yes". @ldionne, @var-const is it indeed the case that if libc++ itself is compiled with `_LIBCPP_ABI_BOUNDED_*`, then the user programs that link against such a libc++ must be compiled with `_LIBCPP_ABI_BOUNDED_*` as well?

In this PR we have a libc++ with and a user program without `_LIBCPP_ABI_BOUNDED_*` and it results in:
```
undefined reference to `std::__1::basic_string<char, std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> >::insert
...

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "rpc: allow writing UTXO set to a named pipe, introduce dump_to_sqlite.sh script":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31560#issuecomment-2574452128)
Can we make the exists/is_fifo/open atomic somehow? Seems liable to have a race here someday...

💬 Bloodsworth24 commented on issue "Fuzz: Runtime errors when running fuzz tests on MacOs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31591#issuecomment-2574469504)
cmake --preset=libfuzzer

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Add checkblock RPC and checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31564#issuecomment-2574470589)
The new RPC interface is redundant with the existing BIP 23 block proposals support.

P.S. DATUM does not provide a way for the pool to reject valid blocks. There is no approval of templates.

💬 Eunovo commented on issue "assumevalid is not always applied when reindexing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31494#issuecomment-2574487485)
> Thanks, nice test (which should fail on master if I understand it correctly)!

Yes, it does.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add waitNext() to BlockTemplate interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31283#issuecomment-2574567897)
Rebased after #31581 landed, marking ready for review again.

👋 Sjors's pull request is ready for review: "Add waitNext() to BlockTemplate interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31283)

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "failure in wallet_sendall.py --descriptors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31571)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "failure in wallet_sendall.py --descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31571#issuecomment-2574650741)
Ok, closing for now

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "BlockAssembler: return selected packages virtual size and fee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30391#discussion_r1905067911)
> However, we do not name these vectors vCAmounts, vInts, or vUnsignedChars. Instead, they are named based on some context, such as vTxFees, vTxSigOpsCost, and vchCoinbaseCommitment.
For this reason, I believe naming this vector vFeeFrac does not add much clarity because thats obvious.
Instead, I consider vFeerateHistogram to be the closest meaningful name, based on the context of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21422.

I agree with naming variables based on context, this is quite a
...

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "Building `--with-experimental-kernel-lib` fails on OpenBSD 7.2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27242)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Building `--with-experimental-kernel-lib` fails on OpenBSD 7.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27242#issuecomment-2574675548)
Closing for now. A new issue can be opened, if this still happens on current master.

✅ maflcko closed an issue: " (bitcoin core warning: unknown new rules activated versionbit 2) "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31536)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add checkblock RPC and checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31564#issuecomment-2574685525)
Rebased after https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31581 landed. I also cherry-picked the latest relevant commits from #31583.

@luke-jr I dropped DATUM from the description, since there's still no spec it's hard to understand what it actually does.

The `checkblock` RPC is indeed almost the same as `getblocktemplate` in `proposal` mode. The main difference is that it can check (reduced) proof-of-work. My long term goal for this new method is to make it more powerful by e.g. adding new tr
...

👍 hodlinator approved a pull request: "qa: Improve framework.generate* enforcement (#31403 follow-up)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31599#pullrequestreview-2533848399)
re-ACK 1b51616f2e3b58a1c63a19e6dba8e7e9c2aefdeb

```
₿ git range-diff master a3f5573^ 1b51616
...
26: b3100b02c5 = 40: 1b51616f2e test: improve rogue calls in mining functions
```
(Second commit dropped due to typo being fixed in master).

Thanks for adjusting the PR title!

🤔 BrandonOdiwuor reviewed a pull request: "qa: Use `sys.executable` when invoking other Python scripts"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31541#pullrequestreview-2533858451)
Concept ACK