📝 EthanHeilman opened a pull request: "tests: improves tapscript unit tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31640)
This commit creates new test utilities for future Taproot script tests within script_tests.json. The key features of this commit are the addition of three new tags: `#SCRIPT#`, `#CONTROLBLOCK#`, and `#TAPROOTOUTPUT#`. These tags streamline the test creation process by eliminating the need to manually generate these components outside the test suite.

* `#SCRIPT#`: Parses Tapscript and outputs a byte string of opcodes.
* `#CONTROLBLOCK#`: Automatically generates the control block for a given T
...

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#issuecomment-2584992376)
> Currently, we do not add the sighash field to PSBTs at all, even when we have signed with a non-default sighash. **This PR changes the behavior such that when we (attempt to) sign with a sighash other than DEFAULT or ALL, the sighash type field will be added to the PSBT to inform the later signers that a different sighash type was used by a signer.** Notably, this is necessary for MuSig2 support as all signers must sign using the same sighash type, but the sighash is not provided in partial si
...

💬 scgbckbone commented on pull request "psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#discussion_r1911868423)
is there any specific reason to allow SIGHASH_DEFAULT on non-taproot utxo? Shouldn't it be error instead of rewriting sighash in `sign.cpp`

```
// BASE/WITNESS_V0 signatures don't support explicit SIGHASH_DEFAULT, use SIGHASH_ALL instead.
const int hashtype = nHashType == SIGHASH_DEFAULT ? SIGHASH_ALL : nHashType;
```

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31639)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "cmake: Set top-level target output locations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31161#issuecomment-2585196535)
re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31161#issuecomment-2583073982

> @ryanofsky wrote:
>
> > Possibly, it might make sense to build bitcoin-chainstate.exe and bitcoinkernel.dll to libexec/ instead of bin/.
>
> I like that as well. If we add them to the release later, they won't clutter `bin/`.

Moved to `libexec/`. cc @TheCharlatan

> Now is also a good time to move `bitcoin-util` there, because it's only used by our test code (and for calibrating a new signet).

Done.

r
...

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "optimization: batch XOR operations 12% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#issuecomment-2585199785)
> bitcoind -dbcache=30000 -stopatheight=878000 -blocksdir=/magnetic/.bitcoin -addnode=local-network

@Sjors, what kind of drive is `/magnetic/`?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "wallet: Cleanup accidental encryption keys in watchonly wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28724#issuecomment-2585200022)
The new code in `test/functional/wallet_encryption.py` [fails](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin-core-nightly/actions/runs/12720574600/job/35462426268) on NetBSD:
```
230/313 - wallet_encryption.py --legacy-wallet failed, Duration: 8 s

stdout:
2025-01-11T03:37:44.955000Z TestFramework (INFO): PRNG seed is: 6983165365525497692
2025-01-11T03:37:44.956000Z TestFramework (INFO): Initializing test directory /home/runner/work/bitcoin-core-nightly/bitcoin-core-nightly/test_runner_₿_🏃_20250111_
...

🤔 naiyoma reviewed a pull request: "rpc: print P2WSH witScript in getrawtransaction"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31252#pullrequestreview-2544716718)
I've tested https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31252/commits/43dbc696b9e9bb5472b01708d33e022042b5ce3b on regtest, and both (P2SH redeemScript and P2WSH witnessScript )are only being decompiled when calling getblock … 2. I think you should consider editing the PR description to indicate exactly what is working so far.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "optimization: batch XOR operations 12% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#issuecomment-2585263747)
I think I managed to reproduce the ~2% difference - by not doing an IBD but a `-reindex-chainstate`.
@Sjors, was your datadir completely empty for the runs? My 12% comes from having nothing locally (e.g. no blocks) to being fully synced (i.e. has to include the final flush as well) - to be as close to the user's experience as possible.

<details>
<summary>Details</summary>

```
hyperfine \
--runs 2 \
--parameter-list COMMIT d73f37dda221835b5109ede1b84db2dc7c4b74a1,fe7365584bb3703e5691c
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Move kernel-related cache constants to kernel cache":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31483#issuecomment-2585284602)
Thank you for the re-newed reviews and your suggestions @ryanofsky and @stickies-v. I hope we can settle on something this time round:

Updated 82706e217f34d1f09cbd30dde6b8ae5ac0385f0a -> 45fe603f8fd94c171f5ce1a38bc20d273baa9b1b ([kernel_cache_sizes_11](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernel_cache_sizes_11) -> [kernel_cache_sizes_12](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernel_cache_sizes_12), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernel_cache_sizes_11.
...

📝 satscoffee opened a pull request: "Comment coypright date update"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31642)
doc: updated comments in line 1 from:

// Copyright (c) 2012-2022 The Bitcoin Core developers
to
// Copyright (c) 2012-2025 The Bitcoin Core developers


PR was for comment update only so no testing was performed.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "tests: improves tapscript unit tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31640#issuecomment-2585300460)
is this in draft for a reason?

💬 NicolaLS commented on pull request "doc: merge required dependency tables":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31634#issuecomment-2585301823)
I agree that the previous version or this PR did not make sense for clearing up the confusion. I force pushed a new approach and amended the commit message / PR description.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Comment coypright date update"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31642)

👍 tdb3 approved a pull request: "rpc: add gettarget , target getmininginfo field and show next block info"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31583#pullrequestreview-2545082647)
code review re ACK 58b828f7f7ad216c7d7bf2e2ff431a66591e9d5c

The data file is down to 71K, which is much nicer!

`mining_mainnet.py` ran locally without issue.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "rpc: add gettarget , target getmininginfo field and show next block info":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31583#discussion_r1912095692)
nit: Is it 2 and above?

```diff
- above 2
+ to at least 2
```

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/35bf426e02210c1bbb04926f4ca2e0285fbfcd11/src/consensus/tx_check.cpp#L47-L51

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "rpc: add gettarget , target getmininginfo field and show next block info":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31583#discussion_r1912180713)
Wonder if it would be sufficient to grind only the nonce if starting with a testnet genesis block (instead of mainnet), but not sure it's worth digging into. It might allow removing the timestamps from `mainnet_alt.json` (reducing 35KB of the current 71KB), but the current approach is already more manageable that the previous ~1MB.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "rpc: add gettarget , target getmininginfo field and show next block info":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31583#discussion_r1912123038)
If retouching, looks like we can adjust
```diff
- f'--nbits={hex(DIFF_1_N_BITS)}',
+ f'--nbits={DIFF_1_N_BITS:08x}',
```

Currently the `0x` is included.

Looks like parts of `miner` expect no `0x` though (8 hex digits):

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/35bf426e02210c1bbb04926f4ca2e0285fbfcd11/contrib/signet/miner#L465-L467

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/35bf426e02210c1bbb04926f4ca2e0285fbfcd11/contrib/signet/miner#L356-L359

```python
>>> f'--nbits={hex(DIFF_1_N
...

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "rpc: add `relevant_blocks` to `scanblocks status`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30713#discussion_r1912183107)
Thanks. Will include in next update.

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "rpc: add `relevant_blocks` to `scanblocks status`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30713#discussion_r1912183235)
Will include