🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: fix asan task name"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27584)

⚠️ fanquake pinned an issue: "Libbitcoinkernel Project Tracking"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27587)
#### Project Board: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/18

This is the tracking issue for the `libbitcoinkernel` project. The original tracking issue is found in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24303. This issue contains much of the content written by Carl Dong in the original issue but is more regularly updated.

The libbitcoinkernel project is a new attempt at extracting our consensus engine. The kernel part of the name highlights one of the key functional differences fr
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1537116270)
[Background sync finshed catching up](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1536093556):
```bash
2023-05-06T06:42:11Z [msghand] UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000000104bcc48cdaaf080653751bfe4df10d2097f860abedd0 height=788463 version=0x30296000 log2_work=94.162512 tx=12944905 date='2023-05-06T06:40:07Z' progress=0.015582 cache=127.2MiB(988602txo)
2023-05-06T06:46:56Z [msghand] [background validation] UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000000454bc0c2b24c93b359d5eba2cf98d010
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "util: Use steady clock instead of system clock to measure durations"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27405)

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "msvc: Cleanup after upgrading libsecp256k1 up to 0.3.0"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27580#pullrequestreview-1415758516)
ACK d9b54c46ccb28af20eb03e1409d1a34dc2adccdb

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "BIP324: Cipher suite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25361#issuecomment-1537118786)
Closing for now. This will be picked up again later. BIP324 review attention should be directed towards #27479 and https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1129.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "BIP324: Cipher suite"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25361)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "BIP324: Add encrypted p2p transport {de}serializer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23233#issuecomment-1537118838)
Closing for now. This will be picked up again later. BIP324 review attention should be directed towards #27479 and https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1129.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "BIP324: Add encrypted p2p transport {de}serializer"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23233)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: BIP 30, CVE-2018-17144"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17860)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "msvc: Cleanup after upgrading libsecp256k1 up to 0.3.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27580#issuecomment-1537119113)
Note that this conflicts with #27479, however it's a single-line change, and 27479 will have to be rebased again after the secp changes are pulled into our tree, so I think we can go ahead and merge this in the interim. cc @sipa.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24545#issuecomment-1537119292)
Closing for now. This will be picked up again later. BIP324 review attention should be directed towards https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27479 and https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1129.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "BIP324: Enable v2 P2P encrypted transport"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24545)

💬 1ma commented on pull request "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1537136352)
Let it be known for the record that those of us who've been playing with https://github.com/supertestnet/breaker-of-jpegs are very much in favor of enacting a new standardness rule, not removing them. @benthecarman knows this, and citing that project as an example denotes bad faith.

If anything node runners need more control for filtering whatever they may want, such as this new kind of transactions who are abusing the "Lady Gaga Video Attack Vector" by exploiting a particular sequence of mea
...

💬 BullishNode commented on pull request "Allow accepting non-standard transactions on mainnet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27578#issuecomment-1537140748)
Strong NACK. Standardness rules protect the network from ddos and spam. The fact that you have to email a miner is a good thing: it's rate limiting.

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "assumeutxo: keep cache when flushing snapshot (#17487 followup)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27008#issuecomment-1537140998)
Actually this _is_ broken at the moment, since although we don't flush after snapshot load, we do flush (and not sync) in the MaybeRebalanceCaches() -> FlushStateToDisk() call right after activating the chainstate snapshot. Will close this and think about how to rework it.

✅ jamesob closed a pull request: "assumeutxo: keep cache when flushing snapshot (#17487 followup)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27008)

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1537141951)
Thanks for testing @fanquake and thanks for the torrent @Sjors. I've pushed some fixes, rebased, and CI is green.

> Runing through your steps above, everything seems to be working, except that my mempool was empty until I stopped and restarted bitcoind?

Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606/commits/7cbbf2adad5a7760d6db389790062fee959943a6 - forgot to swap the `m_mempool` references on snapshot activation. I've verified that the mempool now starts to populate during backgro
...

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1537145078)
The history of the pull request is getitng unwieldy; the 400+ comments are now creating a situation where comments (like the testing instructions) posted a few days ago are buried under a minute of clicking "load more."

I've added the testing instructions to the PR description, but should I consider opening a fresh PR? Do we have any process for dealing with this Github limitation?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1537145783)
@jamesob I would be in favour of you opening a new PR (carrying over relevant current context into the description, and pointing back to anything else relevant). I ran into the same annoyance today, when trying to leave my most recent comment. Having to expand 400+ comments check recent discussion/context, is not great.