💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Use std::span over Span":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31519#discussion_r1941983133)
I think it is fine. It is the short version of "The span objects must be 32 bytes each."

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: Use std::span over Span":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31519#discussion_r1941986868)
I find the suggestions helpful, I'm fine with moving them to doc separately.
The `span's` should likely be adjusted here as well, maybe to `instances of std::span` or something similar.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: Use std::span over Span":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31519#discussion_r1941987358)
Thanks, please resolve it

💬 theuni commented on pull request "build, ci: Fix linking `bitcoin-chainstate.exe` to `bitcoinkernel.dll` on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31158#issuecomment-2635223309)
> Rebased. The commit messages have been amended.
>
> @theuni
>
> > Wait, I take that back. It seems like we could still get 2 separate `cs_main`s here: one in the lib and the other in the binary. ACK retracted while I investigate.
>
> That's an interesting observation. Could you elaborate on how you think the two separate `cs_main` instances might arise?
>
> If there's a relevant section in the documentation or standard that you believe applies, pointing it out would be helpful for
...

💬 theuni commented on pull request "refactor: Use std::span over Span":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31519#discussion_r1941993667)
This looks like a good use-case for a static extent :)

(as a follow-up)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "bitcoind debug log file is growing without limit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31795#issuecomment-2635297607)


https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/18857/how-to-limit-the-debug-log-file-while-running-bitcoind

Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base.

General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or one of the Bitcoin subreddits, or any other place that you feel is well suited.

🤔 fjahr reviewed a pull request: "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#pullrequestreview-2594288643)
I left comments there but I don't want to bikeshed the release notes too much, so feel free to ignore them unless you have to retouch or don't want to address them.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1942035850)
nit

```suggestion
Before this pull request, the policy default for the maximum block weight was `3,996,000 WU`, calculated by
```

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1942039833)
Shouldn't this now be this?

```suggestion
const auto block_adjusted_max_weight = MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT - MINIMUM_BLOCK_RESERVED_WEIGHT;
```

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1942047954)
nit: I find it a bit confusing to mention policy here. While these values are stored in the policy file, this reads a bit like blocks wouldn't propagate when exceeding the values set there. But maybe that's just me...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1942057070)
This is repeating what is already explained above.

💬 ryanofsky commented on issue "test: 32-bit Clang `ipc_test` failure at `-O0`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31772#issuecomment-2635384042)
I tried to repeat previous steps rebuilding depends and test_bitcoin in container to figure out what I was doing that caused the test to stop crashing, but it seems to crash reliably, so I can't work out what I other changes I might have made while trying -fabi-version flags in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31772#issuecomment-2634917217 that would have caused it not to crash.

Additionally, I went back to original build and debugged it with GDB, and could easily step through and see
...

✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "bitcoind debug log file is growing without limit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31795)

⚠️ lilin998 opened an issue: "signet /README.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31798)
MINER="./contrib/signet/miner"
GRIND="./build/src/bitcoin-util grind"
$MINER calibrate --grind-cmd="$GRIND"
nbits=1e00f403 for 25s average mining time


CLI="./build/src/bitcoin-cli -conf=mysignet.conf"
ADDR=$($CLI -signet getnewaddress)
NBITS=1e00f403
$MINER --cli="$CLI" generate --grind-cmd="$GRIND" --address="$ADDR" --nbits=$NBITS


PSBT signing failed


How to solve this problem PSBT signing failed

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "signet /README.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31798#issuecomment-2635518680)
> PSBT signing failed

This happens when the wallet does not have the private key to sign valid signet blocks that satisfy the challenge

✅ lilin998 closed an issue: "signet /README.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31798)

⚠️ lilin998 reopened an issue: "signet /README.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31798)
MINER="./contrib/signet/miner"
GRIND="./build/src/bitcoin-util grind"
$MINER calibrate --grind-cmd="$GRIND"
nbits=1e00f403 for 25s average mining time


CLI="./build/src/bitcoin-cli -conf=mysignet.conf"
ADDR=$($CLI -signet getnewaddress)
NBITS=1e00f403
$MINER --cli="$CLI" generate --grind-cmd="$GRIND" --address="$ADDR" --nbits=$NBITS


PSBT signing failed


How to solve this problem PSBT signing failed

💬 lilin998 commented on issue "signet /README.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31798#issuecomment-2635526553)
> > PSBT 签名失败
>
> 当钱包没有私钥来签署满足挑战的有效签名块时，就会发生这种情况

root@iZt4n4iibil3u7hsxshmuwZ:~/bitcoin# bitcoin-cli -signet -conf=/root/bitcoin/mysignet.conf getwalletinfo
{
"walletname": "mysignet_wallet",
"walletversion": 169900,
"format": "sqlite",
"balance": 0.00000000,
"unconfirmed_balance": 0.00000000,
"immature_balance": 0.00000000,
"txcount": 4,
"keypoolsize": 4000,
"keypoolsize_hd_internal": 3999,
"paytxfee": 0.00000000,
"private_keys_enabled": true,
"avoid_reuse": false,
"
...

💬 lilin998 commented on issue "signet /README.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31798#issuecomment-2635527325)
This seems to have a private key.

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "signet /README.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31798#issuecomment-2635528630)
do you have the correct `signetchallenge` in `bitcoin.conf`?