💬 hebasto commented on issue " Cannot figure out how to use std::atomic error for MacOS Sequoia 15.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31579#issuecomment-2636702426)
I assume this issue can now be closed.

✅ maflcko closed an issue: " Cannot figure out how to use std::atomic error for MacOS Sequoia 15.2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31579)

💬 maflcko commented on issue " Cannot figure out how to use std::atomic error for MacOS Sequoia 15.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31579#issuecomment-2636783895)
Closing for now, as this seemed to be an upstream issue that was fixed by a re-install.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Use std::span over Span":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31519#discussion_r1942903118)
thx, done

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Use std::span over Span":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31519#discussion_r1942903310)
thx, done

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Use std::span over Span":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31519#discussion_r1942903540)
Pushed the typo fix, so closing this for now.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: Use std::span over Span":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31519#issuecomment-2636796621)
ACK fa77685ba5c7185781acca04f57399cdcd19e9f7

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "test: add validation for gettxout RPC response"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30226#pullrequestreview-2595718629)
code review ACK 723440c5b8eb3a815c80bfb37ad195b5448b25ed

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Use std::span over Span":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31519#discussion_r1942909288)
(Resolving for now, but I am still happy to reword or remove the comment.)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "ci: build multiprocess on most jobs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30975#issuecomment-2636816161)
CI got rate limited:

```
[08:08:36.286] Error: creating build container: initializing source docker://ubuntu:24.04: reading manifest 24.04 in docker.io/library/ubuntu: toomanyrequests: You have reached your pull rate limit. You may increase the limit by authenticating and upgrading: https://www.docker.com/increase-rate-limit
```

💬 Sjors commented on issue "CI: Failed pulls from docker.io causing jobs to fail":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31797#issuecomment-2636820896)
@maflcko can you re-run #30975 as well?

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "rpc, logging: return "verificationprogress" of 1 when up to date":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31177#discussion_r1942925643)
Haven't looked into this yet, but just finished a 3-week IBD. The past few days was switching between this branch and master, with stops and starts as internet access was intermittent, and this branch seemed to work well -- it returned the same value or very close each time.

```
Blocks: 882404
Headers: 882404
Verification progress: 100.0000%
```

💬 maflcko commented on issue "CI: Failed pulls from docker.io causing jobs to fail":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31797#issuecomment-2636829407)
I've rebooted the CI machines yesterday and today, which caused the issues here. I'll keep an eye on the tasks an re-run any that fail due to dockerhub limits for the next few hours. This should fix it once and for all (for now 😅 ).

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1942930263)
Agreed (though can wait for a followup).

For the fuzzer it's probably best to push the most extreme value a user can achieve without recompilation.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc, logging: return "verificationprogress" of 1 when up to date":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31177#discussion_r1942932714)
> > I think the only way this happens is if a node just reconnected after being offline or is somehow isolated from the network. In that case, it might briefly estimate 1.0 until it receives newer headers.
>
> That seems bad to me.

I agree. It doesn't seem worth it to fix one edge case and introduce another. This reminds me of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31135#discussion_r1812811243

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1942932884)
The word "policy" generally refers to the mempool, so I agree it could be confusing to use that term here. "the default" should be fine.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "func test: Expand tx download preference tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31437)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: enable libc++ and libstdc++ hardening":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31424#issuecomment-2636847468)
What is the status of this? Are you investigating the performance regressions?

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "rpc, logging: return "verificationprogress" of 1 when up to date":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31177#discussion_r1942942974)
When you next update, please add the corresponding run-time lock assertion in the definition (see `doc/developer-notes.md::L1003`) that I overlooked in my diff.

```diff
diff --git a/src/validation.cpp b/src/validation.cpp
index bee19f917ce..ccc05c8054d 100644
--- a/src/validation.cpp
+++ b/src/validation.cpp
@@ -5615,6 +5615,8 @@ bool Chainstate::ResizeCoinsCaches(size_t coinstip_size, size_t coinsdb_size)

double ChainstateManager::GuessVerificationProgress(const CBlockIndex* pindex
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "rpc, logging: return "verificationprogress" of 1 when up to date":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31177#discussion_r1942944852)
nit for when you next have to update

```suggestion
WITH_LOCK(chainman().GetMutex(), return chainman().GuessVerificationProgress(block)));
```