👍 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)));
```

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#issuecomment-2636854497)
ACK 386eecff5f14d508688e6e7374b67cb54aaa7249

(I didn't study the release notes again, but those can be changed later anyway)

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "MacOS updated Bitcoin-Core gui icon in accordance with Apple design docs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31780)
**Mac OS Minor icon change**
Apple's design guidelines have changed since the previous iteration of the Bitcoin-Core app icon. As it stands, the current icon is too large, and juts out when viewed alongside other program's icons.
My solution was to decrease the overall size to more closely fit Apple's current design documentation, keeping the main body of the icon in the body section of MacOS's icon template, while maintaining the same shape, color, and design.
My motives for this method wer
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: add validation for gettxout RPC response"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30226)

💬 hebasto commented on issue "When opening or autoloading wallets there should be clear messages about rescanning in progress and wallets' names.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/259#issuecomment-2636886472)
@Jaysinh146

> Hey, I would love to work on this issue. Can I take it?

This project is permissionless.

Feel free to open a PR :)

You might also consider the previous attempt in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/786.

💬 Jaysinh146 commented on issue "When opening or autoloading wallets there should be clear messages about rescanning in progress and wallets' names.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/259#issuecomment-2636900532)
Okay. Thank you

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mining: bugfix: Fix duplicate coinbase tx weight reservation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31384#discussion_r1943003787)
Doing that will cause a fuzz crash because the mini miner-generated block and the block assembler-generated block will not match.
The comment below the constant explains that.

We want the mini miner to match the block assembler's behavior, and the block assembler's default behavior is to create a template with a size of `MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT - DEFAULT_BLOCK_RESERVED_WEIGHT`.
If we follow your suggestion, we would have to update the block assembler's reserved weight below to `MINIMUM_BLOCK_
...

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add libmultiprocess git subtree":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31741#issuecomment-2636987369)
I think all those benefits could be achieved by adding the glue yet having the developer who wants to test checkout the upstream repo into a subdirectory manually to use it (cmake can complain clearly if missing)