💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add capnp wrapper for Chain interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29409#issuecomment-2649091209)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29409#issuecomment-2649015969

> Can I use the branch as is or would I need to rebase on `master`

Hi @pseudoramdom, definitely it should be easiest to just check out this branch and use it as is. The errors that you are seeing with the branch rebased happen due to https://github.com/chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess/pull/135, and require some code changes here to be compatible. I should be able to update this branch in the next day or two in case you
...

💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: add support for evaluating at given size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#discussion_r1949791787)
Honestly, I think the code I included here already is more complicated than what I think was worth writing. But it's just test code, and it's already written, and it works.

Its added value is adding confidence for anyone looking at the test who has difficulty following, the exact `arith_uint256`-based test code, or otherwise doubts its correctness. The exact precision used here won't make much difference I think - it should just be enough so someone can a single glance say "ok, if this test d
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949798690)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949798769)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799165)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799382)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799552)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799654)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799739)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799852)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949799938)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1949800043)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Automatically repair corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#discussion_r1949801025)
Added a constant.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Automatically repair corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#discussion_r1949801147)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Automatically repair corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#discussion_r1949801345)
Done

💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: add support for evaluating at given size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#discussion_r1949807125)
Fixed.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: add support for evaluating at given size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#issuecomment-2649120502)
@instagibbs I incorporated a variant of your commit into the existing `feefrac_mul_div` fuzz test, with the tightest bounds I could make more.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "feefrac: add support for evaluating at given size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#discussion_r1949815030)
I think there's also some value in knowing we're not diverging wildly from what already exists if we're planning on swapping functionality later. Agreed on the rest.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: add support for evaluating at given size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#discussion_r1949816655)
@instagibbs Note that this is about a separate addition I made, which compares the behaviour with a pure floating-point simulation. The comparison with `CFeeRate` is elsewhere.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "feefrac: add support for evaluating at given size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#discussion_r1949817770)
oh right, I conflated the two threads here