💬 hebasto commented on pull request "msvc: Cleanup after upgrading libsecp256k1 up to 0.3.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27580#issuecomment-1538509995)
@pinheadmz
> Actually I still get the untracked files warning after merge -- am i doing something wrong?

Try to clean your local repo first. For example, `git clean -xdff`.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "refactor (tidy): Fixes after enable-debug configure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27353#issuecomment-1538515538)
@TheCharlatan can you update this to drop 3e76aff9d4709f44d6439cd0cbc2fd6c90cae6ab, or I think we could just close this?

📝 jamesob opened a pull request: "assumeutxo (2)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27596)
- Background and FAQ: https://github.com/jamesob/assumeutxo-docs/tree/2019-04-proposal/proposal
- Prior progress/project: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/11
- Replaces https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606, which was closed due to Github slowness. Original description and commentary can be found there.

---

This changeset finishes the first phase of the assumeutxo project. It makes UTXO snapshots loadable via RPC (`loadtxoutset`) and adds `assumeutxo` parameters to cha
...

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606#issuecomment-1538525518)
Closing this as replaced by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27596.

> I get a bunch of these warnings, that I don't get on master:

Thanks for spotting this @Sjors; one-line removal fixed in the new PR.

✅ jamesob closed a pull request: "assumeutxo"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606)

⚠️ brandonpille opened an issue: "rpc: Allow importing wallets by data instead of by filename"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27597)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

Right now we can only import wallets by filename. This means you can only execute that rpc if you are executing it from the system where the bitcoin node is running. But it could be that you are sending the rpc request from outside the node. In that case you don't have access to the file system. So it would be handy to allow passing the content of a wallet dump file instead and also allowing dumping the content not in a file but in the rp
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor (tidy): Fixes after enable-debug configure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27353#issuecomment-1538539627)
I'll drop the commit. Could this be related to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27586 and solve some of the performance issues?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "rpc: distinguish between vsize and sigop-adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27591#discussion_r1187505606)
I would call this `adjusted_vsize`. Or `vvsize` :-P

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "bench: Add `-sha-implementation` command-line option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27598)
On the master branch, only the best available `SHA256` implementation is being benchmarked. This PR allows to benchmark different ones.

For example,
```
./src/bench/bench_bitcoin -filter=SHA256.* -sha-implementation=standard
./src/bench/bench_bitcoin -filter=SHA256.* -sha-implementation=sse4
./src/bench/bench_bitcoin -filter=SHA256.* -sha-implementation=sse4,avx2
./src/bench/bench_bitcoin -filter=SHA256.* -sha-implementation=all
```

Found it useful, while working on https://github.c
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "bench: Add `-sha-implementation` command-line option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27598#issuecomment-1538554964)
What about benchmarking all that are available on the system?

💬 Sjors commented on issue "rpc: show P2(W)SH redeemScript in getrawtransaction (and friends)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27391#issuecomment-1538555679)
I think adding fields is fine, unless determining their values is slow for some reason.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "bench: Add `-sha-implementation` command-line option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27598#issuecomment-1538558986)
> What about benchmarking all that are available on the system?

You mean, as separated benchmarks? Without `-sha-implementation` option?

👍 furszy approved a pull request: "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#pullrequestreview-1417018318)
ACK 6b605b91 modulo `miniminer_overlap` test.

Not really blocking, I'm planning to go deeper later. And probably add some explanatory comments and code simplifications.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1187582119)
Done

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1187582254)
Done

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1187582474)
Done

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1187585622)
I just changed the error message and adopted the diff (seems so much better to check whether this is a `nullptr`):
```diff
- if (!output_connection_direction) {
+ if (output_connection_direction == nullptr) {
+ // Only NetWhitebindPermissions() should pass a nullptr.
```

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Remove unused GetTimeMillis":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27594#issuecomment-1538588861)
Concept ACK.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1187591763)
Added right before:
```diff
+ # Whitelist peers to speed up tx relay / mempool sync
```

💬 furszy commented on pull request "fuzz: improve `coinselection`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27585#discussion_r1187594094)
If `CreateCoins` generates a coin that is already inside any of the results, `AddInputs` will throw a runtime error, which the fuzzing framework will detect as a failure when it is not. It is part of the class boundaries.

Same apply for the fuzz `Merge` function commit.