💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Replace global find_value function with UniValue::find_value method":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27605#issuecomment-1540094937)
> > Ubuntu 23.04 using GCC 13.0.1
>
> I think it ships with 12.2? [packages.ubuntu.com/lunar/gcc](https://packages.ubuntu.com/lunar/gcc)

https://packages.ubuntu.com/lunar/g++-13 has been installed as `sudo apt install g++13`.

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "refactor: Move chain constants to the util library"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#pullrequestreview-1418615677)
Code review ACK 1ae4d9a37b46a5e69ed79066408a6002c2cc0f73, but I would suggest another change to make second and third commits more reviewable (see below).

re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#issuecomment-1539094705

> re-ordering the commits and declaring the new ChainType getters before using them in the following commits

Thanks for the update, but this actually does the opposite of what I was trying to suggest. I'm trying move substantive code changes *out* of the giant 3
...

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "add ryanofsky to trusted-keys"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27604#pullrequestreview-1418615869)
ACK 59ebee3fb4181baf20fab263cf1b587ece1bd5e2

I feel that we need an "interfaces" maintainer with a deep understanding of our codebase's architecture (how it is and how it should be), particularly as we are working on several large projects spanning multiple subsystems and figuring out how to separate them. I believe @ryanofksy is this person, and generally a natural fit for having merge access because he is one of the most consistent and thorough reviewers on the project.

This key fingerpr
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Introduce platform-agnostic `ALWAYS_INLINE` macro":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27575#issuecomment-1540131935)
Guix Build:
```bash
4c75c6675a758f8bfddaf3ca395eec58f82078486273bd13c7f03fa949f05f91 guix-build-3f19875d6675/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
9736762959e2d9d06c33093ff08db157548fd3f82529cfbace0ceddce0151996 guix-build-3f19875d6675/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-3f19875d6675-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
a82ceeae1e2b98e65bc363f61648a28e7a0985a2d2e1acc7142c3540ec71e5c4 guix-build-3f19875d6675/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-3f19875d6675-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
16b8bf25ad364757
...

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "Introduce platform-agnostic `ALWAYS_INLINE` macro"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27575#pullrequestreview-1418675956)
ACK 3f19875d667522412408d06873e87ff8150e49c4

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Introduce platform-agnostic `ALWAYS_INLINE` macro"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27575)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "qt: 25.0rc2 translations update"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27517)

👍 pinheadmz approved a pull request: "add ryanofsky to trusted-keys"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27604#pullrequestreview-1418692620)
ACK 59ebee3fb4181baf20fab263cf1b587ece1bd5e2

I verified the key fingerprint in meatspace with the human that I believe is, in fact, @ryanofsky. Confirmed fingerprint matches key that signed this commit.

ryanofsky will be a great maintainer, his reviews are excellent even on PRs that he doesn't agree with.

<details><summary>Show Signature</summary>

```
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

ACK 59ebee3fb4181baf20fab263cf1b587ece1bd5e2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQ
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Move chain constants to the util library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#issuecomment-1540196087)
Thank you for your patience @ryanofsky

Updated 1ae4d9a37b46a5e69ed79066408a6002c2cc0f73 -> d168458d1ff987e0d741c75ac1d4b63ae0cfb7e7 ([kernelChainType_6](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelChainType_6) -> [kernelChainType_7](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelChainType_7), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelChainType_6..kernelChainType_7))

* Addressed @ryanofsky's [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#pullreques
...

🤔 Sjors reviewed a pull request: "assumeutxo: net_processing changes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24008#pullrequestreview-1418631351)
Other than my remarks I'm happy with c7cdc7ca833ce1b5ce9a696fb4ef633c55528023.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo: net_processing changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24008#discussion_r1188597311)
8e1d9a4bedc73b1ce2124a8583df8ed78d0c48ed: nit `>=` seems more intuitive, so the else case can't be 0.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo: net_processing changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24008#discussion_r1188619638)
8e1d9a4bedc73b1ce2124a8583df8ed78d0c48ed: Maybe move the `CanServeBlocks(*peer)` check out of this loop (and check `< MAX_BLOCKS_IN_TRANSIT_PER_PEER` first) to make the `if` statement more readable.

You should also clarify that `|| !chainstate->IsInitialBlockDownload()` is always true for the background validation chainstate, so we never use a pruned peer for this.

I'm somewhat inclined with @ryanofsky's [observation](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24008/commits/ac00102e4712af7b04
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo: net_processing changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24008#discussion_r1188628966)
8e1d9a4bedc73b1ce2124a8583df8ed78d0c48ed: light preference for `--requests_available` in the for loop above.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo: net_processing changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24008#discussion_r1188647774)
Could add a TODO here to relax this for background validation. And/or explain that we expect a node with less than the minimum chainwork to still be in IBD and not willing to serve us blocks? Or that it's too much hassle to figure out which blocks they have in common with us (e.g. it's a fork-coin)?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo: net_processing changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24008#discussion_r1188629628)
`assert(requests_available >= vToDownload.size())` ? `FindNextBlocksToDownload` itself doesn't guarantee that, because its `vBlocks` param doesn't have to be empty.

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "refactor: Move chain constants to the util library"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#pullrequestreview-1418757860)
Code review ACK d168458d1ff987e0d741c75ac1d4b63ae0cfb7e7. Just suggested changes since last review.

If you can, it would also be helpful to mark previous review comments as resolved (github won't let me do this)

> Thank you for your patience

Likewise! Thank you for all the improvements

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "refactor: Remove unused GetTimeMillis":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27594#issuecomment-1540226069)
> Yeah, I guess it can be removed as well, assuming there are no merge conflicts with other open pulls?

sgtm

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "refactor: Remove unused GetTimeMillis"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27594)

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "add ryanofsky to trusted-keys"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27604#pullrequestreview-1418784493)
utACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/59ebee3fb4181baf20fab263cf1b587ece1bd5e2

ryanofsky has consistently proven to be extremely skilled, thorough and helpful. Even though he's comfortable being opinionated, I always find his discourse respectful and well balanced. His PRs and reviews often serve as a benchmark for how things should be done, for me. I think he has the right attributes for being successful as a maintainer.

I cannot verify his key as I do not have it in my keyring.
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "refactor: Move chain constants to the util library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#issuecomment-1540240043)
I'm going to merge this shortly. #27125 (which conflicts) will be rebased (some other conflicting changes may also be merged in the interim), along with its current set of review feedback addressed.