💬 fanquake commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1979628091)
I have atleast 154GB, and assume it's going to end up around the 180GB mark. Given that, it seems this should be something closer to 200?

👍 vasild approved a pull request: "doc: Bring reduce-memory.md up to date"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31985#pullrequestreview-2657896902)
ACK fff4f93dff8ba67689e43929615e3c63c67015e4

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: Bring reduce-memory.md up to date":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31985#issuecomment-2697936019)
> not the minimum value that would be accepted as command line argument.

Should we make this function like maxmempool, which will fail to accept a value lower than the minimim (5)? Seems we are somewhat inconsistent in our handling of these.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1979644959)
Hm, I have 5.9G. IIRC I did a fresh run yesterday, so maybe I don't have as many reorged blocks?

But why do you expect 11 and not 9?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1979646913)
Oops I shouldn't have just picked the tip. Now using 72600 which was mined 8 hours ago.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1979647136)
fixed

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "fuzz: Extend mini_miner fuzz coverage to max block weight":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31803#discussion_r1979727414)
Ok, that hit an error further down below. It seems to me like the cluster limit of 500 tx was hit. Let me try again with a max of 500 tx and increasing the potential number of outputs instead.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "qa: clarify and document assumeutxo tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31907#issuecomment-2698108727)
Since it was tiny, [pretty specifc to my branch](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31907#issuecomment-2669777720) and [confused some reviewers](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31907#discussion_r1966033115), i dropped the first commit of this PR.

Since several reviewers were in favor, i included in this PR @theStack's commits to introduce varint and compression serialization primitives to the functional test framework. I adapted the commit to use these primitives instead of the d
...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "qa: clarify and document assumeutxo tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31907#discussion_r1979734147)
I've now dropped this commit from this PR. I'll keep it with my followup branch for now.

⚠️ pinheadmz opened an issue: "TSan warning with legacy wallet on macos ("too long mutex cycle found")"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31986)
master branch at 15717f0ef3960969ee550a4a41741987b86684dc

built on arm64/macos

Notably there is no TSan warning when the test is run with `--descriptors`

To reproduce:
```
--> build_master/test/functional/wallet_listtransactions.py --legacy-wallet --nocleanup
...
AssertionError: Unexpected stderr WARNING: too long mutex cycle found
```

complete configuration:
```
Configure summary
=================
Executables:
bitcoind ............................ ON
bitcoin-node (multiprocess) ........
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1979764666)
> It is a big jump, but `du .bitcoin/testnet3 -h` gives me 181G. Let's see what other people have?

In the past, I've done `du -csh chainstate/ blocks/` so that indexes, debug.log, and wallets, are not included in the size.

```
du -csh ~/.bitcoin/testnet3/chainstate/ ~/.bitcoin/testnet3/blocks/
11G /home/ava/.bitcoin/testnet3/chainstate/
101G /home/ava/.bitcoin/testnet3/blocks/
111G total
```

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1979766255)
10% buffer, as stated in the release process doc. `9.2 * 1.1 = 10.12 ~= 11`

👍 darosior approved a pull request: "descriptor: check whitespace in keys within fragments"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31603#pullrequestreview-2658166364)
re-ACK re-ACK 21e9d39a3725cd6107b742f0cb97f65b3640201b

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "TSan warning with legacy wallet on macos ("too long mutex cycle found")":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31986#issuecomment-2698225051)
* I ran all wallet tests and only `wallet_listtransactions.py --legacy-wallet` fails with this warning

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Request for Wiki Edit Permissions – Testing Guide: Bitcoin Core 29.0 RC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31984)

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Request for Wiki Edit Permissions – Testing Guide: Bitcoin Core 29.0 RC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31984#issuecomment-2698235879)
Invites have been sent.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "kernel: pre-29.x chainparams and headerssync update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31978#discussion_r1979802796)
```bash
du -csh chainstate/ blocks/
13G chainstate/
167G blocks/
180G total
```

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Add mainnet assumeutxo param at height 880,000":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31969#issuecomment-2698243705)
tACK 14f16748557faf57cf4b0f4c91c162592557434c

I tested all of the steps outlined in the PR description and did indeed enjoy the speedy ride 🏎️

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "wallet: Replace "non-0" with "non-zero" in translatable error message"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31987)
Transifex interprets the "-0" substring as a number in translatable strings. Since not all translations preserve "-0," this triggers a corresponding warning. While this warning could be disabled globally, it is more reasonable to adjust the original string instead.

🤔 sipa reviewed a pull request: "descriptor: check whitespace in keys within fragments"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31603#pullrequestreview-2658256613)
utACK 21e9d39a3725cd6107b742f0cb97f65b3640201b