💬 fanquake commented on issue "Manually Banning Peers Results in Crash":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29916#issuecomment-2701345537)
Closing for now. Could be re-opened / followed up with if we get some concrete steps to repro.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: fix crash on double block disconnection":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31757#discussion_r1981697362)
> However, I don't understand this comment. Hypothetically, if the state were to be flushed before abrupt node kill, wouldn't this assertion here fail?

I was talking about the wallet best locator, which is different to the node's best block (`getwalletinfo()['lastprocessedblock']` vs `getbestblockhash()`).
Just updated the test to reflect this in a more understandable manner.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "RFC: Add `operator""_uint256` compile-time user-defined literal":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31991#discussion_r1981715292)
Done, thanks

💬 fanquake commented on issue "guix: re-enable exported symbol checking for RISC-V":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28095#issuecomment-2701377875)
> Holding this off until https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29987 is.merged.

This has gone in, and I've confirmed that this is still an issue with current master (0391d7e4c24e49ed186215e9fa375903c19af86e). @laanwj any chance you still wanted to investigate?

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add waitNext() to BlockTemplate interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31283#issuecomment-2701441513)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31283#issuecomment-2701132902

> @ryanofsky what would be a good way for a consumer of `waitNext()`, directly or via IPC, to abort a wait? Currently only a node shutdown can interrupt it, but in the context of a Template Provider, a stratum client disconnect should probably also abort the wait.

Could add a cancel method and call it from the destructor, which will get called automatically when a connection is broken. Maybe like:

<details><summar
...

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "doc: add note to Windows build about stripping bins"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32002)
The Windows binaries are particularly big when they contain debug info, closing in on 500mb. Add a note to the Windows build instructions about using `install/strip`. It seems that `--prefix` cannot be used with `--target install/strip`, so the instructions are re-ordered such that any install prefix is handled during configure.

I haven't tested this. If we don't want to add this note, in favour of [user-presents or similar](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30593#issuecomment-2271304
...

💬 dongcarl commented on issue "guix: Unable to reproduce macOS SDK tarball on Fedora 40":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31873#issuecomment-2701538499)
This is likely because python >= 3.11 delegates `gzip.compress` to `zlib.compress`, which then delegates to the `zlib` specified at configure-time for python.

On Ubuntu 24.04, this is `zlib`/`zlib1g`: https://packages.ubuntu.com/noble/python3.12-minimal
On Fedora 40, this is `zlib-ng-compat`: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python3.11/python3.11-libs/fedora-40.html

💬 achow101 commented on issue "`DEFAULT_TRANSACTION_MAXFEE` is 0.1 ₿":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31716#issuecomment-2701543605)
> any thoughts here?

We should probably fix this at some point.

🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "doc: update fuzz instructions when on macOS"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31954#pullrequestreview-2661800122)
tACK 75486c8ed87a480b9f0c4dc7a10f3cd4eee87b12

Managed to reproduce the issue in `master` (before merge) and this PR fixes it.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "guix: Notarize MacOS app bundle and codesign all MacOS and Windows binaries":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31407#issuecomment-2701564492)
> > I don't think they are. @davidgumberg did you compare this behavior against master?
>
> [#31407 (comment)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31407#issuecomment-2699746082).

There's no comparison against master in that comment.

Just tried opening the 28.1 unsigned app and it gives the exact same error.

Furthermore, this PR does not touch unsigned binaries at all. If there is a regression there, it's caused by something else.

> Can you elaborate on why this is this expecte
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#issuecomment-2701592455)
The fuzzer CI tasks are failing since the change in sighash type enforcement. Presumably this is because the fuzz corpus contains seeds that generate psbts which violate the new constraint. How do we move forward with resolving that?

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "doc: remove note about macOS self-signing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32003)
Followup to #31407.

💬 average-gary commented on pull request "BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (no activation)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-2701595564)
> @jamesob I'd be happy to help you keep this thread focused by moderating off-topic comments and pointing them to the appropriate forums.
>
> You've suggested and linked to Delving which seems appropriate for general/conceptual discussion, however there is no thread/post over there to actually point folks to. Would you mind starting a thread over there so that we have somewhere concrete to point these types of discussions to?

https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/bip-119-op-checktemplateverify-no-
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: Notarize MacOS app bundle and codesign all MacOS and Windows binaries":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31407#issuecomment-2701598753)
If any other followups are needed, we can bundle them into #32003.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "macOS App Notarization & Stapling"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15774)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "guix: Notarize MacOS app bundle and codesign all MacOS and Windows binaries"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31407)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "release: ship codesigned MacOS arm64 binaries"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29749)

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "[28.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31648)

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#discussion_r1981879160)
The fuzz test decodes a psbt from the fuzz input and passes it to the various psbt functions. Looks like it crashes here because the signature is empty? (could be wrong, just glanced at this)

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#issuecomment-2701649762)
I don't have much idea about fuzz test cases currently but can't we exclude those seeds that generate PSBTs violating the new constraint?