💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "net processing: avoid serving non-announced txs as a result of a MEMPOOL message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27602#discussion_r1190326642)
> Wouldn't it be better to make the insertion conditional on `txinfo.m_time <= now - UNCONDITIONAL_RELAY_DELAY` ?

Also wouldn't that also apply here? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/27c40e3dcf280a137bcfaa787674c26781d911b8/src/net_processing.cpp#L5688

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#issuecomment-1542712701)
note that the :gem: issue still exists in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711 , where the ultimate subpackage(including the child) would let everything in.

with the fix, hopefully, now every sub-package that is let in the mempool must have a child that pays

💬 theuni commented on pull request "build: LLVM 16 & LLD based macOS toolchain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21778#issuecomment-1542729737)
> - -bind_at_load support.

I explored this today, and it seems this feature is deprecated. It has been replaced by `fixup_chains` [as of ld64 v512.4](https://github.com/apple-opensource/ld64/commit/03dfd5524c89ea8e1d3a01c8a487934fb5433514). Here's a [write-up on the new functionality](https://www.emergetools.com/blog/posts/iOS15LaunchTime). For ldd (in conflict with what the site above says), the new functionality kicks in when [`OSX_MIN_VERSION` >= 11.0](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "net processing: avoid serving non-announced txs as a result of a MEMPOOL message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27602#issuecomment-1542733164)
Concept ACK

💬 glozow commented on pull request "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#issuecomment-1542734986)
> note that the 💎 issue still exists in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711

Yeah. Rebasing it on top of this.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "net, refactor: net_processing, add `ProcessCompactBlockTxns`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26969#issuecomment-1542743968)
Rebased

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: miner: add coverage for `-blockmintxfee` setting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27620#issuecomment-1542744503)
Concept ACK

💬 glozow commented on pull request "mempool / rpc: add getprioritisedtransactions, delete a mapDeltas entry when delta==0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27501#discussion_r1190350142)
Thanks, fixed

💬 satsie commented on pull request "rpc: add 'getnetmsgstats', new rpc to view network message statistics":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27534#discussion_r1190350382)
Ooooo thank you! C++ rookie here :smile:

Fixed in f5c8b5f78f93bea96e6846ef9d5b787269029b50

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "refactor, kernel: Decouple ArgsManager from blockstorage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#pullrequestreview-1421312759)
Code Review ACK 5ff63a09a9edd1204b2cc56cf6f48a44adab7bb3

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "refactor, kernel: Decouple ArgsManager from blockstorage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#discussion_r1190350876)
nit (if you repush): blockman should be added to the doc, also it would be nice to keep the out param at the end according to dev notes.

💬 satsie commented on pull request "rpc: add 'getnetmsgstats', new rpc to view network message statistics":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27534#discussion_r1190362272)
This is a great point. I think I need to take a closer look at some of the refactoring that's going on in `net` in hopes of finding other examples/decisions that support making `NetStats` a member variable in `CNode`. I think the comment you linked to is very relevant.

💬 satsie commented on pull request "rpc: add 'getnetmsgstats', new rpc to view network message statistics":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27534#issuecomment-1542767255)
Thank you for testing and taking a peek at this @ccdle12 :hugs: Appreciate the review and will definitely be taking you up on the offer for a more in depth review as this evolves! :wink:

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "util: improve FindByte() performance":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19690#issuecomment-1542843029)
re-ACK 72efc26439da9a1344a19569fb0cab01f82ae7d1

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "util: improve FindByte() performance"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19690)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1190437947)
Re-added

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1190437970)
Yeah. Added some docs to the class (also mentioned BIP331) so maybe it's more clear? I used to call it `Packageifier` because it can potentially build a package out of any random list of transactions. But then it's weird because we packageify a `Package`. Open to naming improvements 😅

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1190438085)
Elaborated on the comment, hopefully it's better now

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1190438226)
> I think hashing these bytes would defeat this since it can't generate a valid tx with that txid?

Did this one, thanks 👍

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1190438295)
Elaborated