👋 l0rinc's pull request is ready for review: "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Revisiting us self-hosting parts of our CI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31965#issuecomment-2718738419)
Forgot to mention it, but if Cirrus is replaced, it may be good to also update DrahtBot to properly assign the "CI failed" label, so that it is easy to monitor for (intermittent) CI failures via https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+label%3A%22CI+failed%22+sort%3Aupdated-desc++is%3Apr+-label%3A%22Needs+rebase%22++

📝 glozow opened a pull request: "[29.x] bump to v29.0rc1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32046)
- "backport" #32041
- bump version to v29.0rc1
- generate manpages
- add example bitcoin.conf
- add release-notes.md pointing to wiki

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "[29.x] bump to v29.0rc1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32046#pullrequestreview-2679517058)
ACK 628e4f59b8784fcde2de176fb98260e71def18ec, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "consensus: Remove checkpoints (take 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31649#issuecomment-2718778336)
concept ACK, seems rfm (after a rebase?)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[29.x] bump to v29.0rc1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32046#issuecomment-2718813885)
> ACK [628e4f5](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/628e4f59b8784fcde2de176fb98260e71def18ec), I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.

Revoked. Man pages for `bitcoind` and `bitcoin-qt` miss "ZeroMQ notification options"

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Use std::span over Span":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31519#discussion_r1992120827)
Good catch. This is wrong, but should be harmless here, albeit highly confusing. Fixed.

Should be trivial to re-ack with `git range-diff bitcoin-core/master A B`

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Use std::span over Span":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31519#discussion_r1992120962)
Not sure what you mean with "retain". In current master there is no static extent, as this is using `Span`.

Also, streams don't make use of static extends at all. See also https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31519#discussion_r1929225185:

> Presumably some of the streams could benefit from static extents, but that's waaay overkill for here.

So my preference would be to not mix refactoring with questionable performance improvements.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Use std::span over Span":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31519#discussion_r1992121110)
> which seems to eliminate the need for

Not sure. Even if this was the only place that makes use of this, for consistency it should be kept anyway. Otherwise, someone will have to touch this file again to add it back once it is used.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "docs: added a badge to the workflow":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32032#issuecomment-2718838563)
@fanquake The erroneous code was added in https://github.com/maflcko/DrahtBot/commit/3a7df79dc523e8c602a2da7be526ec14e69e0833 and I missed it during review. Fixed in https://github.com/maflcko/DrahtBot/commit/85c143e08b50ad026290f0b6af5583aff64e1d79. Thanks!

💬 glozow commented on pull request "[29.x] bump to v29.0rc1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32046#issuecomment-2718842557)
Great, fixed.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[29.x] bump to v29.0rc1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32046#issuecomment-2718855202)
> > ACK [628e4f5](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/628e4f59b8784fcde2de176fb98260e71def18ec), I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.
>
> Revoked. Man pages for `bitcoind` and `bitcoin-qt` miss "ZeroMQ notification options"

My apologies for not checking all stuff at once, but `examples/bitcoin.conf` also lacks "ZeroMQ notification options".

💬 glozow commented on pull request "[29.x] bump to v29.0rc1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32046#issuecomment-2718857240)
Thanks @hebasto!

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "[29.x] bump to v29.0rc1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32046#pullrequestreview-2679617137)
ACK 47e2fa86dc5433852fd9e5050a23de2accfdca8d.

🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "Add waitNext() to BlockTemplate interface"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31283)

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "[IBD] flush UXTOs in bigger batches"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31645#pullrequestreview-2679668648)
Code review ACK 868413340f8d6058d74186b65ac3498d6b7f254a

> If that spike exceeds the memory the process can allocate it causes a crash, at a particularly bad time (may require a replay to fix, which may be slower than just reprocessing the blocks).

It is difficult for me to have a sense of how safe this change is but I'd hope we are not currently pushing systems so close to the edge that using an extra 48mb will cause them to start crashing. This does seem like a nice performance improvmen
...

🚀 hebasto merged a pull request: "wallet: Replace "non-0" with "non-zero" in translatable error message"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31987)

💬 mabu44 commented on pull request "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#issuecomment-2718935452)
Tested the PR with the following steps:
#### On master:
```bash
python3 feature_assumeutxo.py
...
TestFramework (INFO): Tests successful
```
Modified validation.cpp (line 6237, function MaybeCompleteSnapshotValidation):
```diff
- return SnapshotCompletionResult::SUCCESS;
+ return SnapshotCompletionResult::SKIPPED;
```
This should avoid the clean-up of the snapshot at startup. But the test is not affected:
```bash
python3 feature_assumeutxo.py
...
TestFramework (INFO): Tests succe
...

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (no activation)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-2718981226)
I've added a link to the active [Delving Bitcoin discussion](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ctv-csfs-can-we-reach-consensus-on-a-first-step-towards-covenants/1509/23) most pertaining to CTV, and will keep the PR description above updated with any other relevant discussions.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "refactor: CLI cleanups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31887#discussion_r1992220870)
> hoist up the braces to conform with the dev-notes? Also...inconsistent spacing

> it would be good to use recommended style (can just run `clang-format`)

Good idea, done.