🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "qa: clarify and document one assumeutxo test case with malleated snapshot"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31907)

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "qa: clarify and document one assumeutxo test case with malleated snapshot":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31907#issuecomment-2722632443)
Merged since it was requested in IRC. Could be useful to follow up on comments from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31907#pullrequestreview-2661853159 though

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#issuecomment-2722641649)
> I think if multiple chainstates will exist for different purposes, the chainstate objects will need to have some field describing their purpose and controlling their behavior.

Yes, I think I have come to a similar conclusion, and I think the introduced reliance here on the `m_target_blockhash` and `m_from_snapshot_blockhash` are very good changes. Having some kind of "start" and "stop" blocks for a chainstate seems like something that is easy to understand and might also be useful beyond a
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "qa: clarify and document one assumeutxo test case with malleated snapshot":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31907#issuecomment-2722677016)
Post-merge ACK

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "contrib: Fix `gen-bitcoin-conf.sh`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32049)

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "qa: Fix TxIndex race conditions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32010#pullrequestreview-2683350728)
Code review ACK 3301d2cbe8c3b76c97285d75fa59637cb6952d0b

💬 furszy commented on pull request "qa: Fix TxIndex race conditions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32010#discussion_r1994294882)
tiny nit: could provide a less aggressive `check_interval`. Like 0.1.

📝 glozow opened a pull request: "[29.x] backports and rc2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32062)
Placeholder, collecting backports + anything else for rc2

- #32049

💬 darosior commented on pull request "test: avoid treating hash results as integers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32050#issuecomment-2722704531)
The concept of this PR is appealing but i don't think it's true that we don't usually rely on hashes being numbers. I think more often than not we do, as we have a bunch of ordered indexes keyed by hashes. A good example of this is the mempool's `mapTx`:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/5c2f04413e49545cbefcd232f9c1b6bd08688899/src/txmempool.h#L245-L250

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#pullrequestreview-2683379972)
ACK dfd0a76fc1b46ddd1f4dab388ec2ca7fc3f76a2b

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "test: Check datadir cleanup after assumeutxo was successful":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32033#discussion_r1994314303)
Nit: Might it be worthwhile to also check existence beforehand to guard against naming changes, or the behaviour of the indexed nodes changing?
```diff
diff --git a/test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py b/test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py
index 89cf703fce..2166c4505d 100755
--- a/test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py
+++ b/test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py
@@ -645,0 +646,2 @@ class AssumeutxoTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
+ if i != 0:
+ assert (n.datadir_pa
...

💬 theuni commented on pull request "build: align debugging flags to `-O0`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29796#issuecomment-2722723839)
@fanquake Can you describe why you think it's important that they align? I think they're 2 different concerns, really. It seems like it'd be a pretty rare circumstance where we'd need depends compiled with max gdb debugability, but pretty common that we'd want Core built that way.

Aligning depends and Core builds both at `-Og` seemed reasonable to me, but @achow101 has a compelling argument against that. I'm not so excited about both at `-O0` because that's basically _only_ useful for debuggi
...

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: refactor: various master key encryption cleanups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31398#discussion_r1994324573)
Not related to this PR but if `WriteMasterKey()` fails then this will still succeed when it shouldn't.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: refactor: various master key encryption cleanups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31398#discussion_r1994315843)
In 62c209f50d9c33:
What about inlining this into the (un)serialization method?
If it is not used, we don't need to keep the field in memory.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: refactor: various master key encryption cleanups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31398#discussion_r1994325143)
Same as above; not related to this PR but if `WriteMasterKey()` fails then this will still succeed when it shouldn't.

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "[29.x] backports and rc2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32062#issuecomment-2722748021)
lgtm ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32062/commits/188ec87589476355a4280f8a561d954b9fbbb7af

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "[IBD] batch block reads/writes during `AutoFile` serialization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31551#issuecomment-2722752125)
Code review d700b14491a27a6f4f9069dde86fe914784346ca

This approach seems reaonable but maybe it would be good to have a more general solution to providing buffered reads and writes instead of having these ad-hoc `std::vector<uint8_t>` / `SpanReader` / `DataStream` / `write_large` calls.

Ideally instead of:

```c++
std::vector<uint8_t> mem(blk_size);
filein >> Span{mem};
SpanReader(mem) >> TX_WITH_WITNESS(block);
// ...
fileout.write_large(DataStream(block_size) << TX_WITH_WITNESS(bl
...

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "test: Add support for mainnet addresses in address_to_scriptpubkey":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32060#discussion_r1994341807)
nit: There are other address types to support so the todo comment should not be removed

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "test: Add support for mainnet addresses in address_to_scriptpubkey":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32060#discussion_r1994347199)
```suggestion
if version == 111 or version == 0: # testnet or mainnet pubkey hash
return keyhash_to_p2pkh_script(payload)
elif version == 196 or version == 5: # testnet or mainnet script hash
return scripthash_to_p2sh_script(payload)
```

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "intermittent issue in p2p_orphan_handling.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31700#issuecomment-2722773418)
> Looks like the test may overall intermittently fail, because it assumes the tx delay isn't exponentially distributed, but has a constant delay, sufficient for the test to pass.

I think that is not the problem here, because the delay for `requesting` txs is actually constant and not randomized / exponentially distributed.

> Possibly the getdata was split into two, so the check didn't pick it up, because it assumes it to happen in one msg

Yes, this is what's happening in the failed runs. I th
...