💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: replace assert with assert_equal and assert_greater_than":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32091#discussion_r2001077998)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/13923574432/job/38962671641?pr=32091#step:6:7169

failed

💬 Chand-ra commented on pull request "test: replace assert with assert_equal and assert_greater_than":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32091#discussion_r2001094779)
I ran the entire test suite from my `build` directory and the modified test passed just fine there. Any idea on what might cause the discrepancy?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2733350025)
Rebased.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "net: Block v2->v1 transport downgrade if !fNetworkActive":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32073#discussion_r2001138653)
> Not blocking, but this seemed slightly more correct to me before, since now if `fNetworkActive == false` when caching the result, but `true` when disconnecting, we might not attempt v1 reconnect when we should have.

The probability that someone will be able to toggle `fNetworkActive` `false -> true` between the first loop starting and the second loop, when one also happens to have a peer in the right step in the handshake.. just doesn't feel like it should be something we need to support. B
...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Fee Estimation: Ignore all transactions that are CPFP'd":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30079#issuecomment-2733395488)
> This is a GitHub bug, but they are not going to fix it. The only way to fix it is by doing another rebase (or for a GitHub staff to manually clean it). See [maflcko/DrahtBot#43 (comment)](https://github.com/maflcko/DrahtBot/issues/43#issuecomment-2653314333)

I rebase against master and force-push with newer commits, it is still not updating https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...ismaelsadeeq:bitcoin:05-2023-ignore-transactions-with-parents

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on issue "wallet: rpc: `settxfee` sets the wallet feerate not fee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31088#issuecomment-2733423213)
> We can look at what changes are needed, update the ones that don't break anything (e.g. rpc that simply give information but don't take a feerate as an argument).

This makes sense, currently internally `CFeeRate` is represented as feerate in `BTC/kvB`, although the newer replacement to it `FeeFrac` is going to be in `s/vb` see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363/commits/8d1bbafa84bbca0e412f939823fa1a30ef839951

It will makes to first analyse how many or too critical of a change th
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add libmultiprocess git subtree":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31741#issuecomment-2733453010)
Rebased 8ef8f799b04eaea9091ed339dfe2cdb3a31ec245 -> 4e265debdc0319bbfcea915d9026b33810b810f8 ([`pr/subtree.24`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/subtree.24) -> [`pr/subtree.25`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/subtree.25), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/subtree.24-rebase..pr/subtree.25)) with no changes since #30975 has a merge conflict https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30975#issuecomment-2732019454 and windows CI job was also faili
...

🤔 TheCharlatan reviewed a pull request: "multiprocess: Add libmultiprocess git subtree"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31741#pullrequestreview-2694724554)
lgtm, but would you like people to review #31992 first?

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add libmultiprocess git subtree":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31741#discussion_r2001144249)
Maybe add `--numeric-owner` here as suggested in https://reproducible-builds.org/docs/archives/ (and as already done further down in this file).

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2733485415)
The feedback from @hodlinator and @laanwj has been addressed.

> Lingering Qt5 mentions

Removed.

> Could mention in commit message why CRB repo needed to be enabled in ci/test/01_base_install.sh?

Added a comment.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r2001211668)
Thanks! [Taken](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2733485415).

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r2001212035)
Thanks! [Taken](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2733485415).

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r2001213058)
Thanks! [Taken](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2733485415).

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r2001219461)
This code is designed to skip compiling unneeded plugins. You can verify this by checking the build logs.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "http: Make server shutdown more robust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31929#issuecomment-2733522421)
Thank you for providing your perspective @laanwj!

In working on this PR, I've also gained an [appreciation for getting rid of libevent](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31894#issuecomment-2678077496). However, I'm not sure when that will happen, maybe not until post-30.0. In the meantime we are seeing issues on CI such as #31894 ([analysis](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31894#issuecomment-2666012863)).

What this PR is doing is adding our own request ids to track which
...

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "wallet: add coin selection parameter `add_excess_to_recipient_position` for changeless txs with excess that would be added to fees":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30080#issuecomment-2733538448)
This PR looks interesting from the idea that throw away change can go to a different party instead of just throwing away to fees. It first glance though, it seems like the implementation is confusing. For example, I don't understand what `max_excess` is needed for.

From the commit message:
> If set, excess from changeless spends can not exceed the lesser of this amount and the current cost_of_change, otherwise just use cost_of_change by default

This doesn't explain _why_ this parameter
...

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "Fee Estimation: Ignore all transactions that are CPFP'd"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30079)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Fee Estimation: Ignore all transactions that are CPFP'd":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30079#issuecomment-2733545178)
Sorry, I wanted to close and re-open, but that won't work, because of the push. Can you restore the last synced push and then re-open and re-try the rebase?

💬 Sjors commented on issue "Stratum v2 via IPC Mining Interface tracking issue":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31098#issuecomment-2733571093)
More things have been merged... for build system fans I recommend #31992, for interface fans #31785.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Fee Estimation: Ignore all transactions that are CPFP'd":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30079#issuecomment-2733578280)
I restored the last synced push, but I can not access the re-open button
<img width="1034" alt="Screenshot 2025-03-18 at 15 59 51" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/81c71341-530f-4496-ad88-3552c4d83409" />