💬 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" />

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#discussion_r2001273677)
> Could you please document _why_ this is needed?

Sure. A comment has been added.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Multiprocess bitcoin":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10102#issuecomment-2733615242)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10102#issuecomment-2731137612

Thanks for testing this.

>1. The planned `--ipcconnect` is not yet supported by either `bitcoin-gui` or `bitcoin-wallet` processes?

It is implemented in #19460 for `bitcoin-wallet` (where it just connects and doesn't really do anything) and in #19461 for `bitcoin-gui` where it is more functional and does allow the gui to connect and control the node.

>2. Running a bitcoin-gui (w/o `--ipcconnect`) does not "spaw
...

💬 ldionne commented on pull request "doc: Update documentation to include Clang/llvm based coverage report generation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31933#discussion_r2001305336)
Sadly, I am not very familiar with how code coverage works in Clang (or other compilers), so I am not the best person to answer that question. However, as a general rule of thumb, I would encourage you to go with what the documentation says, and if you then notice shortcomings, report those as bugs against the project.

💬 remyers 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-2733647933)
> This doesn't explain _why_ this parameter is needed. I'm not saying it's not, just that more explanation would be helpful.

You would want to set `max_excess` to something larger than `cost_of_change` if you want the utxos in your wallet to all be greater than `max_excess`.

For example, in the case of a Lightning node that is selling liquidity, you might know the smallest utxo you might sell is 10,000 sats + spend fees, so you could set `max_excess` to something like 15,000 sats. Now whe
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "intermittent issue in p2p_orphan_handling.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31700#issuecomment-2733704193)
@tnndbtc Thank you for the exact diff to reproduce. This makes it easier to test!


I don't know how to fix this class of bug completely, but this one instance can simply be fixed by syncing with the `net` thread. The issue is that net_processing still has a stale reference to the disconnected node and is waiting for the `net` thread to delete it. There is no direct way to sync with the Bitcoin Core `net` thread from outside the process, but as a hacky workaround, one can add some bytes to the b
...

✅ remyers closed a 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)

💬 remyers 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-2733706702)
I now believe we can achieve equivalent behavior without changing the wallet by just using it to find the best funding utxo, and if there is change we can (when appropriate) build the actual tx with the change amount added to the recipient output position before submitting the transaction.

I'll close this PR for now because this doesn't seem generally useful outside of Lightning liquidity providers that want to optimizing their UTXO set management, and a good alternative way of doing it exist
...

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "test: replace assert with assert_equal and assert_greater_than"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32091#pullrequestreview-2695106208)
utACK 387385ba1edf9febdc75d39bd77b35b29714b3d0