💬 darosior commented on issue "Enable PCP by default?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31663#issuecomment-2746249413)
Thanks everyone for the testing so far. @frankomosh can you confirm the [UPnP setting](https://manualsfile.com/product/k2c3wh8nad7.html#p44) is enabled on your router? I want to differentiate between routers with UPnP disabled by default and those that don't support PCP/NAT-PMP.

💬 grubles commented on issue "bitcoind immediately segfaults on ppc64 openbsd 7.4":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29517#issuecomment-2746252612)
FWIW I tried building on PPC64 Linux and `bitcoind` does **not** immediately crash. So it looks like something specific to OpenBSD powerpc64.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "bitcoind immediately segfaults on ppc64 openbsd 7.4":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29517#issuecomment-2746257914)
> `bitcoind`, `bitcoin-cli`, `bitcoin-util`, and `bitcoin-wallet` crash. `bitcoin-tx` does not seem to crash but I haven't tested it much.

If you want to debug this further and gdb doesn't help you with finding the place where the crash occurs you can try to place `std::cout << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__ << std::endl;` in the source code and then "bisect" from there until the exact line in the source code is known.

🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "Doc: add a comment referencing past vulnerability next to where it was fixed"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30538)

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Doc: add a comment referencing past vulnerability next to where it was fixed":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30538#issuecomment-2746267360)
Merged with 2 stale acks since there were not any real changes to the PR, checking with `git range-diff origin/master 7fea8eeeb9984ff6f3ed661f3970b1aaa68548de eb0724f0dee307d6d14e47ebd3077b7ffd50f507`. It was just rebased due to a conflict nearby.

💬 frankomosh commented on issue "Enable PCP by default?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31663#issuecomment-2746268475)
> Thanks everyone for the testing so far. [@frankomosh](https://github.com/frankomosh) can you confirm the [UPnP setting](https://manualsfile.com/product/k2c3wh8nad7.html#p44) is enabled on your router? I want to differentiate between routers with UPnP disabled by default and those that don't support PCP/NAT-PMP.

I confirmed. UPnP its not enabled on my router

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "Have createNewBlock() wait for tip, make rpc handle shutdown during long poll and wait methods"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31785#pullrequestreview-2708619308)
Code review ACK cc1001f3bf17b31512c05fb359e09483a07fb2a3. Only change since last review was rebasing after #31283

re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31785#pullrequestreview-2702397335

> is a use for returning the last known tip?

I think the main use for returning the last known tip when the tip hasn't changed is just to allow the caller distinguish between the case where the tip has not changed from the case where the node is shutting down. If it returned null in both cases we
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Have createNewBlock() wait for tip, make rpc handle shutdown during long poll and wait methods":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31785#discussion_r2009145946)
In commit "Have createNewBlock() wait for a tip" (db14ca3556ca792546bf4343feb733271333690f)

Commit message is a little confusing because it doesn't mention the timeout change. Would be clearer if it said the commit was changing two things (1) returning null on shutdown instead of last tip (2) ignoring timeout value during startup instead of returning 0 if timeout elapsed before tip was connected

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "rpc: add optional blockhash to waitfornewblock, unhide wait methods in help"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30635#pullrequestreview-2708626067)
Code review ACK e47b20f2f310f05832c879401660860cc40a6a09 with no changes since last review other than rebase

🤔 ryanofsky reviewed a pull request: "test: add missing segwitv1 test cases to `script_standard_tests`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31340#pullrequestreview-2708628256)
@theStack this has two ACKs but also some unaddressed comments. It otherwise seems ok to merge since it is just a test change and small refactoring. Do you want to update the pr or respond to the comments?

💬 yancyribbens commented on issue "BnB untested/unused condition in UTXO exclusion optimization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32047#issuecomment-2746287437)
> Yeah, I have had in my backlog that I would like to refactor BnB into the style of CoinGrinder since I wrote CoinGrinder, because I think it would be easier to understand, the iteration count would make more sense (currently it counts and evaluates the backtracking steps as well, but they can never yield a new solution!), and maybe easier to test. Given that my new job is explicitly more focused on working on the wallet, I was hoping to get to that once we are in the new office in April, but i
...

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "CLI cleanups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31887#pullrequestreview-2708629412)
Code review ACK d423fd9ec83ae323ac29bdc1b677ed8260bd59c4, just running clang-format and updating commit messages since last review

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "Execute Discover() when bind=0.0.0.0 or :: is set"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31492#pullrequestreview-2708633985)
Code review ACK 1561575c2d984fd94c9679de3d1de207ef6c7c06, but would be nice to have feedback from @vasild here since this is supposed to fix #31293.

The changes here all seem to make sense but the interactions between them are complicated. I think this PR would be easier to review if the changes could be broken down as much as possible. It would be nice to add new tests in a first commit to clarify current buggy behaviors. Then it seems like the GetListenPort =onion parsing fix could be a sep
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Execute Discover() when bind=0.0.0.0 or :: is set":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31492#discussion_r2009158096)
Might be missing something, but it seems like this could be simplified:

```c++
const CService onion_addr{DefaultOnionServiceTarget(GetListenPort() + 1);
```

🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "CLI cleanups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31887)

🤔 ryanofsky reviewed a pull request: "Fix tiebreak when loading blocks from disk (and add tests for comparing chain ties)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29640#pullrequestreview-2708642977)
Might be ready for merge if @mzumsande and @sipa can re-ack

💬 darosior commented on issue "Enable PCP by default?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31663#issuecomment-2746308933)
And if you do enable it does the port mapping works from `bitcoind`?

💬 Salarja commented on issue "depends: capnp build ignores config_opts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32068#issuecomment-2746310181)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32068

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "contrib: document asmap-tool commands more thoroughly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110#issuecomment-2746323958)
This was pretty interesting to read more about. It looks like ASmap can provide protection from certain types of threat actors, such as those that can allocate a large number of addresses from a single RIR effectively creating a type of Sybil attack. However, it seems to me there's another attack vector, such as a botnet that infects numerous systems across many RIR's that this wouldn't be effective against.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "contrib: document asmap-tool commands more thoroughly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110#discussion_r2009180426)
I don't think it defeats the purpose. It's just removing information one normally does not care about.

I'd just say "However, it does interfere with the ability to compute meaningful diffs".