🤔 rkrux reviewed a pull request: "test: add missing segwitv1 test cases to `script_standard_tests`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31340#pullrequestreview-2709716923)
Re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31340#issuecomment-2746468990

I'm ok with changing the scoping of `ANCHOR_BYTES` in a follow-up. IMHO it can be added in `CScript` that can be further be used by `struct PayToAnchor` as this file `addresstype.h` already uses `CScript`, otherwise in order to deduplicate `4e73`, `ANCHOR_BYTES` from `struct PayToAnchor` would need to be used in `CScript::IsPayToAnchor` that would create a circular dependency.

ACK 8284229a28c09c585356dcf7e4bddbc8f2a
...

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "test: add missing segwitv1 test cases to `script_standard_tests`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31340#discussion_r2009797523)
What's exactly the point of having `Assume` here? We pass hardcoded values right in the call here and immediately test the correctness of those hardcoded values?

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "Rust tool to import bip39 mnemonic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32115#issuecomment-2747518535)
Concept NACK

Shipping rust code in `share/` that users have to compile themselves seems like the wrong approach. Imo, bip39 should either be supported properly (available to all users without jumping through hoops) or not at all.

The amount of users that would compile this themselves is marginal making the upside of this pretty small. Technical users like that would have no trouble finding this in the e.g. `rust-bitcoin` examples or elsewhere.

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "fuzz: Fix off-by-one in package_rbf target"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32122#pullrequestreview-2709789287)
utACK fa9d9a33420c2db35e9ee7eebe5d6e475e26a8e8

This was caught in the qa-assets CI because we're using a hardened libc++ build? Trying to understand why I haven't seen this in my fuzzing.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: Fix off-by-one in package_rbf target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32122#issuecomment-2747581208)
> This was caught in the qa-assets CI because we're using a hardened libc++ build? Trying to understand why I haven't seen this in my fuzzing.

Yes. This particular one doesn't require an ABI breaking build, so I think you should be able to find it with any of (fast, extensive, debug) from https://libcxx.llvm.org/Hardening.html#mapping-between-the-hardening-modes-and-the-assertion-categories. Same for GCC: It should be found by any of (ASSERTIONS, DEBUG, DEBUG_PEDANTIC). However, I haven't tri
...

⚠️ l0rinc opened an issue: "RFC: Macro Regression Test Suite for Historical Reorgs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32130)
### Context and Motivation

We've recently modified caching behavior ([optimizations](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28280), [refactors](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30906), [new features](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31553), [calculating additional metrics](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31703#discussion_r1925501920)), and a common concern is often: "Sweet, but have you tested it via a reorg?!"

We already have tests covering basic reorg scenarios ([featu
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Rust tool to import bip39 mnemonic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32115#discussion_r2009883079)
I assumed you were talking about losing from _from the imported wallet_, but I think you're talking about funds in a pre-existing Bitcoin Core wallet.

> does not fail if there are already descriptors in the wallet

The instructions say that the wallet should be blank. Perhaps the script should make the RPC calls so that it can actually verify this, but using RPC increases complexity and presumably requires importing network or shell code.

✅ Sjors closed a pull request: "Rust tool to import bip39 mnemonic"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32115)

💬 Sjors commented on issue "support BIP39 mnemonic in descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19151#issuecomment-2747613797)
Every attempt to do this has been met concept NACKs or lack of review. Maybe we should just decide to not do this and close?

🤔 rkrux reviewed a pull request: "doc: clarify the documentation of `Assume` assertion"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#pullrequestreview-2709900914)
Concept ACK a880d1bf87817b1e6606c971cbfe98382898a0be

I find myself agreeing with the points mentioned in this comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#discussion_r2008737842, there is some redundancy in the verbiage currently that can be removed.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "fuzz: enable running fuzz test cases in Debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32113#discussion_r2009964213)
Personally, I'd prefer to run the fuzz corpora against the actual logic not the stubbed out logic, so I'd personally rather run with `FUZZ_NONDETERMINISM` set. I don't see why reviewers would have to take this into account at all; it's just an alternate way to exercise test code, it has no effect on production code.

⚠️ l0rinc opened an issue: "RFC: Compact Block Reconstruction Macro Benchmark Suite"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32131)
### Context and Motivation

Compact blocks significantly improve block propagation efficiency by reducing bandwidth usage and latency during transmission. Precise benchmarking of compact block reconstruction performance is crucial for detecting regressions or improvements across releases, especially when modifying related code paths affecting mempool behavior or block relay performance.

Recent [analysis by `B10C`](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/stats-on-compact-block-reconstructions/1052/12) high
...

💬 saikiran57 commented on pull request "wallet: removed duplicate call to GetDescriptorScriptPubKeyMan":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32023#issuecomment-2747802273)
Hi @maflcko I've updated the steps to reproduces the issue. Have a look into the the experiment files for the behavior (I've mimicked the code) https://github.com/saikiran57/cpp17/blob/develop/experiment/map_with_high_load.cpp

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: enable running fuzz test cases in Debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32113#issuecomment-2747808769)
lgtm ACK 1718da848a0a7591f0eab086e159f1e9e0f2c59b

This should also address the concern by @ryanofsky in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31191#issuecomment-2451865832 to some extent IIUC. Of course, it is still impossible to execute a fuzz test case normally in a release-mode non-fuzz build, but this pull offers one workaround:

* Picking a debug-mode build to build all binaries and manually overriding the cxx-flags to increase the optimization level to the level of a release-mode bu
...

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "descriptors: taproot partial descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30243#issuecomment-2747824269)
Rebased on master https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/770d39a37652d40885533fecce37e9f71cc0d051
- changed `Span` to `std::span`

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "validation: ensure assumevalid is always used during reindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31615#issuecomment-2747830190)
Rebased on master https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/770d39a37652d40885533fecce37e9f71cc0d051
- fix failing functional test by changing `self.send_message` to `self.send_without_ping` due to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/fa9cf38ab666b50b0d8e82cb17f9e5a8a613547d

💬 0xB10C commented on issue "RFC: Macro Regression Test Suite for Historical Reorgs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32130#issuecomment-2747839536)
Instead of using mainnet blocks with a reorg maybe every 1000-3000 blocks, one could consider using testnet4 blocks as it often has multiple reorgs per block and blocks are a lot smaller and faster to load.

See for example https://fork.observer/?network=4

💬 maflcko commented on issue "RFC: Compact Block Reconstruction Macro Benchmark Suite":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32131#issuecomment-2747858696)
> * Setting up a node by syncing up to a known block height (e.g., block 840,000, ideally via quick AssumeUTXO seeding).
>
> * Fetching the next few blocks from the network (lazy-init from network, caching the blocks locally) and adding their transactions to the local mempool.
>
> * Replaying compact block announcements and measuring reconstruction performance

Maybe I am missing something obvious, but I don't think this is possible to detect the effects of mempoolfullrbf (one motivation for t
...

🤔 l0rinc requested changes to a pull request: "contrib: refactor: dedup deserialization routines in utxo-to-sqlite script"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32116#pullrequestreview-2710061531)
Concept ACK - I think we can do a bit more cleanup, though

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "contrib: refactor: dedup deserialization routines in utxo-to-sqlite script":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32116#discussion_r2009999146)
👍, `read_varint` and `deser_varint` implementations match exactly (except for description, which we may move over there)