👍 hodlinator approved a pull request: "doc: clarify the documentation of `Assume` assertion"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#pullrequestreview-2710762015)
re-ACK 329a0dcdafe05002f662e8737a76bfdeaba9a3ed

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32080#discussion_r2010404646)
Here's a branch with the above patch https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/f87381ae825b7c0263f0b30d2f93e2687c8fca6f, but also renaming:
- `unvault_{privkey, pubkey_xonly}` to `hot_{privkey,pk,pubkey_xonly}`
- `recover_{privkey, pubkey_xonly}` to `cold_{privkey,pk,pubkey_xonly}`

With that terminology I find it easier to follow: using their hot key the user unvaults into their withdrawal address, which can be recovered using their cold key.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "cmake: Avoid fuzzer "multiple definition of `main'" errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31992#issuecomment-2748542650)
Updated 34aeb70748ef8ee186fe53f0db2580a445452dc2 -> 60d2afe65484f755d99191bb650b9f9a784ee2c2 ([`pr/subtree-fuzz.1`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/subtree-fuzz.1) -> [`pr/subtree-fuzz.2`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/subtree-fuzz.2), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/subtree-fuzz.1..pr/subtree-fuzz.2)) moving `FUZZ_LIBS` to the `fuzzer_interface` target

---

re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31992#issuecomment-2747463640
...

💬 martinus commented on pull request "Draft: CCoinMap Experiments":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32128#issuecomment-2748556101)
> Welcome back @martinus, we missed you! :) I will measure these changes separately until 890k blocks soon. I have included this change a tracking PR where we have other similar experiments: #32043

I have not done any programming in half a year, looking forward to getting back :)

💬 VolodymyrBg commented on pull request "test: Add support for mainnet addresses in address_to_scriptpubkey":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32060#issuecomment-2748559368)
@maflcko
@davidgumberg
could you check it please when you have a free moment?

📝 fjahr opened a pull request: "RFC: Accept non-std transactions in Testnet4 by default again"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32133)
Feel free to ignore the code, just looking for conceptual discussion for now.

It used to be the case that we would accept non-std transactions by default in Testnet3 but this was changed in #28354 because RSK had shot themselves in the foot because of this (see #26348). In discussions on Testnet4 [this came up again as a potential feature](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2041139129) but the idea to revert this was rejected then because the 20-min exception rule coul
...

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "Accept unordered tracepoints in interface_usdt_utxocache.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32101#issuecomment-2748614134)
ACK 693d1e2f54baa0d5e407153f79b2f98385e6b8d9

I successfully ran the changed test a couple of times and the code changes look good to me.

That this behavior works as intended can be tested with this patch:

```patch
diff --git a/test/functional/interface_usdt_utxocache.py b/test/functional/interface_usdt_utxocache.py
index d4213d5020..94ec23c51a 100755
--- a/test/functional/interface_usdt_utxocache.py
+++ b/test/functional/interface_usdt_utxocache.py
@@ -326,6 +326,7 @@ class UTXOCac
...

🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#pullrequestreview-2710888718)
Adding more details from my previous [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#pullrequestreview-2705644380):
- The legacy wallet is being created as a `sqlite` DB (the unsupported legacy-sqlite mentioned [above](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#discussion_r1983725941)):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/32a522f2d825957f0c85d7b4ea9185a053b018e3/src/wallet/walletdb.cpp#L1471-L1477
- In `getwalletinfo` we could see `"format": "sqlite",`;

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "RFC: Accept non-std transactions in Testnet4 by default again":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32133#issuecomment-2748639276)
> the question is why we are not also moving back on this setting, too, so that people can use non-std transactions on Testnet4.

I don't think this is enough. There are many non-std transactions that will still be rejected, even if this is turned on. One example is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29843.



> If you want to make sure your tx propagates on mainnet then use `testmempoolaccept` on a mainnet node.

I don't think this is enough either. There are many transaction topol
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "policy: Allow non-standard scripts with -acceptnonstdtxn=1 (test nets only)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29843#issuecomment-2748654660)
Concept ACK

💬 hebasto commented on issue "v29.0 Testing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32052#issuecomment-2748663483)
I've completed testing the v29.0.0rc2 release candidate on Windows 11 Pro 24H2, using the default Edge browser for downloading.

All signatures look good. The browser flagged [`bitcoin-29.0rc2-win64-setup-unsigned.exe`](https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-29.0/test.rc2/bitcoin-29.0rc2-win64-setup-unsigned.exe), which is expected:


The binaries `bitcoind.exe`, `bitcoin-cli.exe`, `bitcoin-qt.exe` and `t
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Move some tests and documentation from testnet3 to testnet4":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32096#discussion_r2010500449)
Seems fine either way. I don't see why this has to be testnet in the example here.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Move some tests and documentation from testnet3 to testnet4":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32096#issuecomment-2748679517)
utACK 2906b183169bc78b37449a818717249c2d1cb7a1

Reviewed the code and changes look good to me.

💬 jsarenik commented on issue "Failed transactions on importing mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32125#issuecomment-2748705614)
Thank you for feedback, @maflcko ! In the end of this post I unclude shell script. The node is started always with `persistmempool=0` and I have also `mempool.dat` file symlinked to `/dev/null` just to remind me on a filesystem level.

Yes, my chainstate always contains the last-recent block when starting import.

Now I tried to artificially change priority of each of the transactions before importing them and it worked:

```
2025-03-24T16:06:18Z Imported mempool transactions from file: 40560 su
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "cmake: Avoid fuzzer "multiple definition of `main'" errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31992#issuecomment-2748719049)
Concept ACK.

🤔 hodlinator reviewed a pull request: "test: add missing segwitv1 test cases to `script_standard_tests`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31340#pullrequestreview-2710922010)
Code review 8284229a28c09c585356dcf7e4bddbc8f2a23755

Thanks for restoring the former test!

Only semi-blocker for me is the consensus/policy question (see inline comment).

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "test: add missing segwitv1 test cases to `script_standard_tests`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31340#discussion_r2010515623)
nit: This might be more precise & helpful?
It took me a few minutes to re-grok the difference between the bytes derived from `XOnlyPubKey` vs compressed `CPubKey`.
```suggestion
// -> segwit version 1 with an non-standard program size
// (CPubKey::COMPRESSED_SIZE = 33 bytes in this test case)
```

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "test: add missing segwitv1 test cases to `script_standard_tests`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31340#discussion_r2010502733)
Would have been nice if `IsPayToAnchor` was `constexpr` and provably side-effect-free so that compilers could optimize the call away (#32100).

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "test: add missing segwitv1 test cases to `script_standard_tests`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31340#discussion_r2010480303)
Should this be:
```suggestion
// TxoutType::WITNESS_V0_{KEY,SCRIPT}HASH with incorrect program size (-> policy-invalid, i.e. non-standard)
```
?

Seems like the terminology could be out of sync with the comment below (mentioning "policy" instead of "consensus"). Or is it that segwit v0 program sizes are stricter and v1 program sizes are more flexible, consensus-wise?

💬 Kixunil commented on issue "Migrate from BTC/kvB to sat/vB on RPC and startup options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32093#issuecomment-2748727277)
I don't like reducing the precision. The bitcoin price is rising, people will care more about smaller steps.