⚠️ fanquake opened an issue: "gui: translation spam?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32295)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/bfeacc18b36132ba8ac70142133cd6c0e63b6763/src/qt/locale/bitcoin_pl.ts#L3057

I can't find any other translations that contains a links to `github.com`.

Further down in the same file, this also looks like spam:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/bfeacc18b36132ba8ac70142133cd6c0e63b6763/src/qt/locale/bitcoin_pl.ts#L3083

📝 l0rinc opened a pull request: "refactor: reenable `implicit-integer-sign-change` check for `serialize.h`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32296)
Inspired by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32154, the main goal of this PR is to reenable sanitizer checks for `serialize.h` (last commit)

👋 suiyuan1314's pull request is ready for review: "docs: improve development guidelines for PR merging"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32006)

💬 suiyuan1314 commented on pull request "docs: improve development guidelines for PR merging":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32006#issuecomment-2812880721)
> @suiyuan1314 what's the status of this? Concept ~0.

Hi sir, I have updated the suggestion changes. Thanks for your review

💬 JeremyRubin commented on pull request "BIP-348 (OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK) (regtest only)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32247#issuecomment-2812906642)
cr ACK [cb0c9f6](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32247/commits/cb0c9f6389abc1d24b4fb8b80eaaa539acd81f92)

This matches the BIP's semantics, and the implementation is reasonable. Minor nits above to reduce possibility of behavior changes for other users of Schnorr APIs.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: reenable `implicit-integer-sign-change` check for `serialize.h`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32296#discussion_r2048996665)
It seems a bit odd to first sort stuff, and then remove it again later on. Just seems like unnecessary churn to touch the same lines several times. Also, sorting with lower case and upper case is "controversial", so my recommendation would be to just drop this commit and focus on the more meaningful changes.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[29.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32292#discussion_r2048997353)
`bash` has to be used to run `sed`:
```diff
--- a/.github/workflows/ci.yml
+++ b/.github/workflows/ci.yml
@@ -66,5 +66,6 @@ jobs:
Write-Host "PowerShell version $($PSVersionTable.PSVersion.ToString())"

- name: Using vcpkg with MSBuild
+ shell: bash
run: |
echo "VCPKG_INSTALLATION_ROOT is '$VCPKG_INSTALLATION_ROOT'"
```

See: f8619196ceb5c6a58125506d276d9515837f043a

💬 fanquake commented on issue "ci: failure in Windows cross-test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32291#issuecomment-2813014178)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/14515873780/job/40726323869

📝 ryanofsky opened a pull request: "bitcoin-cli: Add -ipcconnect option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32297)
This implements an idea from sipa in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28722#issuecomment-2807026958 to allow `bitcoin-cli` to connect to the node via IPC instead of TCP, if the ENABLE_IPC cmake option is enabled and the node has been started with `-ipcbind`.

This feature can be tested with:

build/bin/bitcoin-node -regtest -ipcbind=unix -debug=ipc
build/bin/bitcoin-cli -regtest -ipcconnect=unix -getinfo

The -ipconnect parameter can also be omitted, since this change also makes
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add bitcoin wrapper executable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31375#issuecomment-2813016186)
ACK 8892cb50db63656991e4d411ab804a9535f991a0

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: reenable `implicit-integer-sign-change` check for `serialize.h`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32296#discussion_r2049029838)
Done, thanks!

🤔 TheCharlatan reviewed a pull request: "[IBD] specialize block serialization"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31868#pullrequestreview-2775842648)
This looks ok, albeit that I'm seeing more modest performance improvements on my end.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "[IBD] specialize block serialization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31868#discussion_r2049014604)
I'm not sure about all these crypto changes. Will this be noticable at all? Why only do it for the sha256 hasher? Maybe do these once/if the other single byte steam writer changes are accepted.

👍 laanwj approved a pull request: "torcontrol: Fix addrOnion outdated comment"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32282#pullrequestreview-2775950787)
ACK bcaa23a2b7090c355f7b048ad8cae719c23dea43

📝 l0rinc opened a pull request: "refactor: sort ubsan suppression values for consistency"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32298)

✅ l0rinc closed a pull request: "refactor: sort ubsan suppression values for consistency"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32298)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: sort ubsan suppression values for consistency":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32298#issuecomment-2813118238)
Wrong repo again, sorry

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "[28.x] Backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32299)
Backports:

- #32070
- #32187
- #32286

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "bitcoin-cli: Add -ipcconnect option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32297#discussion_r2049097617)
Passing `-rpcconnect` and `-ipcconnect` at the same time should probably result in an error.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "bitcoin-cli: Add -ipcconnect option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32297#issuecomment-2813169967)
Concept ACK, it'd be useful to have an utility that can talk to the node through IPC and making `bitcoin-cli` double for that prevents code duplication.