💬 hebasto commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#issuecomment-2816673705)
In commit 86646448770888f66c446eacdd47d1a62d5552eb, "... we're only running 1 epochs anyway" -- where does this assumption comes from?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#issuecomment-2816673874)
> where does this assumption comes

> bench.epochs(/*numEpochs=*/1)

🚀 hebasto merged a pull request: "ci: Temporarily disable `WalletMigration` benchmark"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32306)

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "test: Run all benchmarks in the sanity check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32310)
It is unclear why not all benchmarks are run, given that:

* they only run as a sanity check (fastest version)
* no one otherwise runs them, not even CI
* issues have been missed due to this

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "test: Run all benchmarks in the sanity check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32310#pullrequestreview-2779948289)
ACK fa2a38a8a5a6b4130b9796df91596964d882ddfa, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#issuecomment-2816675608)
needs to revert d91a746815e4428c738f1a096a950292cbdb5469 here in this pull

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#issuecomment-2816675828)
Tested 86646448770888f66c446eacdd47d1a62d5552eb on Ubuntu 24.04:
```
$ ./build/bin/bench_bitcoin -filter=WalletMigration -min-time=100000
Warning, results might be unstable:
* CPU frequency scaling enabled: CPU 0 between 800.0 and 4,800.0 MHz
* CPU governor is 'powersave' but should be 'performance'
* Turbo is enabled, CPU frequency will fluctuate

Recommendations
* Use 'pyperf system tune' before benchmarking. See https://github.com/psf/pyperf
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
```

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#issuecomment-2816676660)
> Segmentation fault (core dumped)

Can you show me the full build command please, `cmake --preset=libfuzzer -DBUILD_FOR_FUZZING=OFF -DBUILD_BENCH=ON && cmake --build build_fuzz -j$(nproc) && build_fuzz/bin/bench_bitcoin -filter='WalletMigration' --min-time=10000` passes for me on Ubuntu.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "bench: close wallets after migration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309#issuecomment-2816677598)
> > Segmentation fault (core dumped)
>
> Can you show me the full build command please, `cmake --preset=libfuzzer -DBUILD_FOR_FUZZING=OFF -DBUILD_BENCH=ON && cmake --build build_fuzz -j$(nproc) && build_fuzz/bin/bench_bitcoin -filter='WalletMigration' --min-time=10000` passes for me on Ubuntu.

```
$ rm -rf build && cmake -B build -DBUILD_BENCH=ON
$ cmake --build build -t bench_bitcoin
$ ./build/bin/bench_bitcoin -filter=WalletMigration -min-time=100000
Warning, results might be unstabl
...

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "rpc: Allow fullrbf fee bump in (psbt)bumpfee"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31953)

📝 maflcko reopened a pull request: "rpc: Allow fullrbf fee bump in (psbt)bumpfee"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31953)
The RPCs (psbt)bumpfee, and the GUI, reject fee bumps when BIP 125 signalling is absent in the transaction even when the mempool and other RPCs allow them. Fix the confusion by allowing the fee bump.

This is done after fullrbf is always on (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30592)

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "bitcoin-cli: Add -ipcconnect option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32297#issuecomment-2816691663)
Concept ACK

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "qt, wallet: Convert uint256 to Txid":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32238#issuecomment-2816692394)
Concept ACK

💬 luisschwab commented on pull request "wallet: make coinbase that will mature on the next block available for selection":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32123#discussion_r2051498528)
The `LOCK` is unlocked when it goes out of scope, so at L33 it's gets unlocked.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2051507464)
I don't understand why these lines are commented out. They seem incorrect, since `malleated_valid` is created the exact same way as `malleated_invalid` below. Uncommenting this results in the test failing because `sendrawtransaction` fails with `mandartory-script-verify-flag-failed` but is not caught.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2051515684)
I think I understand, the line `How to create a malleated valid witness?` is wondering if there is a way. Then instead of `malleate_tx` we can do the valid way instead.
Maybe that can be made more clear with a comment like: "TODO: Create a malleated valid witness (how?) and substitute `malleate_tx` below?"

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-2816767319)
ACK 2b34857ad54aebbf0a9271e742c2caee85577bc8 - modulo the functional test malleated valid witness comment

Made many successful private broadcast connections with all 4 network types.
Successfully had connections timeout after sending the INV.
Tested resending the same raw tx multiple times.
Tested sending many double spends of the same tx at the same time.
Successfully had stale txs reattempted.
Tested with both `-maxconnections=0` and many inbound and outbound connections.

🤔 i-am-yuvi reviewed a pull request: "test: Run all benchmarks in the sanity check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32310#pullrequestreview-2780062597)
Concept ACK

Why is the CI failing?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] flush UTXOs in bigger batches based on dbcache size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31645#discussion_r2051557904)
Updated it and rebased to fix build - please re-review.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Run all benchmarks in the sanity check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32310#issuecomment-2816824275)
Concept ACK, depends on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32309 to make the build pass