:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32314)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Reintroduce external signer support for Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868#issuecomment-2821854910)
Rebased.

Picked @luke-jr's [suggestion](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868#discussion_r1970203305).

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Reintroduce external signer support for Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868#discussion_r2054454737)
Thanks! Your commit has been picked.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Reintroduce external signer support for Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868#discussion_r2054455626)
Thanks! Dropped.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Reintroduce external signer support for Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868#discussion_r2054458473)
Reworked.

👋 hebasto's pull request is ready for review: "Reintroduce external signer support for Windows"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054469201)
Done

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054469498)
I've changed it to an assert - if that's what you meant.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054469693)
Changed anyway

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054469803)
renamed to `m_rotations`

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054469920)
Did something similar (except for cstdint)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054470025)
Want to avoid this, but I don't actually mind either way - done

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054470143)
Done

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054470225)
Done

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054470316)
Did something similar

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054473019)
None are very readable, but I still find the stringy one simpler to read - the performance doesn't matter here at all

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054474183)
Hah, removed a constructor during refactoring and left these - moved them to braced scopes, this way the names can be the same

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054475071)
I'm not yet sure about the array (tried it, CI or local IBD didn't work for the reason you've also mentioned) - will take a look at that later

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054475842)
Done

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2054477284)
Was meant as a simplification for the final commit - but didn't actually use these - thanks, fixed