💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: failure in interface_usdt_coinselection.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32322#issuecomment-2824123571)
> Seems like a one-off event for now and not much that can be done about it?

No, this happens consistently with the new kernel.

I suspect anyone can reproduce this with a new kernel locally as well.

My suggestion would be to fix this or work around it in some way temporarily, until the kernel takes the patch (one was submitted iirc).

If it isn't possible to fix or work around, the test should be disabled temporarily:

```diff
ci: Temporarily disable failing bpf checks

diff --git a/.gith
...

💬 thesamesam commented on issue "PIE+LTO causes Bitcoin-Qt to segfault at startup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/867#issuecomment-2824133368)
Interesting! It should happen since https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/qt6-base/-/commit/5cd71aed56de955b182e20263a50cd91bf7b6aaa.

Thiago gives some ways to check whether it was in effect at https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-112332?focusedId=716976&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-716976.

I have an idea which may explain it, let me poke.

💬 juanmigdr commented on pull request "Add rpcestimateconservativefees":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32329#issuecomment-2824142411)
> > Bitcoin Core v28.0 changed the default fee estimation mode for `estimatesmartfee` from _conservative_ to _economical_ ([[#30275](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30275)](#30275)). While this change reduces fee overestimation for most users, it may not be ideal in all environments.
>
> You can easily opt in to the `conservative` mode by passing a parameter to `estimatesmartfee`.
>
> > In my case, I maintain a long-running node (since v24.0) with multiple clients depending on the
...

🚀 hebasto merged a pull request: "ci: switch to LLVM 20 in tidy job"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32226)

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2055969055)
It is functionality that can be activated by the user/CI. Not having the code would leave that case in more of a broken state.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2055973404)
Can we cover the paths in the tests as well?

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2055986974)
We could definitely test more parts of the framework functionality in another PR. This PR is focused on keeping the error reporting clear for startup failures, to aid troubleshooting.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-2824202867)
`2b34857ad5...1c16944a4a`: address suggestions

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2055989720)
Done

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2055990031)
Done

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2055990265)
Done

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2055990539)
Done

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2055992009)
Done, reworded the comment.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2055994881)
But this PR introduced the dead code

💬 saikiran57 commented on pull request "wallet: removed duplicate call to GetDescriptorScriptPubKeyMan":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32023#issuecomment-2824224700)
Hi @furszy could you please finalize this review and merge this.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2056007024)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2055969055

💬 saikiran57 commented on pull request "Added rescan option for import descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31668#issuecomment-2824233359)
Hi All @achow101 @furszy @mprenditore @maflcko @w0xlt @davidrobinsonau request to re-review this PR and provide ACK.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2056022026)
Yes, this loose handling makes it possible to do the job with less code. My reasoning is that the worst outcome from the race is acceptable.

I am looking into keeping track of more stuff with respect to the future RPC stats (see at the bottom of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2042286270) which would also give us more fine grained control here. If it looks reasonable and is not too much code, I will propose the change in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#
...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "miner: timelock the coinbase to the mined block's height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32155#discussion_r2056025288)
Good catch, thanks. I should have re-checked with my follow-up PR which introduces validation before pushing the change for the fuzz target. Will do that this time.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "refactor: Avoid copies by using const references or by move-construction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31650#issuecomment-2824264910)
Re-ran tidy as it looks like 20 will pickup more issues: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5041587878625280?logs=ci#L1916:
```bash
[09:08:35.465] /ci_container_base/src/rpc/util.h:527:50: error: parameter 'pow_limit' is const-qualified in the function declaration; const-qualification of parameters only has an effect in function definitions [readability-avoid-const-params-in-decls,-warnings-as-errors]
[09:08:35.465] 527 | uint256 GetTarget(const CBlockIndex& blockindex, const uint256 pow_limit);
`
...