💬 Ashkar776 commented on pull request "Fees: add Fee rate Forecaster Manager":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31664#issuecomment-2833469762)
What this

On Sun, 27 Apr, 2025, 5:11 pm Abubakar Sadiq Ismail, <
***@***.***> wrote:

> ***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
> ------------------------------
>
> In src/policy/fees/mempool_forecaster.cpp
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31664#discussion_r2062624207>:
>
> > @@ -28,6 +28,13 @@ ForecastResult MemPoolForecaster::ForecastFeeRate(int target, bool conservative)
> return result;
> }
>
> + const auto cached_estimate = cache.get_cached_fo
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "common: Close non-std fds before exec in RunCommandJSON":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32343#issuecomment-2833472275)
Re-running the CentOS task shows that 1 in 5 runs fail

🤔 mabu44 reviewed a pull request: "doc: Fix fuzz test_runner.py path"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32353#pullrequestreview-2797651133)
Tested ACK 61f238e84ac6d24d8f420c2eabcbb2980d7fcb1e

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "doc: Fix fuzz test_runner.py path"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32353#pullrequestreview-2797667681)
ACk 61f238e84ac6d24d8f420c2eabcbb2980d7fcb1e.

🚀 hebasto merged a pull request: "doc: Fix fuzz test_runner.py path"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32353)

💬 jesterhodl commented on pull request "[29.x] qt: 29.1 translations update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32352#issuecomment-2833518903)
check_translations shouldn't complain for any polish labels as of now. Transifex is updated.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "[29.x] qt: 29.1 translations update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32352#issuecomment-2833525020)
> check_translations shouldn't complain for any polish labels as of now. I ran it.

Thanks. Just for reference, the script doesn't *need* to report no complaints. Sometimes it complains about perfectly fine translations. Also, it may not even be deterministic if called several times with a cleared cache.

💬 jesterhodl commented on pull request "[29.x] qt: 29.1 translations update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32352#issuecomment-2833526071)
> > check_translations shouldn't complain for any polish labels as of now. I ran it.
>
> Thanks. Just for reference, the script doesn't _need_ to report no complaints. Sometimes it complains about perfectly fine translations. Also, it may not even be deterministic if called several times with a cleared cache.

OK. By the way I noticed it. It complained A should be B, and then B should be A. Neither form would make it happy. I opted for something else.

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "subprocess: Backport upstream changes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32358)
Most of these changes were developed during work on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868 and have since been upstreamed.

As they are now merged, this PR backports them to our `src/util/subprocess.h` header.

Required for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Reintroduce external signer support for Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868#issuecomment-2833536931)
Rebased on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32358 and drafted until the latter is landed.

📝 hebasto converted_to_draft a pull request: "Reintroduce external signer support for Windows"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868)
Based on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32358.

Partially reverts:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28967
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29489

After this PR, we can proceed to actually remove the [unused code](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28981#pullrequestreview-1991272752) from `src/util/subprocess.hpp`.

📝 petertodd opened a pull request: "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359)
As per recent bitcoindev mailing list discussion.

Also removes the code to enforce those limits, including the `-datacarrier` and `-datacarriersize` config options.

These limits are easily bypassed by both direct submission to miner mempools (e.g. MARA Slipstream), and forks of Bitcoin Core that do not enforce them (e.g. Libre Relay). Secondly, protocols are bypassing them by simply publishing data in other ways, such as unspendable outputs and scriptsigs.

The *form* of datacarrier outp
...

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2833642959)
As per ML discussion, firm Concept NACK.

🤔 luke-jr reviewed a pull request: "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#pullrequestreview-2797740640)
As per ML discussion, firm Concept NACK.

🤔 darosior reviewed a pull request: "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#pullrequestreview-2797742035)
Concept ACK.

💬 BitcoinMechanic commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2833646525)
Concept NACK. Hard to take this seriously. Those config options not having direct impact over what miners may put in blocks does not equate to users no longer having a choice over what ends up in their mempools.

💬 Retropex commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2833651452)
Concept NACK. If miners want larger datacarrier transactions, they can use these settings to do so.

There’s no reason to prevent miners and node runners from making this choice.

💬 1ma commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2833652880)
Again? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130

Concept NACK.

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2833653449)
@1ma Please read the relevant mailing list discussion first: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d6ZO7gXGYbQ

There are good reasons why this is being brought up again.

💬 1ma commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2833656214)
Already did. I'm actually waiting for someone to add a new message so I can add mine with the data I gathered (just joined the mailing list).

If you care to actually look at the blockchain turns out no one is trying to get large OP_RETURNs mined: https://github.com/1ma/blockstats