🤔 janb84 reviewed a pull request: "fuzz: doc: add info about `afl-system-config` for macOS"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32175#pullrequestreview-2800214659)
re ACK [6e02660](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32175/commits/6e026606f368d8d1139b266c382076685e76d0b2)

Changes sinds last ACK:
- Minor style change in comments to align with rest of comment style.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2836118449)
I've historically been -0 on these kinds of restrictions, and as soon as we run into non-trivial usage outside the bounds of standardness, there needs to be strong motivations to keep those restrictions otherwise they become a centralizing force. This is doubly so in a world where witness stuffing is a highly dynamic and well-paid method of publishing arbitrary data on the blockchain, so we're not even accomplishing the ostensible goals of those who oppose removal.

There are roughly 3 ways to
...

💬 portlandhodl commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2836160454)
Concept Ack,

As a note the current MARA non-standard mempool policy is
- Unlimited OP_RETURNS
- No size limitations
- No restrictions on burn amount.

MARA currently has 3-5% of the network hashrate and charges 3x priority feerate for these transactions arbitraging standardness rules. The ability to profit from this activity would be reduced if these types of transactions became standard.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2836167166)
@portlandhodl

> No restrictions on burn amount.

IIRC that's just a `sendrawtransaction`/`submitpackage` argument, not a relay concern

💬 darosior commented on pull request "test: avoid stack overflow in `FindChallenges` via manual iteration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32351#issuecomment-2836170013)
My review was requested but since Pieter and Hodlinator beat me to it i think this had enough review already?

🤔 janb84 reviewed a pull request: "test: Force named args for RPCOverloadWrapper optional args"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32360#pullrequestreview-2800357905)
tACK [fa48be3](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32360/commits/fa48be3ba443d2436f754265b86331f84b866130)

PR makes the optional arguments, named arguments in the `RPCOverloadWrapper` in the functional test framework. The named arguments are clearer and makes the code easier to understand (imho)

- tested ✅
- code-review ✅

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: avoid stack overflow in `FindChallenges` via manual iteration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32351#issuecomment-2836183800)
If you don't have time to review, a concept ack would still be useful

💬 portlandhodl commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2836184112)
> @portlandhodl
>
> > No restrictions on burn amount.
>
> IIRC that's just a `sendrawtransaction`/`submitpackage` argument, not a relay concern

This is absolutely correct per Solver + IsStandard(), thanks will edit post.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/3a29ba33dca6b9d53377d2e6a9f28453bb14ee6c/src/script/solver.cpp#L185C39-L185C72

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "test: Test that migration automatically repairs corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#pullrequestreview-2800454889)
utACK c7e2b9e2644442b147880becb8a659f3d00092d9

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: Force named args for RPCOverloadWrapper optional args":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32360#issuecomment-2836278910)
ACK fa48be3ba443d2436f754265b86331f84b866130

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: Slim down previous releases bdb check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32350#issuecomment-2836295677)
ACK fa58f40b898ba6c57655bf38a241fb10107d4a3a

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: Force named args for RPCOverloadWrapper optional args"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32360)

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "test: Test that migration automatically repairs corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29124#issuecomment-2836339006)
re-ACK c7e2b9e2644442b147880becb8a659f3d00092d9 via range-diff:

git range-diff b8cefeb221490868d62b7a0695f8b5ea392d3654..bfcf5c5ab1fdba46d492aa0872c3d5f9a4a87633 80e6ad9e3023a57a4ef19b7d0edf9ac5be71a584..c7e2b9e2644442b147880becb8a659f3d00092d9

💬 danielabrozzoni commented on pull request "validation: log which peer sent us a header":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27826#issuecomment-2836362238)
tACK abe43dfadd6325f80975a76aea57a549c3162191

The changes look good to me, although I'm not too familiar with the validation code. I checked (by reading the code, didn't test) that the logs are missing only when receiving a BLOCK message and in some RPC paths, as explained in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27826/files#r1348974233
I sketched this diagram to better understand the code and thought I’d share it here in case it helps someone else too :)

![photo_2025-04-28_21-49-02](ht
...

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: Slim down previous releases bdb check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32350)

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: Advance pindexLastCommonBlock early after connecting blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#issuecomment-2836382102)
[c69ee2d](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c69ee2d5b93296d3008d6978182b2bc29bbeb457) to [b7ff6a6](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b7ff6a611a220e9380f6cd6428f1d3483c8d566f): addressed feedback


> Is it expected to pass sometimes?

It wasn't - but I have tracked this down now. It's a bit involved, I hope the following explanation makes sense:

The initial situation is that there are 2 remaining connected peers, the node has just synced blocks up to height 500, but pindex
...

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: Advance pindexLastCommonBlock early after connecting blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#discussion_r2064454694)
done

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: Advance pindexLastCommonBlock early after connecting blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#discussion_r2064455709)
changed to use one var for each index, plus one array.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: Advance pindexLastCommonBlock early after connecting blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32180#discussion_r2064457862)
I'd say probably not becasue, `pindexLastCommonBlock` isn't really used for anything but assigning blocks during IBD.
If we will never need any blocks from this peer (until it sends us more headers, but then `pindexLastCommonBlock` will get updated. I'll also ignore weird `invalidateblock` scenarios here), I don't see what benefits updating would have.

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#issuecomment-2836389658)
> Backwards compatibility is needed for wallet.dat

Bitcoin Core will still be able to migrate wallets that are in the legacy format to the new format. See the `migratewallet` rpc command: https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/29.0.0/rpc/wallet/migratewallet/ and the legacy wallet deprecation tracking issue (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20160) for more context.