💬 stratospher commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r2068145404)
> stale_tx came from the private broadcast storage, is the original transaction, not the malleated one.

ohh missed that, will check it again.

💬 mrberlinorg commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#discussion_r2068154281)
Removing the check for nDataOut > 1 would allow multiple OP_RETURN outputs in a single transaction, which goes against the standard behavior of the Bitcoin protocol. This could introduce several issues:

Non-standard transactions: Multiple OP_RETURN outputs in a transaction are considered non-standard. Allowing them could lead to network inconsistencies, as some nodes might not be able to properly process or relay these transactions.

Network congestion: More OP_RETURN outputs would increase
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2841239327)
> You could consider leaving the options in and just increasing the default to max block size. I don't feel strongly about doing this - the config option would just be a footgun long term - but we did do `-mempoolfullrbf` removal in separate stages. It might make this less controversial.

At this point I think the controversy is sunk cost, and staging the removal just means another round of all this.

---

Things that should be discussed on the mailinglist, but I'll respond to them here an
...

💬 Haaroon commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2841301806)
I'm on the fence with this proposal as a user of core.

It's wholly unfair that those who have the power to use a private mempool or use custom node implementations can already do such things. Those around us are using bypasses, then this clearly levels the playing field.

After reading the discussion...

Concept ACK.

💬 naiyoma commented on pull request "p2p: protect addnode peers during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32051#discussion_r2068234486)
nit: I think the message can be a bit clearer, e.g., "Timeout downloading block %s from manual peer (addnode/connect). Not disconnecting

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Drop testnet3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31974#issuecomment-2841336941)
Rebased after #29039.

@instagibbs how long do you think we should wait for this? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31974#issuecomment-2694932831

My [mailinglist post](https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/4B21A2CA-2224-4BD1-AA5D-C5B2F8859E4B@sprovoost.nl/T/#t) didn't result in very passionate pleas for keeping it. And although some projects do still use it, they haven't demonstrated a serious intention to upgrade anytime soon.

Should we perhaps wait for testnet5 to see if that fixes th
...

💬 cezar1 commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2841351673)
as a node runner, concept NACK. the parameters and functionalities to be removed act ad minimum as tutorial for spam self defense.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "util: Remove `fsbridge::get_filesystem_error_message()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32383#issuecomment-2841353847)
Friendly ping @ryanofsky @davidgumberg @hodlinator @sipsorcery :)

👍 maflcko approved a pull request: "util: Remove `fsbridge::get_filesystem_error_message()`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32383#pullrequestreview-2806410576)
lgtm ACK 671a9a258705b22b26cb8066fc0e53988c960fc6

The new error messages also read nicer. Left some further nits, while touching those lines.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "util: Remove `fsbridge::get_filesystem_error_message()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32383#discussion_r2068272988)
```suggestion
LogInfo/Warning("Unable to remove random auth cookie file %s: %s\n", fs::PathToString(e.path1()), e.code().message());
```

Since you are changing the error message anyway, seems fine to remove the redundant `__func__`. Also, could clarify to info or warning level?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "util: Remove `fsbridge::get_filesystem_error_message()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32383#discussion_r2068278097)
(the other messages look like warnings to me, too)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "util: Remove `fsbridge::get_filesystem_error_message()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32383#discussion_r2068323394)
Thanks! Updated.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "util: Remove `fsbridge::get_filesystem_error_message()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32383#issuecomment-2841412596)
The recent [feedback](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32383#discussion_r2068272988) from @maflcko has been addressed.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[PoC] Modernize use of UTF-8 in Windows code":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32380#issuecomment-2841418207)
Rebased on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32383.

💬 boring877 commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2841433194)
Hello, I dont support this bip. Bitcoin is P2P and not financial institutions. The core use case for bitcoin is we can send bitcoin to each other W/O middle man. I dont need more then thats.

Bitcoin being simple what make it good.

Please Do NOT play with BITCOIN and LEAVE IT AS It is.

💬 boring877 commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2841440267)
I have No IDEA how commenting on Bitcoin change make it off-topic. when Changing core thesis of Bitcoin. Bitcoin CORE ARE NOT BITCOIN FRIENDS. YOU are guys are the enemy.

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Stop shipping ARM32 builds for releases?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32375#issuecomment-2841444915)
I think I heard that that the Pi 5 ARM chips are _unable_ to boot a 32bit kernel (although you can still hack about in a 32 bit userspace if you really want), so it seems that the day is definitely getting nearer.

If I am correct above the question then perhaps becomes "how long do we want to ship release builds for Pi 3's and 4's".

💬 AiJunki commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2841448223)
Fuck you petertodd. stay off bitcoin. you cunts.

💬 moth-oss commented on pull request "policy: allow more than one OP_RETURN outputs per tx":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32381#issuecomment-2841523683)
Concept NACK

Removing op_return output limit will be ineffective in making a dent in the UTXO bloat because of the segwit discount vs cost of putting data in op_return. We should focus on addressing the UTXO bloat issue head on vs hoping that people will pay more just to store data "the right way".

💬 i5hi commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2841539259)
humble concept NACK