💬 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

💬 i5hi commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2841541157)
opens up a worse attack vector. there are more creative ways to solve utxo bloat.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "RFC: Accept non-std transactions in Testnet4 by default again":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32133#issuecomment-2841546065)
> I didn't mean that they setup this connection to a miner on purpose, I meant that they just happened to be connect to a miner by chance (which I think is much more likely to happend on testnet than on mainnet).

Even in that case, they've manually modified their own node to accept non standard transactions so they should have some chance of being aware that something weird is going on. Also, if it is the case that randomly connecting to nodes finds you a testnet miner that accepts non standa
...

💬 i5hi commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2841551520)
opens up a worse attack vector. we should be exploring more creative ways to solve utxo bloat.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "RFC: Accept non-std transactions in Testnet4 by default again":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32133#issuecomment-2841588172)
Tend toward -0. As mentioned above in my first comment, it is not sufficient to achieve the goal you are trying to achieve, so it mostly brings the downsides mentioned above with questionable benefits.

Going forward, one could say the only way for developers to inject non-standard transactions into testnet_N is to ask a miner or rent some hashrate to do it.

However, injecting test-only non-standard transactions into a test network comes with its own downsides, like requiring more exception
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Stop shipping ARM32 builds for releases?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32375#issuecomment-2841608459)
If this is dropped in the future, I guess we'll wholesale drop support for 32-bit architectures? If there is no release 32-bit build that we feel like is worth keeping, then I wonder if it is worth it to check and support it in CI.