💬 NicolaLS commented on pull request "doc: Improve `dependencies.md`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31895#discussion_r2078224849)
Removed the sqlite/zmq update commits in favor of new: cb623692a6089c39560a637a2bf064d54aebb4d4

See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31895#issuecomment-2859720907

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2859758106)
I was thinking of ways to use multiple outputs for coinjoin. I found some that I will share in a blog post.

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "test: remove bdb assert in tool_wallet.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32440#pullrequestreview-2822777653)
ACK 4b6dd9790b667455ad7de58c67b3f7c9bc50657c

If you want, could also remove `assert_dump` which is not used anymore since c847dee1488a294c9a9632a00ba1134b21e41947

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: added fuzz coverage for consensus/merkle.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32243#discussion_r2078229527)
`/ci_container_base/src/test/fuzz/merkle.cpp:103:96: runtime error: unsigned integer overflow: 0 - 1 cannot be represented in type 'size_t' (aka 'unsigned long')`. `num_txs` can be zero, so it's causing the overflow here.

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "test: remove bdb assert in tool_wallet.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32440#issuecomment-2859769552)
> ACK [4b6dd97](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/4b6dd9790b667455ad7de58c67b3f7c9bc50657c)
>
> If you want, could also remove `assert_dump` which is not used anymore since [c847dee](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c847dee1488a294c9a9632a00ba1134b21e41947)

Thanks for the suggestion!

removed in [e08e656](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32440/commits/e08e6567f2e7e3e3acaa038e3302f069b9a3c54c)

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "test: remove bdb assert in tool_wallet.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32440#pullrequestreview-2822791617)
reACK e08e6567f2e7e3e3acaa038e3302f069b9a3c54c

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "test: added fuzz coverage for consensus/merkle.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32243#discussion_r2078239020)
ahh that makes sense, I can revert it back to what I had previously

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "test: remove bdb assert in tool_wallet.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32440#issuecomment-2859781998)
reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32440/commits/e08e6567f2e7e3e3acaa038e3302f069b9a3c54c

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "test: added fuzz coverage for consensus/merkle.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32243#discussion_r2078240706)
changed back to just `num_txs` in [7c80dcd](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32243/commits/7c80dcd81a844837b5823eb33501e9511cbe3d05)

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2078246201)
Where is this being used ?

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "test: remove bdb assert in tool_wallet.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32440#pullrequestreview-2822805869)
re-ACK e08e6567f2e7e3e3acaa038e3302f069b9a3c54c

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-2859819482)
Rebased 65fe5d03e7a2d0d00d7d37bd426fd6532fff3c06 -> 65fe5d03e7a2d0d00d7d37bd426fd6532fff3c06 ([kernelApi](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi) -> [kernelApi](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelApi), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelApi..kernelApi))

* Fixed conflict with #28710

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#discussion_r2078260505)
If you remove it and try to compile, you'll notice that Boost requires these for the test to be able to print out the the values when there's a mismatch, see: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/fae29c5dd71b263fb3bda8d554c9e6a4908175db/src/test/testnet4_miner_tests.cpp#L49

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: remove bdb assert in tool_wallet.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32440#issuecomment-2859825354)
ACK 4b6dd9790b667455ad7de58c67b3f7c9bc50657c

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "psbt: clarify PSBT, PSBTInput, PSBTOutput unserialization flows"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32419#pullrequestreview-2822832499)
Concept ACK

Agreed https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32419#issuecomment-2855291909

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] flush UTXO set in batches proportional to `dbcache` size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31645#issuecomment-2859840062)
Now that https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30611 is merged, I'm drafting this PR until https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32414 is also merged, since they eliminate the max memory usecase I've been optimizing for - and I have to remeasure the usecases to see if this is still the optimum.

📝 l0rinc converted_to_draft a pull request: "[IBD] flush UTXO set in batches proportional to `dbcache` size"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31645)
This change is part of [[IBD] - Tracking PR for speeding up Initial Block Download](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32043)

### Summary

When the in-memory UTXO set is [flushed](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/txdb.cpp#L130-L133) to LevelDB (after IBD or AssumeUTXO load), it does so in batches to manage memory usage during the flush.
While a hidden [`-dbbatchsize`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/init.cpp#L490) config option exists to modify thi
...

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "test: Add and use ElapseTime helper"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430#pullrequestreview-2822849432)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32430/commits/fae29c5dd71b263fb3bda8d554c9e6a4908175db

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "(RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32427#issuecomment-2859864794)
Re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32427#issuecomment-2858637715

> Do you mean compared to the alternative of having a single file for all blocks? I would imagine that would create I/O problems, since the operating system wouldn't know which part of the big file changed. And it can't defragment it.

Yes, that is what I meant. We never change block files, so that is not a problem. I'm also not sure how real this problem actually is. A bunch of databases just maintain one big file and
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "refactor: Removals after bdb removal":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32438#discussion_r2078288424)
In fadaa8baafc27fbe29721300569e58777643bb1f "test: remove unused extra_args"

These args are used as the 28.0 node used in this test needs them to make the legacy wallets for testing.