🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "docs: Improve `keypoolrefill` RPC docs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32429)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Ensure best block matches wallet scan state":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30221#discussion_r2078681556)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/14892979963/job/41829335187?pr=30221 seems like the same possible issue that you've described where a notification comes in during the unload.

⚠️ pscyfer opened an issue: "check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32443)

✅ pscyfer closed an issue: "check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32443)

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "qt, docs: Unify term "clipboard"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/871#issuecomment-2861092606)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/871/commits/3bbdbc0a5e1b409969cedaf249d1d01dea9bcf73

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2861778194)
> Deprecation isn't a value judgment but a statement that it will be removed in a future version.

Deprecation doesn't even always mean it will actually be removed in a future version; see #32423 eg.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#discussion_r2078889529)
The sBTC-Bridge code linked will just return "unknown error" rather than a more informative message. "multi-op-return" isn't appropriate here, the "datacarrier" error will trigger even for a single OP_RETURN that's larger than the limit. Having "scriptpubkey" here doesn't really seem much more helpful here than "unknown error".

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: accomodate migration to codeberg":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32439#discussion_r2078954217)
Why switch to a [mirror](https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-guix/2025-02/msg00000.html) set up three months ago rather then wait a bit and switch to https://codeberg.org/guix/guix.git, as described in https://issues.guix.gnu.org/76503?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: accomodate migration to codeberg":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32439#discussion_r2078957124)
This is a draft, and the repository you've linked to doesn't exist yet.

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "wallet: Keep track of the wallet's own transaction outputs in memory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27286#discussion_r2078987925)
Is this optimization directly related to this PR, or did you take the opportunity to include it here?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#discussion_r2079004334)
(I looked for `multi-op-return` rather than `datacarrier` because it's a more unique string)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add bitcoin wrapper executable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31375#discussion_r2079028306)
TIL we have a `-daemon` option. Indeed we'll have to pick a different term here.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "(RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32427#issuecomment-2861994398)
> 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 have good performance doing so.

But we prune blocks, and they may not all be at the start of the big file.

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "crypto: disable ASan for sha256_sse4 with Clang":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32437#issuecomment-2862049101)
Tested ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32437/commits/4e8ab5e00fa72016a7ec0e0505ca025d4e59e4d8

Fixes #31913, I built `fuzzamoto` against this branch with fcf-protection enabled https://github.com/fanquake/fuzzamoto/commit/036fdedd36399c0c04294e7a63d356fb92e3d50f

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add bitcoin wrapper executable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31375#discussion_r2079086002)
I think it is fine as is to be honest. `bitcoind -daemon` already means the same thing (albeit abbreviated).

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add bitcoin wrapper executable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31375#discussion_r2079093221)
I think `-daemon` detaches, so you can't ctrl + c it.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "build: x86 afl++ ASan build broken "error: inline assembly requires more registers than available""
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31913)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "crypto: disable ASan for sha256_sse4 with Clang"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32437)

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "doc: swap "Docker image" for "container image""
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32444)
I haven't used Docker for some time (now Podman), and the images are generic, so just use "container image". I'll be pushing some changes to https://github.com/fanquake/core-review/tree/master/guix, to reflect this.

🤔 hodlinator reviewed a pull request: "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#pullrequestreview-2807054428)
Code review bba64732ffb6f9463bb1eced7953493935950cec.

Thanks for improving the dbwrapper test case and minimizing `_hex_v` usage in the end state of the PR!