💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: simplify *ifaddr handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32446#issuecomment-2863689887)
Guix Build:
```bash
2d1c74e19e10c55a45e137f151f77f0e0628c96f0664949ba730c249e8065597 guix-build-ab878a7e7410/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
26cb4ed3dcaf1bfc2d2f9cdc34e8648df11e2aed33bdeb8618a6d8a3370ba0e3 guix-build-ab878a7e7410/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-ab878a7e7410-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
756e79f7a151b67edc7b607f4b3b0baa72025dbf7cc158e27485f885fbd6adc1 guix-build-ab878a7e7410/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-ab878a7e7410-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
4485cf2be98328ed
...

💬 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_r2080112837)
Is this wallet watch-only (per commit description) ?

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "randomenv: remove some `/proc/` accesses"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32450)
Any env data we try and gather is on a best-effort basis, however in this instance, for multiple users, it's just producing spam. This could probably be solved with further snap/apparmor configuration, however given that no-one is actively working on snap packaging, we could instead drop this source of env data.

Closes https://github.com/bitcoin-core/packaging/issues/115.
Also in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/packaging/issues/217.

Happy to close this if someone opens an alternative PR (
...

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "build: cmake --install fails after --target deploy"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32007)

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "rpc: print P2WSH and P2SH redem Script in getrawtransaction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31252#issuecomment-2863778040)
Rebased on top of master.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "wallet: Ensure best block matches wallet scan state":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30221#discussion_r2080173789)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30221#discussion_r2073849511

Just to be clear I was suggesting moving both WriteBestBlock call and the [Flush](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/baa848b8d38187ce6b24a57cfadf1ea180209711/src/wallet/wallet.cpp#L239) call into the destructor, because if you only move the WriteBestBlock call, it will happen after flushing, which seems incorrectly logically, though maybe it is ok if sqlite Flush is a no-op. I didn't look into the CI failures though
...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "randomenv: remove some `/proc/` accesses":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32450#issuecomment-2863810274)
As i have some experience setting up apparmor i looked into this for a bit, but sadly it's not simply a matter of adding some apparmor rules. Snap works with larger sets of permissions like `system-observe` `process-control`. We likely want to avoid granting these to bitcoind just to collect random data.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Ensure best block matches wallet scan state":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30221#discussion_r2080195154)
`Flush()` is deleted post #28710 as sqlite's `Flush()` is a no-op.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Keep track of the wallet's own transaction outputs in memory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27286#discussion_r2080202804)
I believe it's necessary so that repeated calls to `CachedTxIsTrusted` that would now occur once for each TXO can be skipped early.

📝 andrewtoth opened a pull request: "contrib: add xor-blocks tool to obfuscate blocks directory"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451)
I wrote a tool in Rust to xor the blocks directory with a random key. It was pointed out to me that there already exists some Rust code in contrib, so this might be a welcome addition to the toolkit here.

This lets you obfuscate the blocks blk.dat and rev.dat files if you synced with a version prior to v28.

It checks if a `xor.dat` file exists, and if it is zero it overwrites it with a non-zero random key. It then goes through each `*.dat` file in the blocks directory, checking if the firs
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "wallet: Ensure best block matches wallet scan state":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30221#discussion_r2080204034)
> `Flush()` is deleted post #28710 as sqlite's `Flush()` is a no-op.

Thanks, makes sense. I had been looking to see if the Flush call was moved in the diff, but of course it's not because it doesn't exist anymore.

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "doc: Add troubleshooting note about Guix on SELinux systems":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32442#discussion_r2080204499)
Fixed, thanks.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Keep track of the wallet's own transaction outputs in memory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27286#discussion_r2080206413)
It is not. That part of the test no longer exists after #28710. I've updated the commit message.

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#pullrequestreview-2825834195)
Nice cleanup, although I have one comment on the new log of `stop_node`.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2080170811)
In "qa: Only allow calling TestNode.stop() after connecting" 9b24a403fae4b896ff7705519bd48c877b4e621b

I am not sure whether this new error message is better, I think I will prefer the previous one as there is a case where the test node has start without a cookie file, hence `wait_for_rpc_connection` should not even be called.

And when you call stop_node it will tell you that there is no RPC connection.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2080196383)
🥲
```suggestion
subdir = sha1(expected_exception.encode('utf-8')).hexdigest()[:8]
```

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "qa: Verify clean shutdown on startup failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30660#discussion_r2080132673)
In "qa: Include ignored errors in RPC connection timeout" 6ad21b4c0114029d16d334bf8d437834708a295e

This is an example error after this change
```
AssertionError: [node 0] Unable to connect to bitcoind after 60s (ignored errors: {'missing_credentials': 240}, latest error: ValueError('No RPC credentials'))
```

I think it will better if it will be consistent

e.g

```
AssertionError: [node 0] Unable to connect to bitcoind after 60s (ignored errors: {'missing_credentials': 240}, lat
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "contrib: remove bdb exception from FORTIFY check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32448#issuecomment-2863864209)
ACK f9dfe8d5e0d3f628659702ab781b7919505c829f

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "contrib: remove bdb exception from FORTIFY check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32448)

💬 theStack commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add bitcoin wrapper executable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31375#issuecomment-2863866776)
Concept ACK

Did a quick test of the wrapper on OpenBSD 7.7 for the monolithic binaries, everything worked as expected so far.
I'm wondering if the `util/subprocess.h` module could be of any use here, especially considering the [windows-specific argument quoting code](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/1b4ddb0c2d106605b731211d71f8cfe00f56596a/src/util/subprocess.h#L175) seems to look very simliar at a first glance?