👍 theStack approved a pull request: "psbt: clarify PSBT, PSBTInput, PSBTOutput unserialization flows"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32419#pullrequestreview-2828263249)
ACK d31158d3646f3c7e4832b9ca50f6ffe02800ff4c

The introduced comments match my understanding of the deserialization of PSBT types and will hopefully help reviewing future code introduced/touched in this area. It's not ideal that the same comments are copied at three places, but don't have a better idea how to avoid this (still better to have duplicated documentation than no documentation).

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "guix: move `*-check.py` scripts under contrib/guix/":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32458#issuecomment-2866517322)
Concept ACK

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "refactor: Removals after bdb removal":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32438#issuecomment-2866544280)
ACK fa061bfcdb0caea240fd15bcc309e7847132a4ff if CI is also happy

I didn't attempt a vcpkg build (fa5f3e62c8801cca80997cfb046c13983e0876e7), but I assume the Windows CI does that?

I didn't check for _additional_ things that could be removed. Though there is bunch of watch-only related code in the GUI that can be dropped.

🤔 vasild reviewed a pull request: "rpc: Undeprecate rpcuser/rpcpassword, store all credentials hashed in memory"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32423#pullrequestreview-2828006168)
Almost ACK 3acfc071c3445e943069b2778bbc5c74f702ef36

Only unsure about `The configured rpcuser or rpcpassword cannot contain a ":"`, see comment below.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "rpc: Undeprecate rpcuser/rpcpassword, store all credentials hashed in memory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32423#discussion_r2081681184)
This looks like a new restriction. Could it introduce a breakage for users that have `-rpcpassword=contains:colon`?

It is sub-optimal to join/craft the string "user:pass" and to split/parse it a few lines later. Better store the user and pass in separate variables, like this:

<details>
<summary>[patch] use separate variables for user and pass</summary>

```diff
diff --git i/src/httprpc.cpp w/src/httprpc.cpp
index ed5a0253c6..493f1b0320 100644
--- i/src/httprpc.cpp
+++ w/src/httprpc.
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "rpc: Undeprecate rpcuser/rpcpassword, store all credentials hashed in memory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32423#discussion_r2081509904)
Maybe also worth adding the warning in the descriptions of `-rpcuser` and `-rpcpassword` in `init.cpp`:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/5b8752198e979ea4987d8b6238f42f8ed9a38846/src/init.cpp#L668

and

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/5b8752198e979ea4987d8b6238f42f8ed9a38846/src/init.cpp#L664

💬 vasild commented on pull request "rpc: Undeprecate rpcuser/rpcpassword, store all credentials hashed in memory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32423#discussion_r2081503770)
It is like this in `master`, but the meaning of `share/rpcauth` may not be obvious. Especially considering that some distros may not install it in their packages. Is not installed by our `cmake --install BUILDDIR` either. Maybe change to "See share/rpcauth in the source directory for more information".

💬 vasild commented on pull request "rpc: Undeprecate rpcuser/rpcpassword, store all credentials hashed in memory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32423#discussion_r2081550947)
nit:
```suggestion
std::array<unsigned char, CHMAC_SHA256::OUTPUT_SIZE> out;
```

💬 vasild commented on pull request "rpc: Undeprecate rpcuser/rpcpassword, store all credentials hashed in memory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32423#discussion_r2081564262)
Just noting: the way this works (unchanged by this PR) is that it allows duplicate usernames with different passwords (e.g. `joe:123` and `joe:456`) and would allow login with either password (`123` or `456`).

(just a comment, feel free to resolve right away)

💬 vasild commented on pull request "rpc: Undeprecate rpcuser/rpcpassword, store all credentials hashed in memory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32423#discussion_r2081596938)
I did not test to confirm this, just read the code, but before this PR if `-rpcuser=joe -rpcpassword=abc:def` was configured, it would have been possible to login with user `joe:abc` and password `def`.

(just a comment, feel free to resolve right away)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Removals after bdb removal":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32438#issuecomment-2866555065)
> I didn't check for _additional_ things that could be removed. Though there is bunch of watch-only related code in the GUI that can be dropped.

Yes, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32438#issuecomment-2859123413

💬 sipa commented on issue "Self-compiled bitcoind 29.0 much slower than self-compiled 28.0 on my system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32455#issuecomment-2866560897)
Unsure if this matters in your case, but the cache being warm or not impacts validation speed significantly. If you have a node that is running for a long time, and then stop and start it again, the speed will be slower for a while until the cache warms up again.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "coins: fix `cachedCoinsUsage` accounting in `CCoinsViewCache`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32313#discussion_r2081724770)
> They were introduced in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28865/files#diff-bca63b54ad7fcc2df12f3237fd8775810c1b849c49110f702920655778fcc248R45-R49,
> @fanquake, can you help us out here, do you remember why these were added?

You can recreate the failures by checking out to that commit (fd30e9688e15fe6e0f8b64202a6e9c7d96333394), applying this diff (which includes the supression being done here):
```diff
diff --git a/ci/test/00_setup_env_native_fuzz.sh b/ci/test/00_setup_env_native_f
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Replace libevent with our own HTTP and socket-handling implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32061#discussion_r2081728831)
Oh I see I misunderstood. For now I want LineReader to return new string objects because it reads directly from the HTTPClient's `m_recv_buffer` which is then erased. I know we can prevent that copy by being more clever with `m_recv_buffer` and I still plan on exploring that, maybe as a follow up? It's nice and simple now and there is a clean separation between the socket layer receiving data and the `HTTPRequest`

💬 romanz commented on pull request "Replace libevent with our own HTTP and socket-handling implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32061#discussion_r2081732772)
Sounds good, thanks for the context :)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: move `*-check.py` scripts under contrib/guix/":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32458#issuecomment-2866617418)
Guix Build:
```bash
f15ff81485789fe4fa22c3ecf887cfbfa0b3ae8620fd8c8926deb257ef19cff9 guix-build-415650cea94f/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
7320f11f0ff5005d841dc2d854f46c5d317df077dae41b4631493f090b34875c guix-build-415650cea94f/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-415650cea94f-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
af696399978c60a9517006c8435d8053b541b3dcfec49dacaa46932404d22b7b guix-build-415650cea94f/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-415650cea94f-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
6da90889d6dcb600
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Replace libevent with our own HTTP and socket-handling implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32061#discussion_r2081736316)
Cool will address this nit on next rebase thanks!

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "bench: replace benchmark block with more representative one (413567 → 784588)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32457#issuecomment-2866738093)
> Is there a benchmark that needs this? If yes, going for synthetic, but representative (and easily adjustable) data may be a better choice for that benchmark.

Yes, as there is a lot of random data in a block whose exact value isn't important to benchmarking (only that it's always the same), it seems possible to deterministically construct a similar block from code.

💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "test: added fuzz coverage for consensus/merkle.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32243#issuecomment-2866740624)
ACK 44298f0cb9c3de42b1c0f464c0d7b2779aa4c3b7

Using `ConsumeTransaction` works, and makes sense. Here's the [coverage](https://marcofleon.github.io/coverage/merkle/coverage/root/bitcoin/src/consensus/merkle.cpp.html). Everything lgtm!

👍 laanwj approved a pull request: "guix: move `*-check.py` scripts under contrib/guix/"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32458#pullrequestreview-2828547209)
Code review ACK 415650cea94f5050d7c368fdf9fd9878809957e1