✅ l0rinc closed a pull request: "doc: document workaround and fallback for macOS fuzzing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32084)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: Properly setup wallet in wallet_fees target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32488#issuecomment-2877970793)
Can be tested via:

```diff
diff --git a/src/wallet/wallet.h b/src/wallet/wallet.h
index e32b8c7272..ea67a48e9e 100644
--- a/src/wallet/wallet.h
+++ b/src/wallet/wallet.h
@@ -468,6 +468,7 @@ public:

~CWallet()
{
+ chain().relayMinFee();
// Should not have slots connected at this point.
assert(NotifyUnload.empty());
}
```

and:

```
rm -rf ./bld-cmake && cmake -B ./bld-cmake -DAPPEND_CXXFLAGS='-std=c++23 -O3 -g2' -DAPPEND_CFLAGS='-O3 -g2'
...

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "fuzz: Properly setup wallet in wallet_fees target"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32488#pullrequestreview-2838169693)
code review ACK fa427ffceeefd368a1ade273501ce4b01133ad4d

Nice! I think the initial idea was to have a global wallet because everything the target was supposed to do shouldn't affect it. But surely it's better to not have it globally and avoid any possible issue.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "contrib: add xor-blocks tool to obfuscate blocks directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2087661003)
The source says that this is a constant: https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/std/hash/random.rs.html#109-111

```
pub fn new() -> DefaultHasher {

DefaultHasher(SipHasher13::new_with_keys(0, 0))

}
```

whereas the one using RandomState uses `hashmap_random_keys`

💬 Kixunil commented on pull request "contrib: add xor-blocks tool to obfuscate blocks directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32451#discussion_r2087666516)
OK then, `RandomState` is definitely needed.

💬 Kixunil commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#discussion_r2087687610)
OK, I don't really care. Especially since the exact people who are spamming the PR did not even answer this, I think they don't care.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "doc: improve NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED documentation per BIP159":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31805#issuecomment-2878061406)
Will push a wider update based on the BIP159 since https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1768.

📝 achow101 opened a pull request: "wallet: Add `exportwatchonlywallet` RPC to export a watchonly version of a wallet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32489)
Currently, if a user wants to use an airgapped setup, they need to manually create the watchonly wallet that will live on the online node by importing the public descriptors. This PR introduces `exportwatchonlywallet` which will create a wallet file with the public descriptors to avoid exposing the specific internals to the user. Additionally, this RPC will copy any existing labels, transactions, and wallet flags. This ensures that the exported watchonly wallet is almost entirely a copy of the o
...

🤔 vostrnad reviewed a pull request: "policy: uncap datacarrier by default"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#pullrequestreview-2838259912)
utACK 35bcd8eed38130445aef5ebe217ab42248fa6f18

All nits that can be done in a follow-up.

💬 vostrnad commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#discussion_r2087716015)
nit
```suggestion
data_len = int(MAX_STANDARD_TX_WEIGHT / WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR) - tx.get_vsize() - 5 - 4 # -5 for PUSHDATA4 and -4 for script size
```

💬 vostrnad commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#discussion_r2087715751)
nit: "scriptPubKey" instead of "script" is needlessly specific when we're already talking about outputs.
```suggestion
- Multiple data carrier (OP_RETURN) outputs in a transaction are now permitted for relay and mining. The `-datacarriersize` limit applies to the aggregate size of the scripts across all such outputs in a transaction, not including the script size prefix itself. (#32406)
```

💬 vostrnad commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#discussion_r2087716118)
nit: This might be cleaner with `tx.get_weight`, avoids the division by 4. (same on line 373)

💬 vostrnad commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#discussion_r2087716286)
nit: These two comment lines can now be merged.

💬 asaam7373 commented on something "":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/3b9b0831d4ce152791e7953d175aa90b78008155#commitcomment-156963631)
Hello friend 🤠

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#discussion_r2087743666)
This PR shouldn't be merged at all, but obviously to even be considered bugs like this would have to be fixed. Don't forget the scriptPubKey lengths.

🤔 1440000bytes reviewed a pull request: "policy: uncap datacarrier by default"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#pullrequestreview-2838300949)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406/commits/35bcd8eed38130445aef5ebe217ab42248fa6f18

I have tested this branch with transactions having multiple OP_RETURN. Steps are shared in this comment marked as off-topic: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2875133307

I am interested to see the usage of multiple OP_RETURN after v30 if this pull request gets merged. Written a [post](https://uncensoredtech.substack.com/p/op_return-and-coinjoin) about their usage in c
...

📝 achow101 opened a pull request: "gui: Menu action to export a watchonly wallet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/872)
Allows a user to export a watchonly version of their wallet to be used in an airgapped setup.

Built on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32489

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#issuecomment-2878217156)
PSA: Bitcoin Core PR Review Club will cover this PR in its next meeting at 2025-05-14 at 17:00 UTC. See https://bitcoincore.reviews/32317 for notes, questions, and instructions on [how to join](https://bitcoincore.reviews/).

💬 jmatcho commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2878273731)
Concept NACK for changing an existing default and deprecating an existing feature that take control away from the people's nodes.

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "docs: clarify RPC credentials security boundary":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32424#issuecomment-2878375720)
Seems to contradict the existence of `-rpcwhitelist`