💬 achow101 commented on pull request "qt: drop unused watch-only functionality":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32459#issuecomment-2887600076)
ACK 0fc9bf05c36169ff746df10c5c8310f5adf2e202

There does not appear to be any visual differences, nor any remaining references to watch-only/watchonly in the GUI.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "refactor: bdb removals":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32511#issuecomment-2887602257)
ACK fafee85358397289aa4c6b799d2603a5d89e83a2

💬 theuni commented on pull request "(RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32427#issuecomment-2887607766)
> > My bikeshed color: Since block hashes start with zeroes, maybe one could shard based off the last two bytes:
>
> Just curious because the FAT32 file limit per-directory is so small, is there any scenario where a miner could DoS nodes with this format by also mining the last two bytes?
>
> I think no, because at tip the additional hash needed for two bytes would be prohibitively expensive, although I'm not sure if there is a birthday-problem-like advantage because an attacker doesn't ne
...

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "refactor: bdb removals"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32511)

✅ Pttn closed an issue: "Inconsistent Descriptor Space Parsing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28943)

💬 Pttn commented on issue "Inconsistent Descriptor Space Parsing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28943#issuecomment-2887649561)
Fixed by #31603 I think.

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "test: Remove legacy wallet RPC overloads"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32452#pullrequestreview-2847707869)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32452/commits/b104d442277090337ce405d92f1398b7cc9bcdb7

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "scripted-diff: Remove unused leading newline in RPC docs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32514#pullrequestreview-2847712472)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32514/commits/fa1f10a49e7c4f6377fbc7ae2f1520b38c86e5fa

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: init, don't error out when loading legacy wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32449#discussion_r2093740236)
In 86e1111239cdb39dd32cfb5178653c608fa30515 "test: verify node skips loading legacy wallets during startup"

Is there a reason to use settings.json instead of passing in `-wallet=legacy_up...` as part of `extra_args` during the restart?

💬 TEU7ZoTHLa7sZchXmdqZn5pE75ikooVNfv commented on pull request "wallet: init, don't error out when loading legacy wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32449#issuecomment-2887797539)
‏alvandisaeed43@gmail.com‏

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "wallet: Keep track of the wallet's own transaction outputs in memory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27286#issuecomment-2887797583)
reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27286/commits/29cf059e6e592f7f82b982493a043219cdfa5b40

via git range-diff efac285a0d709f48856c37b15bfa09af94c1d75b..51d4846f648e79e3e098f1f1bea7d5e823ebdea8 b15c386933eb7bc5ed8644dd37f8169d81ea5a22..29cf059e6e592f7f82b982493a043219cdfa5b40

Hooray for `Txid` class!

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "wallet: Keep track of the wallet's own transaction outputs in memory"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27286#pullrequestreview-2847729722)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27286/commits/29cf059e6e592f7f82b982493a043219cdfa5b40

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: init, don't error out when loading legacy wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32449#discussion_r2093771082)
> Is there a reason to use settings.json instead of passing in `-wallet=legacy_up...` as part of `extra_args` during the restart?

I just wanted to make the test case as realistic as possible (an existing legacy wallet with `load_on_startup=true`). But there shouldn't be any difference.

🤔 fjahr reviewed a pull request: "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#pullrequestreview-2846790348)
Leaving some comments in case you want to address some of them with the rebase. I am mostly happy but there are a few things that I need to spend some more time on.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r2093147399)
Are we then commited to the 'historical' naming now with this and I can remove all the remaining ibd/background references in a follow-up? Because that naming inconsistency has always annoyed me and now we have three names with this. I think it's very confusing for newcomers as well.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r2093165330)
nit: Would be really great if this conditional could be broken up to be more readable. Or maybe move comments below inline. But feel free to leave this for a follow-up.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r2093781793)
I'm currently not sure why we need both `ChainValidity` and `ChainstateRole`, couldn't we have one thing that serves both purposes?

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r2093178774)
(not directly related to this line but I have to put it somewhere) Looks like commit 83d19fd09818e11a03b9ebdbfbf76196f3808ae2 just contains some formatting fixes and has the same commit message as the commit before 55b7bfba6d12a95a6cccb3652c75dc9cee2f8751 , so they were probably meant to be squashed.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "refactor: Improve assumeutxo state representation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214#discussion_r2093782775)
This can be marked as resolved. Not sure why this comment landed in this spot here, pretty weird, but it was going in the same direction as @mzumsande 's comment here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30214/files#r2040321756

💬 portlandhodl commented on pull request "Enhanced error messages for invalid network prefix during address parsing.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27260#issuecomment-2887935158)
> Any particular reason for marking this draft?

Yes, I was going to work on the tests for this PR to enable testing with multiple networks, currently the tests had to be refactored to work with mainnet based addresses because of the network awareness.