💬 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.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "restrict std::cerr to errors; use std::cout for warnings and info":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32538#issuecomment-2888128803)
> > When something literally starts with Warning: ..., I fail to see how it can be misinterpreted.
>
> It is actually being misinterpreted by our own test framework. The framework does not look at the stderr content, it only checks whether there is something inside stderr or not during shutdown, failing when finds something there.

That's intentional. We want the tests to fail when there is any warning or error (from Bitcoin Core or any other tool/sanitizer/lib) that is not accounted for, s
...

📝 romanz opened a pull request: "rest: fetch spent transaction outputs by blockhash"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32540)
Today, it is possible to fetch a block's spent prevouts in order to build an external index by using the `/rest/block/HASH.json` endpoint. However, its performance is low due to JSON serialization overhead.

We can significantly optimize it by adding a new REST endpoint, using a binary response format:

```
$ ab -k -c 1 -n 100 http://localhost:8332/rest/block/00000000000000000002a7c4c1e48d76c5a37902165a270156b7a8d72728a054.json
Document Length: 1634536 bytes
Requests per second:
...

📝 romanz opened a pull request: "index: store per-block transaction locations for efficient lookups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541)
Currently, electrs and other indexers are used to maintain a map between an address/scripthash to the list of the relevant transactions.

However, in order to fetch those transactions from bitcoind, electrs relies on reading the whole block and post-filtering for a specific transaction [1]. Other indexers use a `txindex` to fetch a transaction using its txid [2,3,4].

The above approach has significant storage and CPU overhead, since the `txid` is a pseudo-random 32-byte value.

This PR is
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Remove legacy `Parse(U)Int*`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32520#discussion_r2094035676)
thx, added a new commit on top with you as co-author

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Remove legacy `Parse(U)Int*`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32520#discussion_r2094038039)
consensus rules aren't architecture or compiler-dependent, so I used uint32_t instead

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Remove legacy `Parse(U)Int*`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32520#discussion_r2094039002)
(same)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Remove legacy `Parse(U)Int*`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32520#discussion_r2094039205)
thx, added some fuzz

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "Update leveldb subtree to latest upstream"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32534#pullrequestreview-2848184300)
My Guix build:
```
aarch64
a12f2290f4e5267f2ba9ad9da0d95e7990ea3e5772d7658a133d607a25afe7b4 guix-build-7015052eba23/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
6232c5017a17753b33c62f32def946a72f70ce63b76b55dc9a8fa8c8e75229fe guix-build-7015052eba23/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-7015052eba23-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
c702cf46c5c463ccd08ec97f3858cf1a1ce612e0c92836f6dedc94d1f6ad16f3 guix-build-7015052eba23/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-7015052eba23-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
a0e2e6f5
...

👋 TheCharlatan's pull request is ready for review: "build: Introduce internal kernel library"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28690)

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "build: Introduce internal kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28690#issuecomment-2888226479)
Undrafting this again after some recent discussions on splitting the kernel library out in the future.

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "Update leveldb subtree to latest upstream"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32534#pullrequestreview-2848190649)
ACK 7015052eba23368539dcd1a9b4217ce1cacd2999, I've updated the `leveldb` subtree locally and got zero diff with this branch.

🚀 hebasto merged a pull request: "Update leveldb subtree to latest upstream"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32534)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "intermittent issue in rpc_signer.py (enumeratesigners timeout)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32524#issuecomment-2888230805)
I've created 50 runs and they all passed: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5325312260571136 So I guess this is related. I'll try to get the gdb bt next.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "intermittent issue in rpc_signer.py (enumeratesigners timeout)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32524#issuecomment-2888234312)
In the meantime, I place my bet that this is a gcc-11 upstream bug 🤞

💬 Talej commented on pull request "doc: corrected lockunspent rpc quoting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31275#issuecomment-2888238933)
> @Talej Can you rebase this?

All done!

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "scripted-diff: Remove unused leading newline in RPC docs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32514)