💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "deps: Bump lief to 0.16.6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#issuecomment-2933782962)
Rebased to address @hebasto and @fanquake feedback.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Unusual "Wallet requires newer version" Error with wallet.dat on macOS, Even with Older Client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2933789333)
> I see! What wallet should I use to import the private keys? I’ve had a problem using Bitcoin wallet. I’m using iOS.

I haven't used the script and I don't see your problem, but any Bitcoin Core wallet should work (either existing or freshly created)

💬 l3x3l commented on issue "Unusual "Wallet requires newer version" Error with wallet.dat on macOS, Even with Older Client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2933801721)
The problem with bitcoin core is my blockchain is pruned. So I would have
to do a rescan.

l3x3l
>--o--<


On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 1:00 AM maflcko ***@***.***> wrote:

> *maflcko* left a comment (bitcoin/bitcoin#32548)
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2933789333>
>
> I see! What wallet should I use to import the private keys? I’ve had a
> problem using Bitcoin wallet. I’m using iOS.
>
> I haven't used the script and I don't see your problem, but any
...

👋 i-am-yuvi's pull request is ready for review: "[WIP] test: Fix reorg patterns in mempool tests to use proper fork-based approach"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587)

💬 i-am-yuvi commented on pull request "[WIP] test: Fix reorg patterns in mempool tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#issuecomment-2933820116)
@instagibbs can you review this, will add other tests once this one gets ACK'ed

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "doc: miscellaneous changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32644#discussion_r2122926901)
Updated

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Find Boost in config mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32667#issuecomment-2933832545)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/15402950316/job/43339643754?pr=32667#step:8:1505:
```bash
-- Looking for C++ include boost/test/included/unit_test.hpp
-- Looking for C++ include boost/test/included/unit_test.hpp - not found
CMake Error at cmake/module/AddBoostIfNeeded.cmake:65 (message):
Building test_bitcoin executable requested but
boost/test/included/unit_test.hpp header not available.
Call Stack (most recent call first):
CMakeLists.txt:413 (add_boost_if_needed)
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "rpc: Use type-safe HelpException":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32660#issuecomment-2933872700)
> whereas on this pull, the same diff fails.

Work for me:
```bash
./build/test/functional/rpc_help.py
2025-06-03T07:21:05.244000Z TestFramework (INFO): PRNG seed is: 8715551814237508387
2025-06-03T07:21:05.244000Z TestFramework (INFO): Initializing test directory /var/folders/sq/z88fhjzj0b19ftsd2_bjrmjm0000gn/T/bitcoin_func_test_ks0xf8o9
2025-06-03T07:21:06.291000Z TestFramework (ERROR): JSONRPC error
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/bitcoin/test/func
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: Bump boost to 1.88.0 and use new CMake buildsystem":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32665#discussion_r2122970280)
> multi_index drags in a ton of header-only libs,

Yea. We still end up with a huge amount of libraries. I'm guessing these some changes we could upstream to try and cut down the dependency graph.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: Bump boost to 1.88.0 and use new CMake buildsystem":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32665#issuecomment-2933893184)
> Would we not want to bump the boost version in AddBoostIfNeeded.cmake too?

Sure, we can look at doing that too, while making other related changes.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "rpc: Use type-safe HelpException":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32660#discussion_r2122980458)
Heh, wasn't aware of it, but leaving as-is for now.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "deps: Bump lief to 0.16.6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#issuecomment-2933922379)
Guix build is broken:
```bash
INFO: Building 0dc123319e3b for platform triple x86_64-linux-gnu:
...using reference timestamp: 1748567495
...running at most 8 jobs
...from worktree directory: '/bitcoin'
...bind-mounted in container to: '/bitcoin'
...in build directory: '/bitcoin/guix-build-0dc123319e3b/distsrc-0dc123319e3b-x86_64-linux-gnu'
...bind-mounted in container to: '/distsrc-base/distsrc-0dc123319e3b-x86_64-linux-gnu'
...outputtin
...

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "doc: miscellaneous changes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32644)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: add a depends dependency provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32595#discussion_r2123000176)
not sure. The CI in this repo is probably the wrong place for fragile nightly tests. At a minimum, it would be good to pin the version. My preference would be to just use bookworm, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32595/files#r2106854007

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "[WIP] test: Fix reorg patterns in mempool tests to use proper fork-based approach":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32587#discussion_r2123011366)
passing `self` into a standalone function doesn't really make sense. This should just be the node

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: miscellaneous changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32644#issuecomment-2933966649)
review ACK e50312eab0b54f338d6e08bea563c352dc2de1db 🥗

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: review ACK e50312eab0b5
...

💬 bigspider commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#issuecomment-2933974799)
> @bigspider OS (firmware) version 2.4.2. I tried removing and reinstalling Bitcoin Test, but that didn't bump the version. Will await your update. So you're testing on mainnet then? :-)

@Sjors thanks for pointing that out, you should now be able to find version 2.4.0 in the store!

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Unusual "Wallet requires newer version" Error with wallet.dat on macOS, Even with Older Client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32548#issuecomment-2933976634)
My recommendation would be to do a rescan. In theory you could recover funds (not the history) from the utxo set, but this can be incomplete and fragile.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "deps: Bump lief to 0.16.6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#issuecomment-2933979501)
> Guix build is broken:

```diff
--- a/contrib/guix/manifest.scm
+++ b/contrib/guix/manifest.scm
@@ -173,6 +173,7 @@ chain for " target " development."))
(patches (search-our-patches "lief-scikit-0-9.patch"))))
(build-system pyproject-build-system)
(native-inputs (list cmake-minimal
+ ninja
python-scikit-build-core
python-pydantic-core
python-pydantic-2))
``
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "refactor: Drop unused `#include <boost/operators.hpp>`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32668#issuecomment-2934007819)
> There are still some places where it is incorrectly suggested, but this seems unrelated:

It seems related enough, especially if we are going to do #31308. This PR is pointing at the IWYU output to remove this include from 1 file, and doing so, but then ignoring the IWYU output saying to add it to multiple others? Seems like this could wait, or atleast be bundled with a change that adds a mapping file or similar, that makes the IWYU output make sense, otherwise how are devs meant to know whe
...