💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "build: disable boost multi index safe mode in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27724#discussion_r1201886659)
ideally both are fuzzed :)

👍 MarcoFalke approved a pull request: "build: disable boost multi index safe mode in debug mode"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27724#pullrequestreview-1439114903)
lgtm, but the description needs to be adjusted?

⚠️ 137718 opened an issue: "Do you want to rebuild the block database now?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27725)
Do you want to rebuild the block database now?

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Do you want to rebuild the block database now?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27725)

👍 ajtowns approved a pull request: "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#pullrequestreview-1438918136)
ACK 3b57b2b8d958871bec9a33953be051a75d8bf07c

Despite thinking this is an improvement on what we currently do and that it's ready for merge, there's two things I'm not 100% comfortable with, and that I think would be good to improve in a followup. (1) I think this puts more demand on outbound peers than it should, as per [previous comments](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#discussion_r1200426349). (2) I think the multimap stuff makes this hard to understand, and it would be good t
...

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#discussion_r1201730942)
You just iterated over all the peers requesting this block, and returned early if one of them was this node. What's the benefit of looping again?

📝 jonathanbier opened a pull request: "Update policy.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27726)
I think this should be virtual bytes? Or maybe not

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Update policy.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27726#issuecomment-1558979194)
Looks correct to me, cc @Xekyo

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "test: Make `util/test_runner.py` honor `BITCOINUTIL` and `BITCOINTX`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27717#issuecomment-1558981977)
As some progress is being made in the review of the coupled https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/15, friendly ping @MarcoFalke @stickies-v @ryanofsky :)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: Make `util/test_runner.py` honor `BITCOINUTIL` and `BITCOINTX`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27717#issuecomment-1559014932)
lgtm ACK 4f2f615d1362afe92cabe9eab50087f8bfe454fd

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "system: use %LOCALAPPDATA% as default datadir on windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27064#issuecomment-1559046252)
This change ignores non-main network data. I'm OK with that. But it seems worth mentioning in the docs.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: remove redundant stdlib option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27721#issuecomment-1559052397)
Guix Build:
```bash
ed1f83a77d00:/bitcoin# find guix-build-$(git rev-parse --short=12 HEAD)/output/ -type f -print0 | env LC_ALL=C sort -z | xargs -r0 sha256sum
b2fc48fff5ef2c15a520582845a8af73c2af71f4f59a0d0b92b04db8530373b0 guix-build-4fe5f3c46752/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
d074ce3bdc89db1d7d0e4fcbde818b9a2183c9a23541e2dabcb2401e88635959 guix-build-4fe5f3c46752/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-4fe5f3c46752-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
890d8535d8590ceb5d17b0cbd254c4c17e37
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "bitcoin core crashes when too many rpc calls are made":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11368#issuecomment-1559055029)
2.2.1-alpha is [now out](https://github.com/libevent/libevent/releases/tag/release-2.2.1-alpha) 👀

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "build: disable boost multi index safe mode in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27724#discussion_r1202074906)
Right.

Do you think it's best to add to _00_setup_env_native_fuzz.sh_ ?

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "test: Make `util/test_runner.py` honor `BITCOINUTIL` and `BITCOINTX`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27717#pullrequestreview-1439386025)
ACK 4f2f615d1362afe92cabe9eab50087f8bfe454fd

The error reporting in this file is a bit opaque imo, but that is orthogonal to the work here.

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "test: Make `util/test_runner.py` honor `BITCOINUTIL` and `BITCOINTX`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27717#pullrequestreview-1439388072)
ACK 4f2f615d1362afe92cabe9eab50087f8bfe454fd

📝 MarcoFalke opened a pull request: "rpc: Fix invalid bech32 handling"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27727)
Currently the handling of invalid bech32(m) addresses over RPC has many issues:

* No error for invalid addresses is reported, leading to internal bugs via `CHECK_NONFATAL`, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27723
* The error messages use "data size" (the meaning of which is unclear to the user, because it the program data and data data are different) when they mean "program size"


Fix all issues. Also, use the BIP 173 and BIP 350 test vectors.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Validation of malformed address fails with a peculiar message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27723#issuecomment-1559080308)
Fun fact, this also happens with the BIP 173 and BIP 350 test vectors. Proposed fix in #https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27727

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "build: disable boost multi index safe mode in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27724#discussion_r1202114591)
Oh, I meant ` 00_setup_env_native_fuzz_debug.sh`, but I see that this is maintained elsewhere. Maybe it can be added to just fuzz_msan, or just no fuzz task at all in this repo?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "rpc: Fix invalid bech32 handling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27727#issuecomment-1559099257)
(I'd say backport isn't blocking any release, but if a previous release is done anyway for other reasons, it may be good to backport)