📝 Eunovo opened a pull request: "Silent Payments: Receiving"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966)
This PR is part of integrating silent payments into Bitcoin Core. Status and tracking for the project is managed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28536
This PR is based on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28201 and will remain in draft until https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28201 is merged.

This PR:
- Adds a Silent Payments descriptor implemenation
- Adds a `SilentPaymentsDescriptorScriptPubKeyMan` Impl that is a subclass of `DescriptorScriptPubKeyMan`
- Implemen
...

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "[WIP] tracing: lock contention":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32952#issuecomment-3068449990)
a bit of feedback since you cc'd me:
- I'm not sure if opening this draft PR at this stage is worth it. There is nothing to experiment with, CI fails, and the feedback from the original PR is still a TODO. I'd recommend you finish your research first, come up with something that works, and then open a PR :)
- You are obviously free to work on this, and I'm sure it's interesting work, but I'm not sure if there is real developer interest for this feature. The original PR died down for a similar
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Wallet: don't underestimate the fees when spending a Taproot output":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26573#issuecomment-3068514231)
Picked up in #32964.

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "fix spelling in tor.md docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32961#issuecomment-3068540101)
ACK 84ef5524d5abaf07cc9970f42e74ee15bd381e3d

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "contrib: Check build options for gen-manpages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32949)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "contrib: Check build options for gen-manpages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32949#issuecomment-3068540607)
Thanks, but I'll close this for now:

* It is unclear how this fixes the issue, given that it about something else. Also, it is unclear what your goal is (try to fix the issue, or something else)
* It is unclear how this is different from `skip_missing_binaries`, which already exists.
* It is unclear how to test this, given that there are no steps to test.
* It is unclear how to review this, given that there is no description of the changes.

Feel free to work on this again, or anything e
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fix spelling in tor.md docs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32961)

✅ yuvicc closed a pull request: "[WIP] tracing: lock contention"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32952)

💬 yuvicc commented on pull request "[WIP] tracing: lock contention":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32952#issuecomment-3068574786)

> I'm not sure if opening this draft PR at this stage is worth it. There is nothing to experiment with, CI fails, and the
> feedback from the original PR is still a TODO. I'd recommend you finish your research first, come up with something that > works, and then open a PR :)

I think you're right — I opened this draft PR a bit prematurely. I'll take your advice and focus on finishing my research and having something more concrete before opening this PR again.

Closing this for now. Thank
...

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "log: [refactor] Use info level for init logs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32967)
Many of the normal, and expected init logs, which are run once after startup use the deprecated alias of `LogInfo`.

Fix that by using `LogInfo` directly, which is a refactor, except for a few log lines that also have `__func__` removed.

(Also remove the unused trailing `\n` char while touching those logs)

💬 stratospher commented on issue "Intermittent failure in rpc_invalidateblock.py assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getblockchaininfo()['headers'], 7) [ AssertionError: not(24 == 7)]":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32965#issuecomment-3068592237)
> 2025-07-12T13:43:21.8573662Z node1 2025-07-12T13:43:20.090914Z [msghand] [D:\a\bitcoin\bitcoin\src\net.cpp:3870] [void __cdecl CConnman::PushMessage(class CNode *,struct CSerializedNetMsg &&)] [net] sending block (260 bytes) peer=0
2025-07-12T13:43:21.8574419Z node0 2025-07-12T13:43:20.091379Z [msghand] [D:\a\bitcoin\bitcoin\src\net_processing.cpp:5939] [bool __cdecl `anonymous-namespace'::PeerManagerImpl::SendMessages(class CNode *)] [net] Requesting block 72876656a1468aa0784c5624a377651fb
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "log: [refactor] Use info level for init logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32967#discussion_r2204337893)
LogWarning?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "log: [refactor] Use info level for init logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32967#discussion_r2204338168)
LogWarning?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "log: [refactor] Use info level for init logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32967#discussion_r2204346812)
thx, reverted. (I'll do the warn level in a follow-up, so that this is limited to just the info level)

📝 stratospher opened a pull request: "test: fix intermittent failure in rpc_invalidateblock.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32968)
resolves #32965.

node1 (with 24 blocks) causes node0 (with 6 blocks + 1 extra header) to silently reorg. so disconnect node0 and node1 to avoid silent reorgs.

💬 purpleKarrot commented on pull request "kernel: Introduce initial C header API":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595#issuecomment-3068613759)
NACK

After working with the API for a few days and reviewing the various language bindings listed in the PR summary, I found that the API requires some fundamental changes in order to reduce the amount of glue code required in language bindings and client code. I wrote a rather detailed analysis here: https://njump.me/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzqrcxrljwdpfz2qn5a57hse6ez6pkd34pe0wpeskmktt2p62yeketqqvxy6t5vdhkjmntv4exuetv94shq6fdwfjhv6t9wuxrjull

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: fix intermittent failure in rpc_invalidateblock.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32968#discussion_r2204408981)
This means the remainder of the test, the state of the two nodes shouldn't affect each other. So the reconsiderblock+test

```
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbestblockhash(), blockhash_6)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getblockchaininfo()['blocks'], 6)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getblockchaininfo()['headers'], 7)
```

Can be moved after this line to disconnect the nodes? This would bundle the tests more nicely, but no strong opinion.

💬 stratospher commented on issue "Intermittent failure in rpc_invalidateblock.py assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getblockchaininfo()['headers'], 7) [ AssertionError: not(24 == 7)]":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32965#issuecomment-3068706510)
# Reconsider the header
self.nodes[0].reconsiderblock(block.hash)
import time; time.sleep(200)
# Since header doesn't have block data, it can't be chain tip
# Check if it's possible for an ancestor (with block data) to be the chain tip
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getbestblockhash(), blockhash_6)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getblockchaininfo()['blocks'], 6)
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getblockchaininfo()['headers'], 7)

I am not sure wh
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: fix intermittent failure in rpc_invalidateblock.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32968#issuecomment-3068710732)
lgtm ACK 4aa0e4d9ce6283665b1aac185da67543b8df606e

Also, left a nit/questsion

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Intermittent failure in rpc_invalidateblock.py assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getblockchaininfo()['headers'], 7) [ AssertionError: not(24 == 7)]":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32965#issuecomment-3068720253)
You can test this by replacing the newly added `disconnect_nodes` in your fix with `self.nodes[0].reconsiderblock(block.hash)`.