💬 Sjors commented on pull request "policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521#issuecomment-3074275673)
re-ACK 2c2acb37ecdeed1582b9835f9075d44e313d787c

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#pullrequestreview-3020830689)
Code review ACK 62ed1f92efff42bc79c50935e6dbd9da4e072020

Just a question and some nits.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#discussion_r2207756051)
Why size two?
Isn't this supposed to be one? That is, individual splits are already optimal, but any component with size greater than one needs to be linearized, no?

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#discussion_r2207883583)
this is a duplication because `AddDependency` already made `real_is_optimal` to be `false`

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#discussion_r2207856137)
```suggestion
// Update the Cluster's quality if it has improved.
```

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#discussion_r2207935885)
yeah will make internal comments of `DoWork` easier to follow as well.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#discussion_r2207956569)
It's already will be in a topologically valid ordering, and there's only a single ordering possible in a connected component of size 2, thus optimal.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add TxGraph work controls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32263#discussion_r2207967507)
Makes sense, I overlooked that even when parent pays for it self the ordering is the same.

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "wallet: Remove `upgradewallet` RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32944#discussion_r2207984864)
Done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32944/commits/305884c859f717a85f5bf9e728c6382d929fc01b

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "[BTC signet v22.0] websocket not working as expect"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32848)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "[BTC signet v22.0] websocket not working as expect":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32848#issuecomment-3074364853)
Closing for now. Feel free to reopen, with all the required details and steps to reproduce.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fix: Python 3 bytes comparison in linearize-data.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32978#issuecomment-3074369242)
Are there steps to reproduce, or a test to confirm the fix?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#issuecomment-3074385460)
Looking at logs, was wondering if we can get some more information about which peer/ which tx is being evicted from the orphanage? I'm eyeballing some logs since I've been running variants of this for a few weeks now, and the `orphanage overflow` string shows up significantly more often due to the non-timeout of announcements after this PR.

e.g.: "2025-07-07T11:27:34.481530Z [txpackages] orphanage overflow, removed 1 tx (4 announcements)"

Being able to quickly see that, f.e., the only reas
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: add v3 transaction creation and wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2208017260)
```suggestion
CMutableTransaction rawTx = ConstructTransaction(request.params[0], request.params[1], request.params[2], rbf, self.Arg<uint32_t>("version"));
```

nit: This should allow to drop the parsing in `ConstructTransaction` and the manual indexing here.

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3074405875)
Bitcoin Core

Nobody cares... We have better things.

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3074407862)
I dont need drama

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "ci: Use previous releases in tests on Windows"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32192)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "ci: Use previous releases in tests on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32192#issuecomment-3074416760)
Fixed by #32219.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "test: bip324_tests & net_tests failure with `-O3 -flto`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32337)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "test: bip324_tests & net_tests failure with `-O3 -flto`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32337#issuecomment-3074432903)
Closing for now, as I can no-longer recreate this, with Alpine 3.22.1, GCC 14.2.0, ld 2.44.