💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2210290456)
OK it seems `docker buildx build` does work with podman, so I have changed buildx to be used unconditionally in this commit now. Thanks!

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2210302841)
Yeah, if buildx is missing on some platforms, it could also use auto-detection to use it when available and not, when not.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "depends: Windows libevent build broken against mingw-w64 13.x"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32707)

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Adds transaction propagation information to mempool transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32986#issuecomment-3078438016)
> I'm unsure whether the added complexity is justified, given that it's unlikely to be used beyond that specific context.

Would adding tracepoint(s) be a suitable alternative? More overhead for the user, but probably much less in this repo?

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "depends: fix libevent `_WIN32_WINNT` usage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32837)

💬 lamachina commented on issue "Release Schedule for 30.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32275#issuecomment-3078441041)
blacknode.co is ready #️⃣🧡

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: fix libevent `_WIN32_WINNT` usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32837#issuecomment-3078450101)
Backported to 29.x in #32863.

⚠️ tonypatrick8390 opened an issue: "WHAT IS THE GREATEST WAY TO CATCH A CHEATING PARTNER?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32992)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

In any relationship, trust is fundamental, and discovering infidelity can be emotionally devastating. When faced with this challenging situation, finding reliable information is critical. I turned to FUNDS RECLAIMER COMPANY, a resource-oriented tool designed to help individuals gather pertinent data without invasive methods. This service offered me insights into the online activities that could shed light on the truth of my partner’s acti
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Migrate CI to hosted Cirrus Runners":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2210385688)
Actually I feel a bit less convinced that dropping a `sudo ... ` command into the CI scripts is ideal for this actually. I see comments that 32 bits should now be "fixed": https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/1614#issuecomment-1885369007

Testing this now locally...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: improve "test each commit" job to handle more complex scenarios":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32991#issuecomment-3078554931)
I can't reproduce this locally, when copy-pasting the command (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16315746903/job/46081155541?pr=28122#step:7:3), even when installing the git version from GHA (https://github.com/actions/runner-images/commit/723cd0240d0c380f28bfd66e4ec6556dc3b536fd#diff-cc12e5c5d005932feaacf280af949d83e2cb6020dff8203d9ead2e00c30e8b7fR77):

```
# git checkout a4c84b90c0f2be478e84c39785cbda2a8b2512db && git rebase --exec "git merge --no-commit origin/master && echo ./.
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: improve "test each commit" job to handle more complex scenarios":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32991#issuecomment-3078562830)
> I'm not sure what you mean by "create the subtree merge commit from scratch."

Sorry, I misread that you were rebasing the subtree merge commit, but you were rebasing *on* the subtree merge commit, which should be correct.

📝 brunoerg opened a pull request: "fuzz: wallet: add target for tx scanning"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32993)
Tracking issue (#29901)

This PR adds a fuzz target for wallet tx scanning (`ScanForWalletTransactions`). Unfortunately, it's not a regression test for the issue #31474 since it would require a more complex scenario/async operations.

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "log: [refactor] Use info level for init logs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32967#pullrequestreview-3024974858)
ACK fa65716a878dbc0daabf1b31e832db5b230c285c

Mostly refactor operations, with a couple of minor logging statement updates (e.g. removing function names, adding detail on which operation is started/exited, ...)

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "log: [refactor] Use info level for init logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32967#discussion_r2210416125)
nit: would be good to add braces or move to one-liner while touching this

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "log: [refactor] Use info level for init logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32967#discussion_r2210405561)
I think `LogWarning` could be appropriate here?

👋 brunoerg's pull request is ready for review: "fuzz: wallet: add target for tx scanning"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32993)

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "wallet/rpc: fix listdescriptors RPC fails to return descriptors with private key information when wallet contains descriptors missing any key":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32471#issuecomment-3078633756)
Concept ACK bb14e8ac7d38f3698d76ea3d6dce09e1387d59f3

Started reviewing the PR.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validation: docs and cleanups for MemPoolAccept coins views":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32973#discussion_r2210398185)
> The view doesn't track whether a coin previously existed but has now been spent

been spent in mempool/package contexts, I presume

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "validation: docs and cleanups for MemPoolAccept coins views"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32973#pullrequestreview-3022450569)
ACK b5805eddefced4cd8bb6f8069ea0a4bf199bacff

confirmed that the remaining tests cases fail when specific key clauses are modified, that it seems implausible that the test adds much assurances, and honestly is not a particularly maintainable test. The new comments are helpful for me to trace the code in a directed way and confirm what it's saying.

📝 danielabrozzoni opened a pull request: "doc: clarify AddrMan::GetAddresses documentation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32994)
Improve the GetAddresses documentation by specifying that one version of the function uses the address response cache while the other does not.

Also update the outdated "call the function without a parameter" phrasing in the cached version. This wording was accurate when the cache was introduced in #18991, but became outdated after later commits (f26502e9fc8a669b30717525597e3f468eaecf79, 81b00f87800f40cb14f2131ff27668bd2bb9e551) added parameters to each function.