📝 marcofleon opened a pull request: "refactor: GenTxid type safety followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33005)
This is a followup to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631.

Addresses:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#discussion_r2200291621
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#discussion_r2199951996
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#discussion_r2201874252
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#discussion_r2201918072
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#issuecomment-3063383775

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2214063550)
thanks, added to #32941

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2214063681)
thanks, added to #32941

💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "refactor: GenTxid type safety followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33005#issuecomment-3085123179)
@JeremyRubin in your [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32631#issuecomment-3063383775) you mentioned that there are multiple data structures that should be switched to homogeneous. I was only able to spot `m_tx_inventory_to_send` as one that should be changed. Are there others that I'm missing?

If it is only the one, then I'm not sure about making such a generic container. Might be better to just keep it specific to Txid/Wtxid or have a class for `m_tx_inventory_to_send` only.
...

💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#discussion_r2214083519)
Thanks again it's simpler like this, done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539/commits/42d3aa8787d9411ad2a9c9ae9c828aa1285853ec

💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#discussion_r2214083883)
done in done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539/commits/42d3aa8787d9411ad2a9c9ae9c828aa1285853ec

💬 sstone commented on pull request "Add a "tx output spender" index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539#discussion_r2214085643)
No we just need to skip over it, done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24539/commits/42d3aa8787d9411ad2a9c9ae9c828aa1285853ec

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: add option to skip large re-org test in feature_block":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33003#discussion_r2214109577)
Yes, it's possible. I just addressed it.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: add option to skip large re-org test in feature_block":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33003#issuecomment-3085207500)
Force-pushed addressing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33003#discussion_r2213532921

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#pullrequestreview-3030644452)
Code Review ACK 54f9cb85c4be2c30be0eb89f29b76a4cbf6f1c50

I think it makes sense not to do these iterations over block txns if these can never result in any action - even if it doesn't increase performance measurably.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#discussion_r2214057025)
nit: If `mapTx` is empty, `mapNextTx` must necessarily be empty as well, so strictly speaking it doesn't need to be checked here.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "doc: clarify GetAddresses documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32994#issuecomment-3085283292)
I agree with @stickies-v. It's weird to have two functions with the same name but with a relevant behavior difference, renaming one of the functions seems appropriate. In any case, Concept ACK about improving the documentation.

💬 kurapika007 commented on pull request "Reduce minrelaytxfee to 100 sats/kvB":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3085325955)
> > It's not obvious that the price going up 10x means we get to lower the default by 10x, because it's a more important system now and the stakes are simply higher.
>
> Sure, though at the same time the situation being discussed here isn't price up 10x means default down 10x. Compared to when this was last adjusted the price is up 500x and this proposes down by 10x. :P The magnitudes matter-- particularly in that it answers your drawdown comment: Even if bitcoin prices drop by 90% they'll st
...

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "wallet: remove outdated `pszSkip` arg of database `Rewrite` func"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32990#pullrequestreview-3030870760)
code review ACK 2dfeb6668cb2e98e3dccf946af084e8a08e1fab5

I verified that this arg was used only by the legacy wallet. At 2dfeb6668cb2e98e3dccf946af084e8a08e1fab5 (from the PR that added sqlite), this arg was used in the following function from `BerkeleyDatabase` (which obviously doesn't exist anymore):
```cpp
bool BerkeleyDatabase::Rewrite(const char* pszSkip)
{
while (true) {
{
LOCK(cs_db);
if (m_refcount <= 0) {
// Flush log data t
...

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#pullrequestreview-3030963395)
Concept ACK. I think the comment about updating the fee logic should be removed, as it can easily become stale.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#discussion_r2214259323)
Why delete this comment?

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#discussion_r2214264010)
Explicitly stating we update fee logic is unnecessary, just state that we fire the `MempoolTransactionsRemovedForBlock` notification or something like that.
```suggestion
// Remove confirmed txs and conflicts when a new block is connected, and notify validation interface listeners
```

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "mempool: Avoid needless vtx iteration during IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32827#discussion_r2214381461)
Yes, I'm aware, but I have listed here every value that is read or written to - seems safer this way.

🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "validation: remove BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32950#pullrequestreview-3031143319)
Concept ACK for removing it.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "validation: remove BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32950#discussion_r2214383689)
Or:

> // BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD is deprecated, but may still exist on disk. Replace it with BLOCK_FAILED_VALID.