📝 frankomosh opened a pull request: "fuzz: add mempool_dag fuzzer for transaction dependency testing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33038)
adds a new target, `mempool_dag`, to test mempool DAG invariants by constructing transaction chains with controlled parent/child dependencies. main focus areas include:

a. ancestor / descendant count and size limits (`-limitancestorcount,` `-limitancestorsize`, `-limitdescendantcount`, `-limitdescendantsize`)

b. TRUC-policy interaction with non-TRUC transactions

c. mempool eviction behaviour under shrinking `-maxmempool`

d. fee-rate consistency after partial package eviction

Inva
...

🤔 darosior reviewed a pull request: "Introduce per-txin sighash midstate cache for legacy/p2sh/segwitv0 scripts"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32473#pullrequestreview-3038560723)
I've been playing with this code for the past couple of days and this is looking good. I wrote a unit test which sanity checks the caching and notably exercises false positive cache hits, which appears to not currently be covered (see LINK): https://github.com/darosior/bitcoin/commit/f303c6d68b5b9b3b23af34c8ef9efa7822fbe38b. I ran IBD on mainnet and signet with caching for blocks enabled and it did not result in any historical block being rejected on either of these networks. I'll do testnet3 an
...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "Introduce per-txin sighash midstate cache for legacy/p2sh/segwitv0 scripts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32473#discussion_r2219495270)
nit: no need to special-case when `kwargs` is empty since `ctx == {**ctx, **{}}`.
```suggestion
return lambda ctx: get({**ctx, **kwargs}, name)
```

💬 darosior commented on pull request "Introduce per-txin sighash midstate cache for legacy/p2sh/segwitv0 scripts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32473#discussion_r2220018190)
nit: why is that needed? Looks like it may have been necessary for an earlier version of the test that had a `0` sighash type in the `ops` list for the legacy signature caching test, but it is not necessary anymore.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "Introduce per-txin sighash midstate cache for legacy/p2sh/segwitv0 scripts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32473#discussion_r2220165555)
Various modifications of this code does not make any test fail. For instance:
```diff
diff --git a/src/script/interpreter.cpp b/src/script/interpreter.cpp
index 528d8851d5f..81fbc4ab151 100644
--- a/src/script/interpreter.cpp
+++ b/src/script/interpreter.cpp
@@ -1569,8 +1569,7 @@ int SigHashCache::CacheIndex(int32_t hash_type) const noexcept
// Note that we do not distinguish between BASE and WITNESS_V0 to determine the cache index,
// because no input can simultaneously use bo
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: Fix Discover() not running when using -bind=0.0.0.0:port":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32757#issuecomment-3103685291)
Better squash the last two commits into one.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "script: return verification flag responsible for error upon validation failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33012#discussion_r2223176014)
Well, apparently that was the only place. Fixed.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "util: Abort on failing CHECK_NONFATAL in debug builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32588#discussion_r2223179634)
restored this, and extended the workaround in the fuzz test, and wrote unit tests.

💬 josibake commented on pull request "Silent Payments: Receiving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32966#issuecomment-3103829182)
Looks like the most recent change is causing a failure in the unit tests:

> 2025-07-22T13:09:52.932304Z (mocktime: 2020-08-31T15:34:12Z) [test] [txmempool.cpp:699] [void CTxMemPool::check(const CCoinsViewCache &, int64_t) const] [mempwallet/spend.cpp:1343 CreateTransactionInternal: Assertion `!change_script.empty()' failed.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet, sqlite: Encapsulate SQLite statements in a RAII class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33033#discussion_r2223248647)
Done

💬 Sjors commented on issue "guix: Zip file non-determinism when building in WSL":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32931#issuecomment-3103923012)
Maybe copy the build over and then zip it?

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2223286810)
Added!

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2223287249)
Done!

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2223288339)
Done!

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2223289049)
Done!

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2223297800)
I've re-tweaked the error descriptions to make them more generic and to don't depend on the name of the parameter specified in the RPC (otherwise we'd need to pass to the function the argument name defined in the RPC). Please let me know what you think.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2223298338)
Done!

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "rpc, test: Fix JSON parsing errors in unloadwallet and getdescriptoractivity RPCs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32845#discussion_r2223298762)
Done!

📝 l0rinc opened a pull request: "refactor,test: follow-ups to multi-byte block obfuscation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33039)
Follow up for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144
Applied the remaining comments in separate commits - except for the last one where I could group them.
Please see the commit messages for more context.

🤔 l0rinc reviewed a pull request: "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#pullrequestreview-3043917032)
Added a follow-up with the remaining nits, see: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33039