💬 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

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2223278879)
Done, together with the bit_cast -> reinterpret_cast change and comment renames, see [`fee3048` (#33039)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33039/commits/fee3048fcc4972ba02127a2a4ef75524c5be275d)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2223178526)
I'm usually a fan of small and focused tests that complement each other - instead of end-to-end ones that test everything. But I don't mind merging these either, done something similar in a separate follow-up PR: [`a17d820` (#33039)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33039/commits/a17d8202c36abf8a17fb8736e05f318422a3c7fb)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2223255423)
Added it to the test suite: [`2dea045` (#33039)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33039/commits/2dea0454254180d79464dc6afd3312b1caf369a7)

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2223239857)
Sure, done in a separate PR: [`e5b1b7c` (#33039)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33039/commits/e5b1b7c5577ee36b5bcfb6c02b92da88455411e9)