💬 ryanofsky commented on issue "depends: `native_libmultiprocess` fails to build on OpenBSD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33219#issuecomment-3201847735)
I am waiting for openbsd to slowly install in a vm. It might not be too hard to add an openbsd job in the libmultiprocess repository too with https://github.com/vmactions/openbsd-vm

🤔 yuvicc reviewed a pull request: "kernel: improve BlockChecked ownership semantics"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33078#pullrequestreview-3133490635)
Code Review ACK 1d9f1cb4bd6b119e1d56cbdd7f6ce4d4521fffa3

- the benchmark looks encouraging
- avoids ref-counts and no atomic overhead.

💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3201890300)
It's my first time fully reading through this PR (along with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31756 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33190) and looking at the code changes so my understanding is high level and likely incomplete. If there are details I'm missing or other PRs I should check out, please let me know.

Based on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31756#issuecomment-3191623241 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3190601926, it see
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "index: fix wrong assert of current_tip == m_best_block_index":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32878#issuecomment-3201901283)
ACK 3aef38f44b76dfda77f47dc1a0e1fdc6ff3c7766

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "index: fix wrong assert of current_tip == m_best_block_index"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32878)

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3201962009)
> > The only difference between the binary that supports the -ipcbind option and the binary that does not support it
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but ISTM a simple solution to @sipa's concern, then, would be for the _only_ release `bitcoind` binary to be the `bitcoin-node` one.

If the only purpose of the ENABLE_IPC option were to enable the IPC mining interface this would make sense. But that's not the only purpose or even the intended one. The point of the option is to turn on IPC features b
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3201997480)
> This would give us more confidence to include the new binary in the next official release.

marcofleon, I think your understanding is all correct but note that -ipcbind feature and mining interface are available in v29 and can be easily toggled on in cmake. If you check discussion starting https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3189623427 not having the feature enabled in binary releases and depends builds has seemed to be a barrier to adoption. It do think it might not b
...

⚠️ CryptoYahan opened an issue: "Request for Review: Somali Translation and Explanation of Bitcoin Whitepaper"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33221)
We have translated the Bitcoin whitepaper into Somali and have provided a detailed explanation for sections that may be difficult to understand. This translation aims to make Bitcoin more accessible to the Somali-speaking community.

We kindly request that you publish both the Somali translation and its accompanying explanation on your official website to help reach a wider audience. Both documents are fully accurate, and their purpose is purely educational, without ads or marketing.

Here are t
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "cmake: Fix `-pthread` flags presentation in summary":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31724#issuecomment-3202050752)
> The best alternative to printing a summary at configure time, is to generate it into a file at generate time with [`file(GENERATE)`](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/command/file.html#generate). This supports generator expressions.

I think there is value in printing a configure summary to stdout, so writing it only to a file could make it harder to quickly double-check if an option or compile flag has been applied.

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Request for Review: Somali Translation and Explanation of Bitcoin Whitepaper"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33221)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3202115220)
> What is being enabled here is nominally an optional feature (in the sense that _right now_ all the multiprocess binaries do is add the mining IPC service), but it's really the start of moving towards a multiprocess world, where the new binaries at some point become the "normal" way of using the Bitcoin Core daemon. Certainly at that point, I think ENABLE_IPC should be the default, and we should see capnp as a normal expected dependency, rather than an optional extra feature.

Right, but my t
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "wallet: Remove isminetypes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523#issuecomment-3202116489)
re-ACK 620abe985e5150c3151192d08746b7845a69dbbf

💬 naiyoma commented on pull request "test: rpc: add last block announcement time to getpeerinfo result":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27052#discussion_r2286253898)
I'm not sure I understand why this is optional. Originally, it was set to a sentinel value.
I don't see a situation where it wouldn't have a value.
My suggestion → `NodeSeconds oldest_block_announcement = NodeSeconds::max();`
That way `.has_value() `checks and `*oldest_block_announcement` can be avoided.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3202119931)
(Sorry in advance for the meandering comment, I was reading the others coming in as I was typing this up)

> @achow101 @ryanofsky In my [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33190#issuecomment-3196869655) in the other PR regarding seeing this PR as a successor to that one, I failed the consider the possibility of enabling it in release builds without making it default in from-source builds, like Qt, ZMQ, USDT, so I saw it as two separate sequential decisions to be made, rather than
...

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "headerssync: Preempt unrealistic unit test behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32579#discussion_r2286268690)
The sneaky redownload and insufficient work cases should be differentiated by making the second chain have enough work, e.g.: https://github.com/davidgumberg/bitcoin/commit/1b1b7f2d06e3b11eac0f844002ff4c1bcf497b0d

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3202139955)
> Please take a step back and just think like a user. v29 shipped with `bitcoind`. They'll now see `bitcoin`, `bitcoind`, and `bitcoin-node`. Even if their behavior doesn't have to change at all, anyone could be forgiven for being confused by that.

No, they will absolutely not see that and it I agree would be a huge problem if that is what were were shipping.

They will see a just one new binary called `bitcoin` which is a wrapper around internal binaries. `bitcoind` is unchanged.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3202140235)
@ryanofsky I wouldn't be opposed to this idea (having `ENABLE_IPC` that enables `-ipcbind` in `bitcoind` itself, separate from `ENABLE_MULTIPROCESS` which enables `bitcoin-node`, and later the broken-out features as separate binaries).

Multiprocess is more than just IPC, and the mining interface isn't really (or doesn't need to be) part of the multiprocess world, it just happens to use the same interface. Furthermore, at this point there really *isn't* any user-visible multiprocess functional
...

💬 theuni commented on pull request "test: rpc: add last block announcement time to getpeerinfo result":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27052#discussion_r2286284964)
`optional` + `has_value()` communicates intent much more clearly than the sentinel imo. Though admittedly it's awkward as long as worst_peer is a sentinel.

I'd expect to see `std::optional<std::pair<NodeId, NodeSeconds>> worst_peer`, personally.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31802#issuecomment-3202198415)
> > Please take a step back and just think like a user. v29 shipped with `bitcoind`. They'll now see `bitcoin`, `bitcoind`, and `bitcoin-node`. Even if their behavior doesn't have to change at all, anyone could be forgiven for being confused by that.
>
> No, they will absolutely not see that and it I agree would be a huge problem if that is what were were shipping.
>
> They will see a just one new binary called `bitcoin` which is a wrapper around internal binaries. `bitcoind` is unchanged.
...

📝 sipa opened a pull request: "miner: clamp options instead of asserting"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33222)
The `BlockAssembler::ClampOptions` function currently doesn't actually clamp most of the provided settings, but asserts that some are in range. This made sense while it was a purely internal interface.

However, with the mining IPC interface exposed in #30510, these options are now externally accessible, and it is not entirely intuitive how to set them. In particular, calling `Mining::createNewBlock` with a default-constructed `BlockCreateOptions` will right now instantly crash the bitcoin nod
...