💬 systemic-threat commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-3263510323)
Concept NACK

I've educated myself on the issue.

💬 stwenhao commented on issue "Potential systemic risk: OP_RETURN outputs as unintended governance signaling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33323#issuecomment-3263529896)
The same things can be done without OP_RETURN. Even if you have P2PK-only, old, plain, ECDSA signatures, then still: they can commit to arbitrary data, through their R-values.

> Each UTXO could embed a short marker in its OP_RETURN.

Not only in OP_RETURN. Since miners started accepting out-of-band transactions, then different transaction versions can be used to signal things, just like they are used during soft-forks, to check, how many miners are ready to support some BIP.

> These markers co
...

💬 ybaidiuk commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-3263615631)
Gloria destroying bitcoin.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Checkout latest merged pulls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33303#discussion_r2328596111)
Not sure what your question is, can you link to logs that explain what you are observing and asking about?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Checkout latest merged pulls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33303#discussion_r2328596193)
ah, restored doc

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Checkout latest merged pulls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33303#issuecomment-3263622408)
(doc-only force push to restore the explanation)

🤔 maflcko reviewed a pull request: "test/refactor: use test deque to avoid quadratic iteration"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33313#pullrequestreview-3194368277)
I don't think this will ever be a measurable difference, but it seems fine to change. (Left some comments)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test/refactor: use test deque to avoid quadratic iteration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33313#discussion_r2328618853)
I am not sure if this needs a rename.

* Generally, we avoid putting the type name in the variable name
* This just says that there is a list of tests (what exact type the list has should not matter for the code)
* It creates a conflict with the other pull request

So it would be better to leave this as it was previously, or at least not include the exact type in the name.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test/refactor: use test deque to avoid quadratic iteration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33313#discussion_r2328614372)
i don't think this is right, as explained previously. This block of code is about `self.jobs`, which *is* a list, even after the changes here.

It is just a sanity check, so a shorter way to write it would be `assert(self.jobs) # Can not and must not be empty here`.

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "Intermittent tsan CI timeout in p2p_1p1c_network.py", line 155, self.sync_mempools()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33329)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/17526806361/job/49778354104?pr=33303#step:9:17166:

```
2025-09-07T10:22:31.1900795Z [0;36m test 2025-09-07T10:22:26.326636Z TestFramework (ERROR): Unexpected exception [0m
2025-09-07T10:22:31.1900932Z [0;36m Traceback (most recent call last): [0m
2025-09-07T10:22:31.1901180Z [0;36m File "/home/admin/actions-runner/_work/_temp/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py
...

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Intermittent tsan CI timeout in p2p_1p1c_network.py", line 155, self.sync_mempools()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33329#issuecomment-3263695603)
Dupe of #33318?

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "Intermittent tsan CI timeout in p2p_1p1c_network.py", line 155, self.sync_mempools()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33329)

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "build: Set AUTHOR_WARNING on warnings"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33144)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Set AUTHOR_WARNING on warnings":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33144#issuecomment-3263702928)
+GHA CI

📝 maflcko reopened a pull request: "build: Set AUTHOR_WARNING on warnings"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33144)
Now that the cmake setting `-Werror=dev` is set since commit 6a13a6106e3c1ebe95ba6430184d6260a7b942bd for the CI, guix and the dev cmake preset, it could make sense to notify developers about any warnings.

So do that with a single `AUTHOR_WARNING`.

This can be tested by introducing a bug, like:

```diff
diff --git a/CMakeLists.txt b/CMakeLists.txt
index 6017775fa7..5610e03c66 100644
--- a/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -589,7 +589,7 @@ set(Python3_FIND_FRAMEWORK LAST CACHE S
...

💬 Bottegatecnologica commented on issue "Potential systemic risk: OP_RETURN outputs as unintended governance signaling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33323#issuecomment-3263712327)
Thanks, I agree that signaling is substrate-agnostic and cannot be prevented: it can be done via ECDSA nonces, vanity patterns, version bits misuse, or even PoW-inside-script. My point is not to “ban signaling” but to avoid creating a salient Schelling point that lowers coordination costs and invites misinterpretation as governance.

OP_RETURN is cheap to parse, indexable, and highly visible on explorers. That visibility can turn it into a de facto focal channel, even if the same is theoreticall
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Potential systemic risk: OP_RETURN outputs as unintended governance signaling":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33323#issuecomment-3263724181)
This should be posted on the [bitcoin-dev mailing list](https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev), the [Delving Bitcoin forum](https://delvingbitcoin.org/) or some other platform where broad, protocol-level concepts are discussed. Conceptual questions and most usage questions can be posted on [Stack Exchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/). The Bitcoin Core issue tracker is reserved for discussion about this specific software project only, its implementation and usage.

✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "Potential systemic risk: OP_RETURN outputs as unintended governance signaling"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33323)

⚠️ Janix-dev opened an issue: "How can I become a bitcoin developer?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33330)
Hey guys, How Can I become a bitcoin developer?

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "How can I become a bitcoin developer?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33330#issuecomment-3263745923)
https://bitcoincore.academy/

https://learning.chaincode.com

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com