💬 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

✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "How can I become a bitcoin developer?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33330)

💬 HowHsu commented on issue "use -loadblock to load blk*****.dat files, but the blocks in it are not recognized":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33280#issuecomment-3263764977)
> I'm not sure I can follow what versions you're using in the examples and what you're trying to achieve high level - could you please update the title and issue description and start with the zoomed out problem definition for what you're trying to achieve and what you tried and what versions you have used for which operation etc?

Hey I0rinc, I've updated the title and description, let me know if that makes sense.

⚠️ Raimo33 opened an issue: "bench: broken CSV format, commas in benchmark names"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33331)
Currently there are a couple of benchmarks that have commas in their name:

- SHA256D64_1024_AVX2 using the 'sse4(1way),sse41(4way),avx2(8way)' SHA256 implementation
- SHA256D64_1024_SHANI using the 'sse4(1way),sse41(4way)' SHA256 implementation
- SHA256D64_1024_SSE4 using the 'sse4(1way),sse41(4way)' SHA256 implementation
- SHA256D64_1024_STANDARD using the 'standard' SHA256 implementation
- SHA256_32b_AVX2 using the 'sse4(1way),sse41(4way),avx2(8way)' SHA256 implementation
- SHA256_32b_SHANI u
...

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "index: Fix coinstats overflow":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30469#discussion_r2328739222)
Ah, I seem to have only applied this to `RevertBlock` but not `CustomAppend`, both have this identical LOC. Fixed.