💬 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.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "index: Fix coinstats overflow":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30469#discussion_r2328743555)
> const uint256 prev_hash_serialized{utxo_stats.hashSerialized}; seems like it would be better.

Taken

📝 fjahr opened a pull request: "common: Make arith_uint256 trivially copyable"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33332)
Makes `arith_uint256`/`base_uint` trivially copyable by removing the custom copy constructor and copy assignment operators. Removing of the custom code should not result in a change of behavior since `base_uint` contains a simple array of `uint32_t` and compiler generated versions of the code could be better optimized.

This was suggested by maflcko here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30469#pullrequestreview-3186533494

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "index: Fix coinstats overflow":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30469#issuecomment-3263892384)
> I haven't checked this, but the new struct is no longer trivially copyable, so it may have effects outside of the lines you have touched.

Correct, I confirmed this with `static_assert(std::is_trivially_copyable_v<DBVal>)`. I am not sure how to test that there are additional effects from this.

> we should probably make it trivially copyable, but this seems unrelated.

This seems like a good change to me but I have[ opened a separate PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33332) for
...

💬 systemic-threat commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-3263902960)
> Gloria destroying bitcoin.

Yep. I've done some programming; I'm not knowledgeable enough to contribute to Bitcoin Core - yet - but I know about good design, and I know how to spot bad actors.

📝 l0rinc opened a pull request: "RFC: coins: warn on oversized `-dbcache`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33333)
### Summary

Oversized allocations can cause out-of-memory errors or heavy swapping, [grinding the system to a halt](https://x.com/murchandamus/status/1964432335849607224).

### Fix

Added a minimal system helper to query total physical RAM on Linux/macOS/Windows.

`CalculateCacheSizes()` now emits a startup warning if the configured `-dbcache` exceeds a cap derived from system RAM.
If total RAM < 2 GiB, cap is `DEFAULT_KERNEL_CACHE` (`450MiB`), otherwise it's 75% of total RAM.
We're n
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test/refactor: use test deque to avoid quadratic iteration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33313#discussion_r2328799855)
I agree the type name is weird, but it's wrong now that it's not a lits (I understand you mean it's a conceptual list, not a type, but I also meant a conceptual queue, not a list) - but we can adjust that later, I understand the conflict argument. Reverted the name

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test/refactor: use test deque to avoid quadratic iteration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33313#discussion_r2328799867)
I remember you said that, but we're not popping from the jobs - but the assert is better anyway, thanks for the hint, added you as coauthor.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test/refactor: use test deque to avoid quadratic iteration":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33313#discussion_r2328799879)
Done

🤔 sipa reviewed a pull request: "Cluster mempool implementation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#pullrequestreview-3194519714)
Some comments already, mostly to get familiar with the overall flow of changes.