💬 fjahr commented on pull request "net: check for empty header before calling FillBlock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33296#issuecomment-3268365319)
tACK 8b6264768030db1840041abeeaeefd6c227a2644

Reproduced the issue using the test and ensured the changes here make the test pass.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "net: check for empty header before calling FillBlock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33296#issuecomment-3268394161)
ACK 8b6264768030db1840041abeeaeefd6c227a2644

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "signed overflow in coinstats index"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26362)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "index: Fix coinstats overflow"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30469)

💬 dhabmhmd27-ctrl commented on something "":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/8ad100a55be07efd481641319efe70ba430e8d23#r165396506)
****

💬 dhabmhmd27-ctrl commented on something "":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/8ad100a55be07efd481641319efe70ba430e8d23#r165396594)
****

💬 dhabmhmd27-ctrl commented on something "":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/8ad100a55be07efd481641319efe70ba430e8d23#r165396772)
****

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "net: check for empty header before calling FillBlock"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33296)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "guix: strip binaries in libexec":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33342#issuecomment-3268434902)
ACK 3cceda9f4855ac1f5df349f42efdbf5058d08f48

Verified that the binaries are all stripped now, and that the debug symbols are in the debug symbols tarball.

```
2042885891c2fdb6d3220da39e6f19b1a9852e3cca865db10f29e94fb2edc35d guix-build-3cceda9f4855/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
f0e603d2a39bab4f4f81160584d6e27c90601c38e8302b813969214e797f16f8 guix-build-3cceda9f4855/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-3cceda9f4855-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
410a706671693f8770474c797e35bb8789
...

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "guix: strip binaries in libexec"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33342)

✅ iajhff closed a pull request: "Mapping for Lockedpool"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33328)

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "wallet: Add `exportwatchonlywallet` RPC to export a watchonly version of a wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32489#issuecomment-3268580076)
tACK 0f547141487e3964a55102f6ae441233d7144aaf

The behaviour of this new RPC was tested to update the guide in commit 0f547141487e3964a55102f6ae441233d7144aaf and the behaviour is the expected.

💬 HowHsu commented on pull request "help: enrich help text for `-loadblock`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33343#issuecomment-3268776353)
> I'm not sure it's a documentation issue, I think we should rather fix it by adding the obfuscation key to the AutoFile instead. I will investigate if adding a fix and updating `feature_loadblock.py` makes more sense and will push an alternative PR to see what people think is more appropriate here. Thanks for jumping on this so quickly.


> I'm not sure it's a documentation issue, I think we should rather fix it by adding the obfuscation key to the AutoFile instead. I will investigate if add
...

🤔 Eunovo reviewed a pull request: "test: Remove polling loop from test_runner (take 2)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33141#pullrequestreview-3199158399)
ReACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33141/commits/fa4885ef2fde2b9fd9eb7367564a2946a45f20ac

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "help: enrich help text for `-loadblock`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33343#issuecomment-3268832707)
I wrote that before I found the `contrib/linearize` tool, which seems to be designed for unobfuscated block sharing anyway - maybe it can solve your problem of using `-loadblock`. If it does, we might want to mention *that* instead in the argument's documentation.

🤔 l0rinc requested changes to a pull request: "index: Force database compaction in coinstatsindex"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33306#pullrequestreview-3197501516)
I'm missing benchmark results to see how this change affects the already very slow performance. I will post my own results as soon as they finish.

I would also like to understand why database compaction isn't enabled for this LevelDB instance.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "index: Force database compaction in coinstatsindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33306#discussion_r2330924479)
do you think this is better than using the existing `LEVELDB` category? Seems these categories are in short supply and compaction seems like a LevelDB thing to me.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "index: Force database compaction in coinstatsindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33306#discussion_r2331873098)
nit: since we're touching it:
```suggestion
DBContext().pdb->CompactRange(/*begin=*/nullptr, /*end=*/nullptr);
```

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "index: Force database compaction in coinstatsindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33306#discussion_r2330966568)
I haven't checked the linked PR in detail (I have to have *some* stopping condition, and I think the PR should explain the important context) but I didn't get the impression until now that we weren't doing any compaction here before, I just thought you meant that "it's struggling to keep up".

Have a few questions here:
* could we rather add this to the other background compaction thread? Do we understand why there's no automatic compaction?
* does it make sense to do the compaction so often? Th
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "[DRAFT] Expose AssumeUTXO Load Snapshot Functionality To The GUI":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/870#issuecomment-3269262623)
The dialog wouldn't respond to me clicking on a file or folder. But then after a minute or so it worked again.