🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "p2p: reduce false-positives in addr rate-limiting"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33699#pullrequestreview-3381256003)
utACK fdf4863d66ed09a6b45fb6cd0d0c48a02e0e267d

I think that while the existing rate limit is sufficient, the observed events where the rate limit kicks in are just due to statistical fluctuation (which wouldn't lead to rate limiting later on because the node will usually have saved up some cushion) - having fewer of those could prevent a peer's self-announcement from being ignored, and could make monitoring a bit easier.

✅ Christewart closed a pull request: "test: Add `leaf_version` parameter to `taproot_tree_helper()`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29371)

💬 Christewart commented on pull request "test: Add `leaf_version` parameter to `taproot_tree_helper()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29371#issuecomment-3448896232)
> > Previously the leaf version was hard coded, because we only currently support 1 leaf version.
>
> Unless I'm missing something, this is untrue?
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/7d27af98c7cf858b5ab5a02e64f89a857cc53172/test/functional/test_framework/script.py#L870
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/7d27af98c7cf858b5ab5a02e64f89a857cc53172/test/functional/feature_taproot.py#L1683
>
> Can you explain why this is insufficient for usage?

Hi @instagibbs

I mis
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "BIP-322 basic support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24058#issuecomment-3448955451)
> @kallewoof could you leave a comment explaining why you closed this PR? It is not apparent from looking at the history of this PR what the state is of BIP-322 support in Bitcoin Core.

> Same question @kallewoof , why did you close this? It's a much needed feature.

Came here from reading BIP 322. Should this be marked as up for grabs? Still desired/needed?

💬 rico201 commented on pull request "[30.x] Finalise v30.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33559#issuecomment-3449004729)
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/v30.0-Release-Notes-Draft

💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "p2p: reduce false-positives in addr rate-limiting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33699#issuecomment-3449008388)
crACK fdf4863d66ed09a6b45fb6cd0d0c48a02e0e267d

The graph is helpful, I wonder what's going on with those peers above and to the left of the staircase?

💬 kallewoof commented on pull request "BIP-322 basic support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24058#issuecomment-3449011853)
I closed it as the effort required to keep up with wallet changes vs the interest in the feature itself did not at all match up. If someone wants to pick it up then by all means.

💬 kallewoof commented on pull request "BIP-322 basic support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24058#issuecomment-3449013397)
Belated, but I completely missed the two other comments asking for clarification until now. Sorry @benma and @kilrau, didn't mean to ignore you.

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "BIP-322 basic support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24058#issuecomment-3449052702)
Thanks @kallewoof!

⚠️ kosuodhmwa opened an issue: "'ss -ltnp | grep 28332' and 'ss -ltnp | grep 28333' does not work (i need it for LND)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33710)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [x] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

Compile process:

`[GIT stuff here]
apt install -y cmake
cd ~/bitcoin
mkdir build
cd build
apt install -y capnproto libcapnp-dev
cmake .. -DBUILD_BITCOIN_WALLET=ON -DENABLE_ZMQ=ON -DBUILD_TESTING=OFF -DBUILD_BENCH=OFF
make -j$(nproc)
`


start process:

`root@debian12-btc-node:~# cat ./start-btcd.sh
set -x;
clear;
cd ~/;
#cd bitcoin/src;
cd bitcoin;
cd build;
cd bin;
./bitcoind | grep -v -
...

✅ kosuodhmwa closed an issue: "ZMQ problem: 'ss -ltnp | grep 28332' and 'ss -ltnp | grep 28333' does not give me an answer (i need it for LND)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33710)

💬 kosuodhmwa commented on issue "ZMQ problem: 'ss -ltnp | grep 28332' and 'ss -ltnp | grep 28333' does not give me an answer (i need it for LND)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33710#issuecomment-3449181270)
additional info: bitcoin.conf:


additional info: bitcoin.conf:

```
whitelist=127.0.0.1

txindex = 1

proxy = 127.0.0.1:9050

listen = 1

bind = 0.0.0.0

server = 1

rpcbind=127.0.0.1
rpcbind=192.168.1.174

rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
rpcallowip=192.168.0.0/16

rpcport = 8332

rpcuser = MY_USER
rpcpassword = MY_PASS

wallet = mywallet
#wallet = cormorant

disablewallet=0

zmqpubrawblock=tcp://127.0.0.1:28332
zmqpubrawtx=tcp://127.0.0.1:28333
```

💬 kosuodhmwa commented on issue "ZMQ problem: 'ss -ltnp | grep 28332' and 'ss -ltnp | grep 28333' does not give me an answer (i need it for LND)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33710#issuecomment-3449182130)
So that entries exist... !?

zmqpubrawblock=tcp://127.0.0.1:28332
zmqpubrawtx=tcp://127.0.0.1:28333

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads >10% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132#issuecomment-3449216359)
Thank you @l0rinc for your detailed review and suggestions! I have taken some of them. The input fetcher has now been redesigned.
- Coins are written to the ephemeral cache that is created just to be used in `ConnectBlock`, instead of the main cache. This requires a new method in `CCoinsViewCache` - `GetPossiblySpentCoinFromCache`. Since we write to an empty cache instead of `CoinsTip()`, we could insert a `Coin` that exists in the db but is spent in `CoinsTip()`. Previously that insertion woul
...

📝 Ataraxia009 opened a pull request: "transaction: Adding script witness to ToString for CTxIn"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33711)
When debugging and trying to print the details of a `CTxIn` using the `ToString`, we get the `scriptSig`, but would also help to get the witness.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Replace cluster linearization algorithm with SFL":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32545#issuecomment-3450065966)
I have added an additional fuzz test (`clusterlin_sfl`) which verifies properties of the underlying data structure (`SpanningForestState`) plus sanity checks on it (as opposed to `clusterlin_linearize` which only tests the higher-level `Linearize()` function implemented in function of it).

It's no longer a net reduction in LoC now :(

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "test: Update BIP324 test vectors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33688#pullrequestreview-3382329855)
ACK 51877f2fc5eb02b4229258b4b43731c4da843793

💬 Crypt-iQ commented on pull request "p2p: Drop unsolicited CMPCTBLOCK from non-HB peer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32606#discussion_r2464867707)
> Should we only send SENDCMPCT hb=false after VERACK if we're not blocksonly?

I think this breaks -blocksonly nodes being able to send compact blocks since `m_provides_cmpctblocks` is never set? I can PR the -blocksonly change I suggested above separately if it's tangential.

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "guix: build for Linux HOSTS with `-static-libgcc`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33181#issuecomment-3450309523)
Guix hashes:

```
❯ find guix-build-$(git rev-parse --short=12 HEAD)/output/ -type f -print0 | env LC_ALL=C sort -z | xargs -r0 sha256sum
2f47825c394b4c4e9fe9495a2c0750ac34e78211391264d47ded7c676e78479a guix-build-c74705d81a88/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
99a17c7dc93a17a344e53be8c1a19bb98f259a5387ff22f4f8e9af988a447128 guix-build-c74705d81a88/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-c74705d81a88-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
b91f417b34b438db585c614780ae38bab35c3e313a1ac84ada8e090839
...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "refactor: rename `fees.{h,cpp}` to `fees/block_policy_estimator.{h,cpp}`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33218#discussion_r2465012090)
fixed