💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "mining: add applySolution() to interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33374#issuecomment-3473985400)
Note that the @plebhash comments were actually remove from the archive (as it just pulls the GitHub API. Gone from the GitHub API means gone from the latest version of the archive and mirroring) and might thus be missing from the mirroring in the next rebuild..
See https://github.com/bitcoin-data/github-metadata-backup-bitcoin-bitcoin/commit/9ca6ff3e35249f8ccb710de7cee6ff13e028f0ee#diff-a4bfd29817b2ed302dbaf2c9bd4514ace8aa1ffeacf02046400d93b526b8ab02L847
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33374#issuecomment-3473985400)
Note that the @plebhash comments were actually remove from the archive (as it just pulls the GitHub API. Gone from the GitHub API means gone from the latest version of the archive and mirroring) and might thus be missing from the mirroring in the next rebuild..
See https://github.com/bitcoin-data/github-metadata-backup-bitcoin-bitcoin/commit/9ca6ff3e35249f8ccb710de7cee6ff13e028f0ee#diff-a4bfd29817b2ed302dbaf2c9bd4514ace8aa1ffeacf02046400d93b526b8ab02L847
💬 roconnor-blockstream commented on pull request "Relax standardness rules regarding CHECKMULTISIG":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33755#issuecomment-3476339242)
@TheCharlatan I touch on this in the above, but I do want to explicitly note that the order of public keys that Counterparty uses changed in response to #5247 and the [the keys used to be in the other order](https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/commit/f1a8c82914b2f913560496e3d1becc1b63f88118#diff-b9154ac64e110b5561c5bcadc77b532aaea3f44eb53e9c4a76ae2ed3c6fad8b8L231-R261).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33755#issuecomment-3476339242)
@TheCharlatan I touch on this in the above, but I do want to explicitly note that the order of public keys that Counterparty uses changed in response to #5247 and the [the keys used to be in the other order](https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/commit/f1a8c82914b2f913560496e3d1becc1b63f88118#diff-b9154ac64e110b5561c5bcadc77b532aaea3f44eb53e9c4a76ae2ed3c6fad8b8L231-R261).
💬 TheBlueMatt commented on pull request "Embed default ASMap as binary dump header file":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28792#issuecomment-3478062912)
I was misled by https://github.com/bitcointranscripts/bitcointranscripts/pull/593/files#diff-e25cced7d45bde5a991f8ac638162335638ea1ba39b21a5cb76d5e5e31b31345R9-R10
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28792#issuecomment-3478062912)
I was misled by https://github.com/bitcointranscripts/bitcointranscripts/pull/593/files#diff-e25cced7d45bde5a991f8ac638162335638ea1ba39b21a5cb76d5e5e31b31345R9-R10
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Embed default ASMap as binary dump header file":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28792#issuecomment-3478064586)
> I was misled by https://github.com/bitcointranscripts/bitcointranscripts/pull/593/files#diff-e25cced7d45bde5a991f8ac638162335638ea1ba39b21a5cb76d5e5e31b31345R9-R10
Ok, I see, that could have been more clear as either "depends on `rpki-client`" (the only dependency outside of python) or "depends on RPKI, IRR and Routeviews downloads" or something. I will clarify in the PR.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28792#issuecomment-3478064586)
> I was misled by https://github.com/bitcointranscripts/bitcointranscripts/pull/593/files#diff-e25cced7d45bde5a991f8ac638162335638ea1ba39b21a5cb76d5e5e31b31345R9-R10
Ok, I see, that could have been more clear as either "depends on `rpki-client`" (the only dependency outside of python) or "depends on RPKI, IRR and Routeviews downloads" or something. I will clarify in the PR.
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads >20% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132#discussion_r2486129322)
I'm observing a memory leak in this fuzz test similar to the one we had for the thread pool. Over there, we disabled logging and instantiate only a single pool instance: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689/files#diff-68602d972fe2b027e3987eff0042c27f3f00fc161b7fe871bdb147571f348298R49-R58 . Maybe similar things can be done here?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132#discussion_r2486129322)
I'm observing a memory leak in this fuzz test similar to the one we had for the thread pool. Over there, we disabled logging and instantiate only a single pool instance: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33689/files#diff-68602d972fe2b027e3987eff0042c27f3f00fc161b7fe871bdb147571f348298R49-R58 . Maybe similar things can be done here?
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: optimize block index comparisons (1.4-6.8x faster)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33637#discussion_r2486365567)
Generally yes, but here I wanted to copy the [original code](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33637/files#diff-2e16a7ac99a65c1617112c3c326fba499b0010fe6c48b92b59bbc9696d883585L104) as closely as possible
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33637#discussion_r2486365567)
Generally yes, but here I wanted to copy the [original code](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33637/files#diff-2e16a7ac99a65c1617112c3c326fba499b0010fe6c48b92b59bbc9696d883585L104) as closely as possible