💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Use `int32_t` type for most transaction size/weight values":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23962#discussion_r1227136627)
Re-reviewing this basically from scratch, I stumble here. `int32_t` should be big enough to represent the weight of more than 5,000 max standard weight transactions. Are we actually bumping into overflow issues with `int32_t` somewhere for size with descendants?

I see that this was brought up before, so I assume it was left a 64-bit value to limit the scope of this PR. Is that right?

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Use `int32_t` type for most transaction size/weight values":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23962#discussion_r1227137928)
As above

💬 TheBlueMatt commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#issuecomment-1587954425)
> In terms of RPC calls, this is of course possible. With stratum v2 some of the goals are around improving performance and reducing latency. JSON RPC can fall short in speed and efficiency.

Its not just latency and overhead, however - one of the important goals of replacing GBT in Bitcoin Core broadly is to move towards everything being push, rather than polling. In general, block templates should come out of Bitcoin Core very aggressively - when a new block comes in and has been validated,
...

📝 supernormand opened a pull request: "Initial commit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27867)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

✅ pinheadmz closed a pull request: "Initial commit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27867)

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1227151300)
Addressed in #26152 by introducing a method to update the Ancestor set state.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1227152852)
Implemented in #26152

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "Use `int32_t` type for most transaction size/weight values"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23962#pullrequestreview-1475680958)
Code review ACK 3ef756a5b558a1dd2fcb93bc0d4237707aa04f3f. Since last review, just rebased with more type changes in test and tracing code

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1226752830)
unused

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1226794309)
I don't think this is true?

We're only returning `TxValidationResult::TX_MEMPOOL_POLICY` for package size of 1(which becomes a Single Accept), so and subsequent subpackage relying on this prior tx will infer a result of `TX_MISSING_INPUTS`, `invalid-tx-dependency` in `AcceptPackageWrappingSingle`.

Wondering if it might be worth it to have a specific `TxValidationResult` that is precisely for the reasons that we may allow re-evaluation(early-ish abort due to low (package) feerate), and no o
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "validation: Return on abort":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27866#discussion_r1227166132)
Yup, I'll drop, make this PR about the flush errors only and continue discussion on your PR.

📝 Dadudidas opened a pull request: "Rename SECURITY.md to DadudidaSECURITY.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27868)
Sicherheitslücke!

<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "validation: Stricter assumeutxo error handling when renaming chainstates":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27862#discussion_r1227187324)
Just an observation on the behavior change here. In the current behavior, the function continues execution until it reaches `CompleteChainstateInitialization` further below. There it calls `options.check_interrupt()`, which will lead it to return `ChainstateLoadStatus::INTERRUPTED`. I think making it return a `ChainstateLoadStatus::FAILURE` now makes more sense, since it is not stopped due to an external interrupt.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#discussion_r1227189678)
Oh, I get what you mean. You’re right, the ancestor set feerates were incorrectly excluding some of the `high_fee` transactions. I amended the calculations and added the proposed additional checks. Thanks for catching that!

✅ hebasto closed a pull request: "Rename SECURITY.md to DadudidaSECURITY.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27868)

📝 hebasto locked a pull request: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27868)
Sicherheitslücke!

<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or
...

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#issuecomment-1588026074)
I think that all follow-ups from #27021 have now been addressed in #26152.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "validation: Stricter assumeutxo error handling when renaming chainstates":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27862#discussion_r1227196719)
This seems like a significant behavior change. The way I read this, `InvalidateCoinsDBOnDisk` is only called by `MaybeCompleteSnapshotValidation`. It's return type is ignored by its call site in `ConnectTip`, which I think would now lead us to skip over some code afterwards.

👋 hebasto's pull request is ready for review: "Use `int32_t` type for most transaction size/weight values"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23962)

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#issuecomment-1588047051)
Rebased, added four commits for the follow-ups from #27021, cleaned up the commit messages, added @theStack’s wonderful topology overview for the transactions, built each commit separately to make sure all tests pass.

**Ready for review**