💬 martinus commented on pull request "Add simulation-based `CCoinsViewCache` fuzzer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27011#issuecomment-1430768763)
> I believe it does?

It does [in line 49 for `CCoinsViewCache`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/test/fuzz/coins_view.cpp#L49), but not [in line 118 for the `CCoinsMap coins_map;`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/test/fuzz/coins_view.cpp#L118). I've added that in #25325 [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25325/commits/78f597be2879c39d9d2b98e21ed0120d2308de20#diff-1ef3b6a1936b50f3d5ec4a1786d9e2d63d1a3e1815b103e67f20601995f355b4R119)

🤔 LarryRuane requested changes to a pull request: "rpc, p2p: add `addpermissionflags` RPC and allow whitelisting outbound"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26441)

💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "rpc, p2p: add `addpermissionflags` RPC and allow whitelisting outbound":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26441#discussion_r1106652331)
The first commit ("net: Move PF_ISIMPLICIT interpretation from AcceptConnection to ...") doesn't compile; this call to `AddWhitelistPermissionFlags()` should not have the `vWhitelistedRange` until the third commit, "Accept "in" and "out" flags to -whitelist...".

💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "rpc, p2p: add `addpermissionflags` RPC and allow whitelisting outbound":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26441#discussion_r1106665680)
I got a compile error with the third commit, "Accept "in" and "out" flags to -whitelist..." because these are out of order, which you fixed later, but each commit should compile.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Stop the GPG verification madness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25395#issuecomment-1430918927)
Not sure what is left to be done here in this thread. Lets continue discussion in the appropriate other threads:


* https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/issues/945 for the website
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15774, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26176, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25834 for mac issues
* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23020 about the verify bin script

✅ MarcoFalke closed an issue: "Stop the GPG verification madness"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25395)

✳️ MarcoFalke pushed commits to a branch: bitcoin/bitcoin:master
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/576e16e7026f...68e484afbbc2)
Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#26584: cli: include local ("unroutable") peers in -netinfo table

77192c959816dc8daee138d88bd6f3250ce3bdb6 cli: include local ("unreachable") peers in -netinfo table (Matthew Zipkin)

Pull request description:

Closes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26579

The `-netinfo` dashboard did not list peers that were connected via "unroutable" networks. This included local peers including local-network peers. Personally, I run one bitcoind instance on my network that is used by other services like Wasabi Wallet and LND running on other machines.

This PR adds an "npr" (not publicly routable) column to the table of networks (ipv4, ipv6, onion, etc) so that every connection to the node is listed, and the totals are accurate as they relate to max inbound and max outbound limits.

Example connecting in regtest mode to one local and one remote peer:

```
Bitcoin Core client v24.99.0-151ce099ea8f-dirty regtest - server 70016/Satoshi:24.99.0/

<-> type net mping ping send recv txn blk hb addrp addrl age id address version
in npr 0 0 90 90 1 1 127.0.0.1:59180 70016/Satoshi:24.99.0/
out manual ipv4 63 63 84 84 3 3 0 143.244.175.41 70016/Satoshi:24.0.1/
ms ms sec sec min min min

ipv4 ipv6 npr total block manual
in 0 0 1 1
out 1 0 0 1 0 1
total 1 0 1 2

Local addresses: n/a

```

ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
Re-tested ACK 77192c959816dc8daee138d88bd6f3250ce3bdb6

Tree-SHA512: 78aa68bcff0dbaadb5f0604bf023fe8fd921313bd8276d12581f7655c089466a48765f9e123cb31d7f1d294d5ca45fdefdf8aa220466ff738f32414f41099c06

✅ MarcoFalke closed an issue: "bitcoin-cli -netinfo ignores inbound peer from local network"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26579)

🚀 MarcoFalke merged a pull request: "cli: include local ("unroutable") peers in -netinfo table"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26584)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "doc: Remove copyright years (headers only)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26817#issuecomment-1430952811)
See also https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27100

💬 murrayn commented on pull request "doc: FreeBSD build doc should suggest db4 for legacy wallet support":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26773#issuecomment-1430998296)
I've updated the document to reflect the removal of `install_db4.sh` #26834

📝 ebarakos opened a pull request: "Fix minor typo"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27102)
<!--
Just a small typo fix
-->

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Signing support for Miniscript Descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24149#issuecomment-1431108853)
@darosior do I understand correctly that you need #26567 in order for [PSBT stuff](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24149#issuecomment-1183382594) to work? Can I just combine both PR's to continue the test I was doing, or are there more changes required?

📝 fanquake converted_to_draft a pull request: "test: autogenerate bash completion"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25243)
Added a functional test which parses all the RPC help commands then automatically generates the bitcoin-cli bash-completion file and makes sure that the original file matches the newly generated one.

In order to get the RPC help commands in the correct format needed for the test, I added the "format" RPC command.

Test using `python3 test/functional/tool_cli_completion.py --overwrite`

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

Pull requests without a ration
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "build: produce a .zip for macOS distribution":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27099#issuecomment-1431116683)
Concept ACK, I second @prusnak.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "Signing support for Miniscript Descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24149#issuecomment-1431118379)
@Sjors see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24149#discussion_r1103625462. A minimal PSBT integration is part of this PR now. We treat Miniscript-related data when we are given a PSBT. However to fill Miniscript-related data to a PSBT from our wallet will need more work than just #26567, and also some design decisions to be taken.

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Convert ArgsManager::GetDataDir to a read-only function":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27073#issuecomment-1431124511)
Thanks @ryanofsky that was unintentional and is now fixed. The only behaviour change is now in `bitcoin-cli`.

This does still leave us with the (undesirable) behaviour described in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27073#issuecomment-1429434184. It seems likely a likely flow that a user might download bitcoin core, create `bitcoin.conf` and then run the application, which results in *not* creating a `wallets/` subdir on mainnet (and technically other networks, but it's unlikely a new us
...

📝 TheCharlatan opened a pull request: "Blockstorage: Dont access gArgs to get blocks_dir"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27103)
<!--
*** 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
...

✅ TheCharlatan closed a pull request: "Blockstorage: Dont access gArgs to get blocks_dir"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27103)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "wallet: Guard against undefined behaviour":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25982#issuecomment-1431174607)
@achow101 would be good to get your conceptual thoughts here.