🚀 MarcoFalke merged a pull request: "doc: remove mention of "proper signing key""
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27107)

🚀 MarcoFalke merged a pull request: "test: add coverage for unparsable `-maxuploadtarget`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26714)

⚠️ yanagawak opened an issue: "Why is Bitcoin Core structured as a wallet? I know that it began as a wallet, but is it possible to make it like a GUI block explorer instead?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27110)
I'm always frustrated when I open up Bitcoin Core, and then all I get is an empty wallet GUI. I see no information about the block-chain itself. When I want to see on-chain data, I have to go to centralized websites instead.

I would like to see Bitcoin Core be restructured as a GUI block explorer. Delete all the wallet features. Bitcoin Core is a really, really bad wallet, to be honest. Didn't Core developer Luke Dash Junior just lose his entire stash of 300 coins because he was using a inter
...

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Why is Bitcoin Core structured as a wallet? I know that it began as a wallet, but is it possible to make it like a GUI block explorer instead?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27110)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Why is Bitcoin Core structured as a wallet? I know that it began as a wallet, but is it possible to make it like a GUI block explorer instead?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27110#issuecomment-1433194111)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base. General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: FreeBSD build doc updates to reflect removal of install_db4.sh"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26773)

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "refactor: Move coin_control variable to test setup section":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26154#issuecomment-1433228883)
@achow101

> Yes, it could be a problem if the test is removed, but it's unlikely that the test will be removed, and if it is removed, the line can be just as easily moved at that time.

I did not mean to imply that a test might be removed. I was only pointing out that this kind of coding practice is confusing because the variable definition doesn't belong _only_ to the test.

> While this isn't incorrect, it's not meaningfully helpful. It doesn't really add anything useful to the codeba
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor / kernel: Move non-gArgs chainparams functionality to kernel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#discussion_r1108602508)
Yes, also keeping it the same as in: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25862/files#diff-4e268aeb074a176689aace31957a889c1f39c909e6678ca7be8707bda1a7be56R11

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "[22.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26927#issuecomment-1433230124)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26927/commits/ea584a617c6853eb1f9740600cd9db75d77948eb

💬 prusnak commented on pull request "doc: remove mention of "proper signing key"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27107#issuecomment-1433230441)
ACK 304ae6d

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor / kernel: Move non-gArgs chainparams functionality to kernel":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26177#discussion_r1108608610)
I see, I'll use `dep`, because that's what is used elsewhere in the code.

💬 Willtech commented on issue "Setting `onlynet=onion` still makes some IPv4 connections.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12344#issuecomment-1433251695)
I only sometimes look just for interest and occasionally find this issue unless network has been updated. It is not rare it just happens when it does.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24748#issuecomment-1433257883)
Moved to draft given it's based on multiple other PRs.

📝 fanquake converted_to_draft a pull request: "test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24748)
This PR introduces support for v2 P2P encryption(BIP 324) in the existing functional test framework and adds functional tests for the same.

It's built on top of:
* #24545
* #24005

The first 2 commits help the CI pass since the secp256k1 subtree directory is touched by the parent PR 24545.
The next 2 commits bring in the mentioned parent PRs. They'll all be removed when the parent PRs get merged.

### commits overview
1. Introducing cryptographic constructs(HKDF, ECDH, ChaCha20, Poly
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "[23.x] Backports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26921#issuecomment-1433258574)
Only extra commit/change is af862661654966d5de614755ab9bd1b5913e0959

ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26921/commits/52376d9217060ce84e992e374d5dc2beae40bb06

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Descriptor unit tests and simplifications":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24361#issuecomment-1433259806)
Drafted for now given it's (maybe) waiting on #26076.

📝 fanquake converted_to_draft a pull request: "Descriptor unit tests and simplifications"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24361)
Builds on top of #24343.

Adds additional tests, and makes `ToPrivateString()` always succeed, using pubkeys in case privkeys are unavailable.

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "script: add explanation for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#issuecomment-1433262848)
Concept ACK

Probably worth just squashing this down to 1 commit.

⚠️ instagibbs opened an issue: "decodescript miniscript functionality tops out at 520 bytes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27111)
After https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27037 miniscript is extracted from compatible scripts, unless the `FillableSigningProvider::AddCScript` check for `MAX_SCRIPT_ELEMENT_SIZE` fails, which then it falls back to legacy behavior.

@achow101

💬 instagibbs commented on issue "decodescript miniscript functionality tops out at 520 bytes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27111#issuecomment-1433265740)
Was testing out with a 11-of-15 script from mainnet:
```
5b21020e0338c96a8870479f2396c373cc7696ba124e8635d41b0ea581112b678172612102675333a4e4b8fb51d9d4e22fa5a8eaced3fdac8a8cbf9be8c030f75712e6af992102896807d54bc55c24981f24a453c60ad3e8993d693732288068a23df3d9f50d4821029e51a5ef5db3137051de8323b001749932f2ff0d34c82e96a2c2461de96ae56c2102a4e1a9638d46923272c266631d94d36bdb03a64ee0e14c7518e49d2f29bc401021031c41fdbcebe17bec8d49816e00ca1b5ac34766b91c9f2ac37d39c63e5e008afb2103079e252e85abffd3c401a69b087
...