📝 sipa opened a pull request: "BIP324 ciphers: FSChaCha20 and FSChaCha20Poly1305"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28008)
Depends on #27985 and #27993, based on and partially replaces #25361, part of #27634. Draft while dependencies are not merged.

This adds implementations of:
* The ChaCha20Poly1305 AEAD from RFC8434, including test vectors.
* The FSChaCha20 stream cipher as specified in BIP324, a rekeying wrapper around ChaCha20.
* The FSChaCha20Poly1305 AEAD as specified in BIP324, a rekeying wrapper around ChaCha20Poly1305.

The ChaCha20Poly1305 and FSChaCha20Poly1305 implementations are new, taking adv
...

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Translate unit names & fix external signer error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/599#issuecomment-1613860180)
Rebased. Only units and the external signer bugfix remain. I didn't regenerate translations this time.

🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "blockstorage: Return on fatal flush errors"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27866#pullrequestreview-1506167577)
Concept ACK

The blockstorage changes seem pretty straightforward, the `validation.cpp` one I'll need to dive deeper into since it's got quite a few callsites.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "blockstorage: Return on fatal flush errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27866#discussion_r1247198730)
Any reason why this isn't `[[nodiscard]]` too? Given that it returns the `AbortNode` result, and is used in blockstorage?

🤔 Xekyo reviewed a pull request: "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#pullrequestreview-1506175113)
Took one suggestion, will revisit the other tomorrow.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1247203795)
Thanks, went with your suggestion

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1247221538)
I tried this change, and remembered why I put in the "discount" in the first place: I think I have incorporated the bump fees in the effective values before, so I need to know whether there is a difference between the sum of the bump fees and the combined inputs’ bump fee. I have an idea how to incorporate your suggestion, but I gotta try tomorrow.

📝 jonatack opened a pull request: "script, test: python typing and linter updates"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28009)
With these updates, `./test/lint/lint-python.py` and `./test/lint/lint-spelling.py` should be green again for developers using relatively recent Python dependencies, in particular mypy 0.991 (released 11/2022) and later. Please see the commit messages for details.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Fix transaction view/table":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/662#issuecomment-1613900091)
Reopening was requested.

📝 achow101 reopened a pull request: "Fix transaction view/table"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/662)
#204 reverted a necessary bugfix, and #205 introduced regressions since `setModel` resets column widths. Note that you need to delete your saved GUI config to see the fix, otherwise the prior widths are restored.

Before regressions:


After regressions / current master:

![Screenshot_20220905_233054 branch-22](https://user-images.githubusercontent
...

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Fix transaction view/table":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/662#issuecomment-1613900449)
Re-confirmed bug still exists, and rebased this fix.

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Bugfix: Address broken things around Peers detail view":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/677#discussion_r1247249570)
Doesn't seem worth splitting up such a minor change IMO

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Improve 'Requested Payments History' Multiselect":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/684#issuecomment-1613909123)
Would prefer the refactoring split into a different commit

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Intro: Never change the prune checkbox after the user has touched it":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/658#issuecomment-1613914077)
Reopening by request

📝 achow101 reopened a pull request: "Intro: Never change the prune checkbox after the user has touched it"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/658)
Re-PR from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18729

Now includes a bugfix too (`-prune=2+` disabled the checkbox, but `-prune=0/1` did not; this behaviour is necessary since `-prune` overrides GUI settings)

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Intro: Never change the prune checkbox after the user has touched it":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/658#issuecomment-1613914668)
Rebased

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Intro: Never change the prune checkbox after the user has touched it":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/658#discussion_r1247255336)
Yes, removed it

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "net: do not `break` when `addr` is not from a distinct network group":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27863#issuecomment-1613921442)
ACK 5fa4055452861ca1700008e1761815e88b29fae7

Agree that `continue` makes sense if we're simply unlucky.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "net: do not `break` when `addr` is not from a distinct network group"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27863)

💬 techy2 commented on pull request "fix: delay in TimeOffset applied to AdjustedTime caused by send/recei…":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28007#issuecomment-1613931101)
Pointer offset error not flagged in my build. Will close this pull and open a new one with issue resolved.
Testing solution now.