💬 benthecarman commented on pull request "Allow configuring target block time for a signet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27446#issuecomment-1619120300)
@ajtowns I dont think we're gonna agree on this so whatever. I will continue to maintain this fork for its users.

https://github.com/benthecarman/bitcoin/releases/tag/custom-signet-blocktime

👍 jamesob approved a pull request: "Rework validation logic for assumeutxo"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#pullrequestreview-1511690655)
ACK 03dfe04075668aa3b99a5d6d68adfcecffca0593 ([`jamesob/ackr/27746.3.sdaftuar.rework_validation_logic`](https://github.com/jamesob/bitcoin/tree/ackr/27746.3.sdaftuar.rework_validation_logic))

Reexamined commits locally. Built, tested each (or most). Examined [diff since
last review](https://gist.github.com/jamesob/8535a4b81fc29e890ce2eff9a0fb2f1d).

Changes include

- removing `BlockManager::AddDirty()`
- comment typo fixes
- AcceptBlock() under ChainMan (vs. standalone function)
- ad
...

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "Rework validation logic for assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1251222347)
4a9f0dae7ff64ba2c2f1eb1b44d0ca563726b776

Nit: feel like it may have been okay to leave in the previous assertion too (although this is sorted of indirectly tested by the `expected_assumed_valid` comparison). No need to change.

```diff
diff --git a/src/test/validation_chainstatemanager_tests.cpp b/src/test/validation_chainstatemanager_tests.cpp
index a936a96577..f0ed54a521 100644
--- a/src/test/validation_chainstatemanager_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/validation_chainstatemanager_tests.cpp
...

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1251261058)
Staring more at this, I am starting to wonder whether this would produce the same waste score for all possible BnB solutions, since BnB calculates the waste score with different parameters at the end of `SelectCoinsBnB()`. It does pass the coin selection tests. (I’ll let the fuzzer run over night to see whether that finds something else.)

🤔 Xekyo reviewed a pull request: "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#pullrequestreview-1511646387)
Addressed comments by @S3RK and @achow101

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1251210983)
Used 3×target_fee_rate instead

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1251243230)
I’m not sure I see a big difference between setting up the wallet with a confirmed UTXO from which I send an unconfirmed transaction with a varying feerate, or setting up the wallet to have an unconfirmed UTXO with varying feerate. The former may have the advantage that when I need multiple UTXOs, it’s easier to understand what’s different.

Currently expecting to keep it this way

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1251248054)
Thanks, that check doesn’t make sense, I’ve removed it.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1251192852)
Thanks for catching this. Fixed.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1251203025)
Moved all comments about what the tests do to the implementations of the tests

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1251204807)
Yeah, you’re right. Removed duplicate check.

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26152#discussion_r1251230645)
Oops, I only fixed the rename in the next commit. Fixing.

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "Rework validation logic for assumeutxo"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#pullrequestreview-1511762976)
Code Review ACK 03dfe04075668aa3b99a5d6d68adfcecffca0593

I reviewed the code again (didn't look that deep into the test changes), and did some manual testing.

> Not sure what's up with the arm failure, but tests pass for me locally.

Pretty sure it's unrelated, same thing just happened on master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/14733904119 (some discussion in #27988)

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "Rework validation logic for assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1251271660)
Now `ChainstateManager` has `ActiveSnapshotBase()` and `GetSnapshotBaseBlock()` which, as far as I understand it, do the same thing except for the caching.
Would it have been possible to add the caching to the existing `GetSnapshotBaseBlock()` instead?

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Allow configuring target block time for a signet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27446#issuecomment-1619186257)
> @ajtowns I dont think we're gonna agree on this so whatever.

I don't understand why you're ignoring an approach that seems to do a better job of getting what you want (instant channels, without even having to wait a minute), and can work on mainnet (so won't end up developing a UX that's only conceivably good for demos and doesn't work with real money), and is already supported by CLN, LND and LDK. If you don't want to explain, or even just figure "if it's dumb but it works that's good eno
...

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "Rework validation logic for assumeutxo"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#pullrequestreview-1505486978)
Partial code review ACK 03dfe04075668aa3b99a5d6d68adfcecffca0593. I've looked in detail at almost all of this except for tests. It seems like a big improvement and I haven't found any real issues at all. Am planning to review more soon.

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Rework validation logic for assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1246753697)
In commit "Move block-arrival information / preciousblock counters to ChainstateManager" (0dbc5805ca4371b7621bee0b7a553dac1a481614)

IIUC removing this line is not a change in behavior because the `nBlockSequenceId` variable was never used again after the `UnloadBlockIndex` call, outside of tests. Now there is new `ResetBlockSequenceCounters` function that tests can use to reset it separately. EDIT: Another review comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1243705025 als
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Rework validation logic for assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1246740699)
In commit "Move block-arrival information / preciousblock counters to ChainstateManager" (0dbc5805ca4371b7621bee0b7a553dac1a481614)

It would be nice to have a documentation comment for this function saying what it is for, especially since it is only called in a test. If the counter values are basically arbitrary and only used for ordering, I'm not sure why if they actually ever need to be reset, or if that's just a nice thing to do?

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Rework validation logic for assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1246815739)
In commit "test: Clear block index flags when testing snapshots" (e8168cd56c490609f59e1dc89add58b1be18b516)

This seems like a good change that makes test setup more realistic, but the could the commit message be updated to say what is motivating this change? Is it just for realism, or will a future change, or a certain kind of test depend on it?

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Rework validation logic for assumeutxo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27746#discussion_r1246833752)
In commit "Move block-arrival information / preciousblock counters to ChainstateManager" (0dbc5805ca4371b7621bee0b7a553dac1a481614)

The test seems to pass without this line, at least in this commit.

If this is needed for a future change, would be good to say that in commit message. Or if this is just done for completeness would be good to say that in a code comment.