📝 brunoerg opened a pull request: "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114)
Revives #17167. It allows whitelisting outgoing connections.

I previously revived it with #26441, however, some reviewers told me it's better to keep them splitted to facilitate reviews and probably having this one merged first since we need it to improve functional tests.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#issuecomment-1433677572)
cc: @furszy @theStack

📝 brunoerg converted_to_draft a pull request: "rpc, p2p: add `addpermissionflags` RPC and allow whitelisting outbound"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26441)
Built this PR on top of #17167 (that's been closed due to inactivity but had some Concept ACK). So, it allows whitelisting outbound peers.

This PR adds a new RPC `addpermissionflags` to be able to set up permission flags -`whitelist` thru RPC, so we don't need to restart our node if we want to add new flags.

E.g.
```sh
$ ./src/bitcoin-cli addpermissionflags ["noban", "mempool", "in", "out"] "127.0.0.1"
```

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "rpc, p2p: add `addpermissionflags` RPC and allow whitelisting outbound":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26441#issuecomment-1433679228)
Converted it to draft to address suggestions and re-build it on top of #27114.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "rpc, p2p: add `addpermissionflags` RPC and allow whitelisting outbound":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26441#discussion_r1108995297)
Done in #27114

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "rpc, p2p: add `addpermissionflags` RPC and allow whitelisting outbound":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26441#discussion_r1108995480)
Done in #27114

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "doc: Bump copyright years to present (headers only)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26817#issuecomment-1433685289)
Adjusted title, description and commits according to IRC discussion and comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26817#issuecomment-1400897999

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Convert ArgsManager::GetDataDir to a read-only function":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27073#discussion_r1109015893)
The reason is that we do not test relative `-conf=` arguments [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/73966f75f67fb797163f0a766292a79d4b2c1b70/test/functional/feature_config_args.py#L287), even though we pass a realtive conf argument in.

This means that we are only testing the `os.path.join` sum of default `DataDir` and the relative arg.

💬 john-moffett commented on pull request "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#discussion_r1109011531)
We should probably be consistent in describing how Script deals with true/false, since it's later described as `if top stack value != 0`. Maybe add a section along the lines of:

```
/**
* Opcodes that take a true/false value will evaluate the following as false:
* an empty vector
* a vector (of any length) of all zero bytes
* a single byte of "\x80" ('negative zero')
* a vector (of any length) of all zero bytes except the last byte is "\x80"
*
* Any other value wil
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Setting `onlynet=onion` still makes some IPv4 connections.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12344#issuecomment-1433731288)
@Willtech I see from your User Agent you are using v0.20.1 (now outside of maintainance I think too FYI), are you able to try with v24.0.1 to see if the problem still occurs?

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "net: remove orphaned CSubNet::SanityCheck()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27106)
crACK 30a3230e86dfd49c771432be6219841df5066eb4

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#issuecomment-1433738562)
Awesome, thanks for the reworking this, @glozow, and the work on the fuzzer, @dergoegge. I've fixed a minor `tidy` issue and I’ll pick the chain interface changes into #26152 and rebase on this shortly.

Ready for review

👋 Xekyo's pull request is ready for review: "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021)

💬 1440000bytes commented on issue "Setting `onlynet=onion` still makes some IPv4 connections.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12344#issuecomment-1433784979)
> @Willtech I see from your User Agent you are using v0.20.1 (now outside of maintainance I think too FYI), are you able to try with v24.0.1 to see if the problem still occurs?

its user agent of one of the peer

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#issuecomment-1433798783)
Pushed again to provide signed commits

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Improve error handling when VerifyDB dosn't finish successfully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25574#discussion_r1109097868)
done

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Improve error handling when VerifyDB dosn't finish successfully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25574#discussion_r1109098979)
That would break the existing API though - there might be users out there who'd need to adjust automated scripts if -`verifychain` returned a more complicated JSON object instead of a bool.
I think I'd ACK a pull that does that, but would prefer not to include it here unless people really want it.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Improve error handling when VerifyDB dosn't finish successfully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25574#discussion_r1109099170)
fixed, though my local clang-format didn't complain before.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Improve error handling when VerifyDB dosn't finish successfully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25574#discussion_r1109099295)
done

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Improve error handling when VerifyDB dosn't finish successfully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25574#discussion_r1109101200)
Done - decided to use an if instead of ternary because `skipped_no_block_data` is treated similarly.
I decided to give `skipped_l3_checks` precedence - so if in addition to this, `skipped_no_block_data` is also true, we'd report `VerifyDBResult::SKIPPED_L3_CHECKS`.