👍 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`.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Improve error handling when VerifyDB dosn't finish successfully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25574#discussion_r1109101932)
done, using the latter suggestion.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Improve error handling when VerifyDB dosn't finish successfully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25574#discussion_r1109103203)
changed to use same setting as in `AppInitMain`.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Improve error handling when VerifyDB dosn't finish successfully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25574#discussion_r1109104170)
Good point! I added a commit to do this and adjusted the release notes (since this also changes the behavior of the `-verifydb` RPC)

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Improve error handling when VerifyDB dosn't finish successfully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25574#discussion_r1109110569)
changed to `ChainstateLoadOptions::fail_on_insufficient_dbcache`

I don't understand the comment. It's not an option the user can set, it's determined by `-checkblocks` and `-checklevel`. So if a user wants to run with an extremely low dbcache, they should change those parameters (or just use the default so that init will only warn).

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Improve error handling when VerifyDB dosn't finish successfully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25574#issuecomment-1433870960)
[42b192f ](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/42b192f0cbf9c04da111145c921344b0881b3ce3)to [0af16e7](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/0af16e7134459e0820ab95d751093876c1ec4c6d):

Addressed comments by @MarcoFalke and @ryanofsky, thanks for the reviews!
Also changed title and adjusted OP since this is no longer just about `-dbcache`-related error handling.

💬 Hyunhum commented on pull request "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#issuecomment-1434020186)
clang-format applied and description for evaluating false added!

👍 WM7586 approved a pull request: "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109)

⚠️ PrivateJetLife opened an issue: "Received BTC not showing in ( btc core ) address nor private key"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27115)
I have created a new BTC Core wallet and had a receiving address of ( 38pV5yBHYBcizDotzhaVPVspT1veYTYRHV ) for which i used Trust Wallet to send 0.00012018 test BTC to my Core.
The same balance is visible successfully on Trust Wallet, Blockchain, BlockChare, Bitref, and everywhere.
I even tried to import the private key to Electrum and get the balance, yet it did not work.
I suspect a bug here in BTC Core that has not updated the received BTCs in my account ( address & private key ).
Appreci
...

💬 Calvinn097 commented on issue "Received BTC not showing in ( btc core ) address nor private key":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27115#issuecomment-1434226138)
your btccore is synchronizing, 4 years and 16 weeks behind

✅ MarcoFalke closed an issue: "Received BTC not showing in ( btc core ) address nor private key"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27115)