💬 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)

💬 ponury1990 commented on pull request "New `outputs` argument for `bumpfee`/`psbtbumpfee`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25344#issuecomment-1434309790)
wyrozumiałość czy znają państwo takie słowo ? Mało tego tylu świetnych profesjonalistów nie dostrzegło mojego doświadczenia które jest mniejsze niż oranżada gwarancji proszę mi wierzyć nie robie tego z chęci a przymusu jestem zdany sam na siebie i determinacja mnie do tego zmusza „przepraszam” to słowo na które powinniście zwrócić szczególna uwagę dziękuje

💬 darosior commented on pull request "rpc: Use a FlatSigningProvider in decodescript to allow inferring descriptors for scripts larger than 520 bytes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27113#issuecomment-1434313353)
Concept ACK, thanks for fixing my overlook.

💬 theStack commented on pull request "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#discussion_r1109449787)
```suggestion
OP_PUSHDATA4 = 0x4e, // read the next 4 bytes as N and push the next N bytes as an array onto the stack
```

💬 theStack commented on pull request "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#discussion_r1109456114)
would also use the active form here
```suggestion
OP_1ADD = 0x8b, // add 1 to the top stack item
OP_1SUB = 0x8c, // subtract 1 from the top stack item
```

💬 darosior commented on pull request "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#issuecomment-1434416059)
> It will help a lot for developers who want to do script programming.

No strong opinion, but this purpose is already served by this [detailed wiki article](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script#Opcodes) presenting how each opcode works along with a bit of history. Using a "opcode, input, output, description" table it is even probably better at explaining what each opcode does than we can ever get in code comments.

💬 Hyunhum commented on pull request "script: add description for the functionality of each opcode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27109#issuecomment-1434438615)
Detailed wiki does help dev! However, it's just a complementary material.
If simple description on script.h,
1. Bitcoin repo itself leads the standard description of opcodes, does not depend on external ones
2. Newly added opcode can be described here first
3. dev can get info easier and publicly discuss more to utilize script

These are my personal opinion, and any opinion is welcome!

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "net: remove orphaned CSubNet::SanityCheck()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27106)