💬 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)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Add CMake-based build system (1 of N)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27060#issuecomment-1434452574)
I think we can close this now that review is happening elsewhere, and we've still got the parent PR.

✅ hebasto closed a pull request: "build: Add CMake-based build system (1 of N)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27060)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "guix: consolidate to glibc 2.27 for Linux builds"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27029)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Switch hardened derivation marker to h (in normalized descriptors and new wallets)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26076#discussion_r1109621939)
I missed that, changing to `h`.

📝 vasild opened a pull request: "doc: clarify that LOCK() does AssertLockNotHeld() internally"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27116)
Constructs like

```cpp
AssertLockNotHeld(m);
LOCK(m);
```

are equivalent to

```cpp
LOCK(m);
```

for non-recursive mutexes, so it is ok to omit `AssertLockNotHeld()` in such cases. Requests to do the former keep coming during review process. `developer-notes.md` explicitly states "Combine annotations in function declarations with run-time asserts in function definitions", but that seems to be too strong or unclear. `LOCK()` is also a run-time assert in this case.

Also remove `
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Handle CJDNS from LookupSubNet()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27071#discussion_r1109626265)
Opened https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27116 to amend the docs.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Pointer Authentication and Branch Target Identification for aarch64 Linux (Guix)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24123#issuecomment-1434484944)
Rebased past #27029. Might split some more of this out.