💬 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.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "Signing support for Miniscript Descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24149#discussion_r1109650266)
Hmm looks like this checks for duplicate keys on every single node created whereas we could just check that on the top-level node in `GenNode()`?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[POC] guix: produce a fully -static-pie x86_64 bitcoind using GCC and glibc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25573#issuecomment-1434503043)
Rebased past #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_r1109664449)
Indeed, dropping these and a few others.

💬 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_r1109676251)
Not sure. I think I'd rather have an error message for mixed use of `h` and `'`.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Switch hardened derivation marker to h (in normalized descriptors and new wallets)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26076#issuecomment-1434522252)
Rebased, added the suggested fuzzer coverage and fixed some `'` that I missed.

> What was the rationale for only normalizing the public-key version with h?

I was thinking along the lines that normalization (moving the xpub to a logical position, converting `'` -> `h`) was an opt-in thing that we only do with the public-key version. However it's pretty much the default in practice, e.g. `listdescriptors` normalizes. We might as well do it for the private key version. The private key versio
...

📝 darosior opened a pull request: "fuzz: avoid redundant dup key checks when creating Miniscript nodes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27117)
I thought i had done that already in #24149, but it must have slipped through the rebase. It's a 2x speed improvement against the existing corpora and will probably be much more as we extend them with larger nodes.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Switch hardened derivation marker to h (in normalized descriptors and new wallets)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26076#issuecomment-1434523714)
Oops, didn't rebase far enough to get past the merge conflict...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "fuzz: avoid redundant dup key checks when creating Miniscript nodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27117#issuecomment-1434523841)
cc @sipa