✅ achow101 closed an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28190)

:lock: achow101 locked an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28190)

💬 ChrisCho-H commented on pull request "script: check op_verif and op_vernotif":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28169#issuecomment-1657393698)
Thx! I was also considering it but not 100% sure whether `OP_VERIF` and `OP_VERNOTIF` can be treated as disabled. I will use the existing one as your suggestion.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1657669845)
> [Binance Pool, 8.2%](https://mempool.space/tx/64a26f750c7c58812bd475d054a9aa05248b6a8a2d53c0db38c0624197a4c68a)

This replaced 87f20bf4a8b71a255e47876ca7563cdcab1a830490a1b130bbe71c28d8da3884 which had a 3.14sat/vb feerate. statoshi reported minfees up to 3.09sat/vb in the period between the original propagating and the replacement being mined.

> [KuCoinPool, 1.4%](https://mempool.space/tx/8df183b087d433eac4d8e44eca5c7162a2540ee078a28ca04316fd82e12ec435)

This replaced e17630b903e9fb5bd
...

💬 ChrisCho-H commented on pull request "script: throw disabled err for op_ver and its variants":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28169#issuecomment-1657781606)
updated and passed the tests

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#issuecomment-1657805615)
Can you link to 10 passing tests in your fork? Otherwise we may run into intermittent issues.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "fuzz: Test headers pre-sync through p2p interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28043#discussion_r1278891247)
I don't think you can use annotations one way or the other. As soon as you assign to `std::function<void()>`, the annotations are dropped, so you might as well not have them in the first place.

If you want them, and use `CallOneOf`, you can use the same trick to wrap each annotated lambda into a `std::function<void()>{lambda_bla}` temporary to achieve the same result of dropping any annotations.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "kernel: Prune leveldb headers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28186#issuecomment-1657827011)
Concept ACK

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1657857733)
@ajtowns

> > [Binance Pool, 8.2%](https://mempool.space/tx/64a26f750c7c58812bd475d054a9aa05248b6a8a2d53c0db38c0624197a4c68a)
>
> This replaced 87f20bf4a8b71a255e47876ca7563cdcab1a830490a1b130bbe71c28d8da3884 which had a 3.14sat/vb feerate. statoshi reported minfees up to 3.09sat/vb in the period between the original propagating and the replacement being mined.
>
> > [KuCoinPool, 1.4%](https://mempool.space/tx/8df183b087d433eac4d8e44eca5c7162a2540ee078a28ca04316fd82e12ec435)
>
> This
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "kernel: Prune leveldb headers":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28186#issuecomment-1657883999)
> The dbwrapper is a key component of the libbitcoinkernel library. Future users of this library would not want to contend with having the leveldb headers exposed and potentially polluting their project's namespace.

Not sure about the motivation. I don't think any user should include the dbwrapper either? No user should be directly writing or reading from the db. The only reason why they'd have to include the header is to get access to `DBOptions`, which would alternatively and trivially be a
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Use documented `CCACHE_MAXSIZE` instead of `CCACHE_SIZE`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28188#issuecomment-1657898481)
lgtm ACK 79ceb161dbf7e033ce557d98e297bc3333665f26

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: Test headers pre-sync through p2p interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28043#discussion_r1278954263)
switched to `CallOneOf` and used `NO_THREAD_SAFETY_ANALYSIS`.

👍 MarcoFalke approved a pull request: "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#pullrequestreview-1554233354)
lgtm, Should squash?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#discussion_r1278964021)
I think you forgot to skip on the monotree fork?

```
skip: $CIRRUS_REPO_FULL_NAME == "bitcoin-core/gui" && $CIRRUS_PR == "" # No need to run on the read-only mirror, unless it is a PR. https://cirrus-ci.org/guide/writing-tasks/#conditional-task-execution

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#discussion_r1278965679)
Seems fragile. It may be better to set a hard-coded path, like before.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#discussion_r1278968101)
any reason to not just use the task name, like before?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Run "macOS native x86_64" job on GitHub Actions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28187#discussion_r1278961684)
Can delete the arm one now?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1278981444)
> So if my understanding of the API is correct, you receive a package from AcceptPackage() ...

Correct

> we have asserted than all packages component linearize are either spending a UTXO in the chainstate set, or spending an in-package component, so the worst-case scenario from a DoS viewpoint will be the limits as set in BIP331 / nversion=3 ?

The first check in `AcceptPackage` is `IsPackageWellFormed` which requires the package to be 25 transactions at most. The linearization with `Min
...

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "fuzz: use `ConnmanTestMsg` in `connman`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28091#pullrequestreview-1554266221)
utACK ecfe507e07e9bdab210e04ebd3fc3b8ae9d6a094

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "test: Add UBSan `-fsanitize=integer` suppressions for `src/secp256k1` subtree":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28131#issuecomment-1657954674)
Concept ACK