📝 fanquake unlocked a pull request: "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217)
The default activation of the `permitbaremultisig=0` option proposes an enhancement for the Bitcoin network. By refusing non-P2SH multisignature transactions from the outset, this modification would contribute to reducing spam attempts and maintaining a healthy decentralization by discouraging undesirable activities.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Remove Taproot activation height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26201#discussion_r1298311222)
Oh wait, without `!`

I'll push a fix and add a test...

Before and after this change it should be:

```
bitcoin-cli getblocktemplate '{"rules": ["segwit"]}' | jq '.rules'
[
"csv",
"!segwit",
"taproot"
]
```

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Remove Taproot activation height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26201#issuecomment-1683759219)
Rebased after kernel changes. Fixed a regression in `getblocktemplate`'s `rules` result, and added a test for tit.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Remove Taproot activation height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26201#discussion_r1298333745)
In #27433 I propose getting rid of `fPreSegWit`.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Update MANDATORY_SCRIPT_VERIFY_FLAGS":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26291#issuecomment-1683765931)
Code review ACK 1b09cc5959d4719ffad131b395f8185e9ab4b1a1

Running some logging as well.

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "p2p: adaptive connections services flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28170#discussion_r1298341327)
In that case i'd rather not `StopExtraBlockRelayPeers`. Instead we can leave a comment regarding the "same actions", although I'm not sure what's the appropriate place for it.

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "refactor: Make IsInitialBlockDownload & NotifyHeaderTip not require a Chainstate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28218#issuecomment-1683798845)
ACK bda557e5ebe7f754984a34ddfd33d2540c0303b9

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "guix: pre time-machine bump changes (Windows)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28294)
This is some refactoring to the Windows Guix build that facilitates bumping our Guix time-machine. Namely, avoiding `package-with-extra-configure-variable`, which is non-functional in the newer time-machine, see https://issues.guix.gnu.org/64436.

At the same time, consolidate our Windows GCC build into `mingw-w64-base-gcc`.
Rename `gcc-10-remap-guix-store.patch` to avoid changing it whenever GCC changes.

We move the old `building-on` inside `explicit-cross-configure`, so that non-windows
...

📝 MarcoFalke opened a pull request: "ci: Add missing amd64 to win64-cross task"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28295)
Currently the task will fail if run on non-`x86_64`.

Fix this by adding the missing `amd64`, similar to

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/7bf078f2b7d4a0339d053144b4fb35fe020dac25/ci/test/00_setup_env_i686_multiprocess.sh#L11

💬 viresinnumeris-1 commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1683822349)
@petertodd

Repeatedly seeking "citations" for 0-conf use cases is not the way to convince people that your PR should be merged. You made the PR, seeking to change a long-standing default value. The onus in on **you** to show us that your PR will not break existing use cases. Forcefully demanding users and supporters of 0-conf/FSS policies to show their data is fallacious shifting of burden of proof. If you don't think these use cases exist, go ahead and prove it.

Your own views on mempool
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Add missing amd64 to win64-cross task":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28295#discussion_r1298378816)
Same change in `cirrus.sh`?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Add missing amd64 to win64-cross task":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28295#discussion_r1298380304)
In theory yes, but in practise, no, because:

* Cirrus already runs on amd64, so this won't change anything.
* The config will be removed in another pull, so changing it will cause merge conflicts.

📝 MarcoFalke opened a pull request: "ci: Add missing ${CI_RETRY_EXE} before curl"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28296)
GitHub is frequently down and this is causing many intermittent issues. For example, from today: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5740122163904512?logs=ci#L398


Try to fix it with a retry.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Add missing amd64 to win64-cross task":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28295#discussion_r1298383590)
Does the following log:
```
#3 [internal] load metadata for docker.io/library/ubuntu:jammy
```
look OK?

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "ci: Add missing ${CI_RETRY_EXE} before curl"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28296#pullrequestreview-1584467464)
ACK fa968ef6a32bb66ca9fa3b84807f1c960f6a9833

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Add missing amd64 to win64-cross task":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28295#discussion_r1298389926)
Yes, the log looks green

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Add missing amd64 to win64-cross task":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28295#issuecomment-1683842523)
Force pushed to do the same for android

📝 Sjors converted_to_draft a pull request: "getblocktemplate improvements for segwit and sigops"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27433)
**Sigops**

Two recent F2Pool blocks violated the sigops limit. Both by 3.

I suspect they were not using `getblocktemplate`. If you look at the [template](https://miningpool.observer/template-and-block/00000000000000000004e0ec4f27bd3347381e8e19ed98d7f918e8c1c292ae97) right before the valid block at the same height, which was produced two minutes later, you'll see that it matches the block with 3 small transactions difference. In other words, the valid block producer likely did use `getblock
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Add missing amd64 to win64-cross task":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28295#discussion_r1298400895)
I was expecting to see:
```
#3 [internal] load metadata for docker.io/amd64/ubuntu:22.04
```

The PR description claims that this is a bugfix, but changes do not affect CI builds at all, according to the logs.

I'm confused a bit about that.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Add missing amd64 to win64-cross task":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28295#discussion_r1298404126)
It is possible to run the CI locally. For example, on a local `riscv64` machine you can type:

```
MAKEJOBS="-j1" FILE_ENV="./ci/test/00_setup_env_win64.sh" ./ci/test_run_all.sh
```

And then observe the failure.

The failure is fixed by this patch.