💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "bench: update logging benchmarks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26957#discussion_r1120305388)
Is it not possible to call the existing `EnableCategory` and disable functions?

💬 sipa commented on pull request "valgrind: remove libsecp256k1 suppression":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27173#issuecomment-1448431125)
I'm a bit surprised we had this suppression in the first place; it seems to have been added without any discussion in #17455? libsecp256k1context objects in the Bitcoin Core codebase should always be deleted.

Yet, even if there was a bug around this, or somehow detected incorrectly, it's possible #26691 changed/fixed it (in particular, 4462cb04986d77eddcfc6e8f75e04dc278a8147a, which removed the verification context object).

💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "blockstorage: do not flush block to disk if it is already there":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039#issuecomment-1448432672)
re-ACK, although now rebase is needed

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "valgrind: remove libsecp256k1 suppression":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27173#issuecomment-1448435176)
lgtm ACK 29b62c01c8d211475ea9dd1a1093820f0a86c06d

should be trivial to re-add in any case, if it happens again

⚠️ stickies-v opened an issue: "Feature request: alert PR author in case of CI failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27178)
Would be nice to have a means of quickly getting alerted about the CI failing on a PR you authored. It's a bit cumbersome to keep an eye out on it manually, and a freshly created PR typically gets more eyes on it so having it in failing state is a bit of a waste of everyone's time. Creating this issue after brief [IRC discussion](https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2023-02-28#1677593689-1677599148;).

I think the main requirements are:
- be able to opt out or easily ignore/hide
...

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "refactor: Stop using gArgs global in system.cpp"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27170)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: switch to some `minimal` versions of packages in our manifest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27172#issuecomment-1448451058)
> Is there an intuition on how much space this will save?

Some insight into any space saving:
```bash
# bash
/gnu/store/5h2w4qi9hk1qzzgi1w83220ydslinr4s-glibc-2.33 38.3 36.6 42.9%
/gnu/store/094bbaq6glba86h1d4cj16xhdi6fk2jl-gcc-10.3.0-lib 71.7 33.4 39.2%
/gnu/store/d99ykvj3axzzidygsmdmzxah4lvxd6hw-bash-5.1.8 85.3 6.2 7.3%
/gnu/store/9rrnm5hdjw7cy96a2a9rfgh6y08wsbmf-ncurses-6.2.20210619 77.6 5.9 7.0%
/gnu/store/720rj90bch716isd8z
...

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "Make miniscript_{stable,smart} fuzzers avoid too large scripts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27165#issuecomment-1448451692)
tACK 56e37e71a2538a240cc360678aeb752d17bd8f45

Reproduced the initial timeout from #27147 and verified that this patch fixes the issue.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "Mask values on Transactions View":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/708#issuecomment-1448467529)
Thinking further about this, if the "privacy" option is enabled, the transactions screen has no usage, thus shouldn't be accessible for the user.

In the current form, the screen is showing all the spends and receives ordered by date..
It presents the addresses where the user sent coins and the addresses where the user received them, so.. anyone could easily lookup them in an explorer and see how much money the wallet contains.

We could either block the view when the privacy option is enab
...

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "valgrind: remove libsecp256k1 suppression"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27173)

💬 sipa commented on pull request "valgrind: remove libsecp256k1 suppression":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27173#issuecomment-1448482185)
utACK 29b62c01c8d211475ea9dd1a1093820f0a86c06d

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Feature request: alert PR author in case of CI failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27178#issuecomment-1448506275)
Two notes:
* There are still false positives, so in the end a human has to look at the result and figure out whether it needs to be fixed on master or the pull, or none (re-run due to network issue) .
* One can keep a background tab open until it shows the green checkmark.

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "refactor: Move calculation logic out from `CheckSequenceLocksAtTip()`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23897)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "valgrind: remove libsecp256k1 suppression"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27173)

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "assumeutxo: background validation completion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25740#issuecomment-1448527435)
Maintainers: what else would you like to see for a merge here?

👍 dergoegge approved a pull request: "Make miniscript_{stable,smart} fuzzers avoid too large scripts"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27165)

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "guix: pass `--enable-initfini-array` to release GCC"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27153)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "miniscript_stable fuzz timeout"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27147)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Make miniscript_{stable,smart} fuzzers avoid too large scripts"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27165)

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "refactor, kernel: Decouple ArgsManager from blockstorage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27125#discussion_r1120306670)
`bilingual_str` seems unused