👍 MarcoFalke approved a pull request: "util: add missing include and fix function signature"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27192)
lgtm

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "util: add missing include and fix function signature":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27192#discussion_r1124195745)
nit: Including the own module goes on the first line/section, usually, to catch missing includes in the header file.

Also, could add it to iwyu in ci/test/06_...sh, so that reviewers can look at the ci output if they want?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "[Bug] Bitcoin-core. MacOs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27193#issuecomment-1453214266)
Is this still an issue with a recent version of Bitcoin Core? If yes, what are the steps to reproduce?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: Use move semantics instead of custom swap functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749#discussion_r1124203980)
> Should this use emplace_back instead of push_back?

I didn't mention this because I assumed the two functions would do the same if they received a moved object?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Use of a wallet shouldn't be blocked in prune mode ("wallet loading failed... beyond pruned data")":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27188#issuecomment-1453221836)
Did you create the wallet with the wallet tool? If yes, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26679

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "wallet: ensure the wallet is unlocked when needed for rescanning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26347#discussion_r1124232090)
> Do you mean calling walletlock to ensure that the wallet is still unlocked?

No, I mean calling `walletlock` to lock the wallet. So the execution would look like:

```
-> walletpassphrase 99999 (start)
<- walletpassphrase (end)
-> rescanblockchain (start)
-> walletlock (start)
<- rescanblockchain (finish, release mutex)
<- walletlock (take mutex, end)
```

Without the fix in this pull, `walletlock` might lock immediately and then likely cause `rescanblockchain` to fail?

💬 anmode commented on issue "[Bug] Bitcoin-core. MacOs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27193#issuecomment-1453266728)
> Is this still an issue with a recent version of Bitcoin Core? If yes, what are the steps to reproduce?

Yess yess...
1. Install bitcoin-core from official website.
2. Move bitcoin to application folder
3. When u open set the data_dir and then it will start downloading the blockchain data.

Now there will ne .bitcoin folder as mentioned. Nor able to locate .bitcoin folder

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "[Bug] Bitcoin-core. MacOs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27193#issuecomment-1453287463)
There won't be a `.bitcoin` folder, unless you set it as datadir. Also, you can open the "Information" windows to see the datadir location.

💬 anmode commented on issue "[Bug] Bitcoin-core. MacOs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27193#issuecomment-1453305239)
> There won't be a `.bitcoin` folder, unless you set it as datadir. Also, you can open the "Information" windows to see the datadir location.

Just wanted to know...
As i download bitcoin-core app.
And make folder bitcoin[data dir] on desktop.
But node is not running when i ran bitcoind command. I get no command.
So i look bitcoin folder to add that path in env.

How to proceed?

👍 MarcoFalke approved a pull request: "refactor: RPC: pass named argument value as string_view"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26612)
nice

review ACK 545ff924ab6303ffabd91fdfc4f0a4962daf133c 📻

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

```
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

review ACK 545ff924ab6303ffabd91fdfc4f0a4962daf133c 📻
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQGzBAEBCgAdFiEE+rVPoUahrI9sLGYTzit1aX5ppUgFAlwqrYAACgkQzit1aX5p
pUhxDQwAnkUGV9vWw6I02mle/ZFfeIWLL4UhIJjNmcc0UH+0DwtK7IM9V74ST0QZ
8iv5AOTv43xJ9Ltye54nIbJnjIhW1WmZ/nhwTHDqJtQHP2GqF4ao2uQo2nGMEt/G
O3BixrcDyYHQDOR92bou9pzc7BOJpQ
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "[Bug] Bitcoin-core. MacOs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27193#issuecomment-1453321748)
If you use bitcoind and not the gui, you can learn more about the usage by passing `-?` to the program and reading the help for, let's say, `-datadir`.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "[Bug] Bitcoin-core. MacOs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27193#issuecomment-1453321977)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base. General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat.

💬 anmode commented on issue "[Bug] Bitcoin-core. MacOs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27193#issuecomment-1453343056)
Ohh okayy..got the point thanks @MarcoFalke
Closing this issue.

✅ anmode closed an issue: "[Bug] Bitcoin-core. MacOs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27193)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Coin Controll for Unconfirmed Outputs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27190)

💬 theStack commented on issue "make check errors on big endian OpenBSD 7.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26492#issuecomment-1453408152)
@grubles: Yeah, totally agree that running the tests on SPARC64 is likely not very meaningful. It's just the closest I could get, hoping that the problem could be triggered in general on a 64-bit big endian architecture on OpenBSD.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "make check errors on big endian OpenBSD 7.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26492#issuecomment-1453413473)
Added to the 25.x milestone. Let's get this sorted out by the release.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "blockstorage: add an assert to avoid running oom with `-fastprune`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27191#issuecomment-1453440605)
Not sure how I feel about this change. It is trivial to create blocks exceeding this limit on regtest. If this happens, it should at least log a message explaining why it failed. The size limit constants used by fastprune seem arbitrary to me. What is their rationale, just fewer resources allocated while testing? If so, why are the revision files not size restricted as well?

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Use move semantics instead of custom swap functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749#discussion_r1124429747)
> > Should this use emplace_back instead of push_back?
>
> I didn't mention this because I assumed the two functions would do the same if they received a moved object that is already fully constructed?

Oh, I think you are right they are equivalent in this case. I still think it would be a little better to use emplace_back for readability though, because with emplace_back you can be sure object is being constructed directly, while with push_back you have to check the types to know if a temp
...

💬 dougEfresh commented on pull request "doc: Fixup remove 'omitted...' doc for rpc getrawtransaction when verbose is 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26968#issuecomment-1453532752)
@stickies-v This better?