👍 theStack approved a pull request: "test: Flatten miniwallet array and remove random fee in longpoll"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26996)
re-ACK fa0abcdafeb74aa7a312095becd55b1cee48cd99

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: add coverage for sigop limit policy (`-bytespersigop` setting)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27171#discussion_r1129803993)
Ah I see where that comes from, thanks for clarifying! Comment does look better to me now.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: skip some backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#issuecomment-1460524502)
I presume the reason is that the valgrind supp file is not valid for previous releases. Actually, it might not even be valid for guix-compiled binaries on master?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "test: skip some backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#issuecomment-1460547152)
I disabled all tests that use previous releases under valgrind. Also tried a different error message.

> "Does it need fixing then?"

I added a code comment and some more context to the commit to help answer that, if anyone _does_ want to run these under valgrind.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: skip some backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129815496)
nit: Might be a smaller diff, and more clear, if this was put into the `skip_if_no_previous_releases` function?

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Flatten miniwallet array and remove random fee in longpoll"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26996)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "test: skip all backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129816790)
Thought about that, but there may other (future) tests we want to skip under valgrind (e.g. things that use a brittle dependency). Conversely, since some of tests _do_ work, maybe someone want to enable one later.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: skip all backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129816793)
Yea. If they are all going to be disabled in that case any way, no point duplicating all this logic and commentary.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "test: skip all backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129822563)
I was also thinking existing tests, e.g. I haven't been able to run valgrind with BDB configured (didn't try very hard).

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: skip all backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129819763)
> (future) tests we want to skip under valgrind

Let's not worry about unwritten tests, that we apparently might not want to test properly for some arbitrary reason.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: skip all backward compatibility tests under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27228#discussion_r1129828491)
> I was also thinking existing tests, e.g. I haven't been able to run valgrind with BDB configured (didn't try very hard).

It definitely works. The native valgrind CI job is already configured to run with BDB.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "doc: docment json rpc endpoints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27225#discussion_r1129850950)
If this gets merged before #27101, remind me to update to `2.0` ;-)

Technically I think `jsonrpc:"1.0"` isn't necessary and doesn't actually do anything.

💬 kristapsk commented on pull request "doc: docment json rpc endpoints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27225#issuecomment-1460633707)
Nit - there is typo in commit message / PR title (s/docment/document/).

💬 kristapsk commented on pull request "doc: docment json rpc endpoints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27225#issuecomment-1460632028)
Concept ACK

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue ""error reading from database. shutting down"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22426#issuecomment-1460635449)
@ntherrien is this still an issue for you? Did you try anything else that worked?

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "OS-specific background service for bitcoind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9005#issuecomment-1460657175)
Was this solved by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21007 ? I think that PR removed `daemon()` from the codebase. I run macOS 12.3.1 and don't have any issues running with `bitcoind -daemon`

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "OS-specific background service for bitcoind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9005#issuecomment-1460702016)
Closing for now. Can be reopened if this is still an issue.

✅ MarcoFalke closed an issue: "OS-specific background service for bitcoind"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9005)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue ""error reading from database. shutting down"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22426#issuecomment-1460703843)
Is this an external hard drive? Otherwise:

Bitcoin Core makes heavy use of CPU, RAM and disk IO. Hardware defects might only become visible when running Bitcoin Core. You might want to check your hardware for defects.

* memtest86 to check your RAM
* to check the CPU behaviour under load, use linpack or Prime95
* to test your storage device use smartctl or CrystalDiskInfo

Source: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/12206

💬 Ayms commented on issue "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043#issuecomment-1460704159)
Cool, I am a bit like @ChristopherA probably , even if still operating a bitcoin node that I did compile myself (+ some slight modifications for testing), I did not work on it since years