💬 Sjors commented on pull request "[WIP] add a stratum v2 template provider":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27854#issuecomment-1833934826)
I have a rebased and reorganised branch in progress that I'll link to here in a bit.

@ccdle12 are you still working on this? If not, I could take over and open a new PR. Otherwise, you could check if my branch is useful and use it here.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1410793961)
good news: this issue was discovered in less than a minute on a single core with the package fuzzer

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "guix: switch from `guix environment` to `guix shell`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26077)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: Reduce use of bash -c"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28954)

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "fuzz: BIP324: damage ciphertext/aad in full byte range"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28951)

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "msvc: Update vcpkg manifest"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28938#pullrequestreview-1757694045)
ACK 6d05c4fd138b80168d14a8cf1dbcca43782851af

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "msvc: Update vcpkg manifest"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28938)

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1410816950)
I just think that the point of the policy rule is not to enforce a particular sigops limit, but instead to ensure that the total fee required to replace a child transaction is only high if the child itself has a high feerate, which is defined as `fee / sigops_adjusted_vsize`. So there doesn't seem to me to be a benefit to thinking about two different limits.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "guix: remove input labels"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28965)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: fix libmultiprocess build on aarch64":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28846#discussion_r1410822923)
> Is this workaround still needed with

I think this can be deffered for #28856. I haven't tested everything, but with that change, we seem to avoid the issues here. I'll close this for now in favour of that change, and properly review shortly.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "depends: fix libmultiprocess build on aarch64"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28846)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: Build the `native_capnp` and `capnp` packages with CMake":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28856#issuecomment-1833975742)
Concept ACK - I think this will now also fix #26943, and the build failure coming from the lib vs lib64 discrepency.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "build: Introduce internal kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28690#discussion_r1410832373)
Mmh, looking at the history, similar things are said in the commit message introducing the headers in `libbitcoin_crypto`: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/4791b99e2dea0593775a8c75f62c8406d340191e. Maybe a regression was introduced at some point?

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "ci: remove `libz-dev` from macOS build deps"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28973)
Remove no-longer used libz-dev (from DMG compression).
Followup to #28432.
Missed this in #28932.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Introduce internal kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28690#discussion_r1410836410)
Or it is a typo? "headers"/"modules"? cc @theuni

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "p2p: Increase tx relay rate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28592#issuecomment-1834012897)
> <instagibbs> _aj_ might be helpful to know what the potential downsides are to the PR
> (I have not thought about this stuff deeply)
> <_aj_> instagibbs: ie, why there's a limit at all?

The code comment explanation of this is:

```c++
/** Maximum rate of inventory items to send per second.
* Limits the impact of low-fee transaction floods. */
static constexpr unsigned int INVENTORY_BROADCAST_PER_SECOND = 7;
```

My understanding of this limit is that our
...

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "p2p: Increase tx relay rate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28592#issuecomment-1834020972)
> @ajtowns it did not crash my node. That's about the extend of monitoring I did on it, not sure what to measure.

I have a couple of patches at https://github.com/ajtowns/bitcoin/tree/202305-reportnetdata which can be used to track if the `inv_to_send` queues grow large and how quickly they empty out. With those patches, this script can be interesting:

```
bitcoin-cli getmempoolinfo | jq -j '"loaded:", .loaded, " ", .size, " txs ", (.bytes/1000000|floor), "MvB ", (.usage/.maxmempool*1000|
...

💬 hebasto commented on issue "RFC: Replacing Boost Process":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24907#issuecomment-1834065979)
> FWIW, I started working on replacing boost::process with cpp-subprocess on the following branch: [theStack/bitcoin@`nuke_boost_process`](https://github.com/theStack/bitcoin/tree/nuke_boost_process?rgh-link-date=2023-03-13T12%3A51%3A33Z)

I've picked up that branch. It appears that the upstream project requires a few patches to meet all our needs. The first one is https://github.com/arun11299/cpp-subprocess/pull/94.

🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "refactor: Remove unused SER_DISK, SER_NETWORK, CDataStream"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28451)

📝 BrandonOdiwuor opened a pull request: "doc: explain what the wallet password does"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28974)
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18085