💬 conduition commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1848866953)
Concept NACK

I personally have no use for on-chain ordinals or inscriptions. I think everyone would be better off if these were moved to some off-chain or side-chain protocol. However I can't rightly label the inscriptions as 'spam', nor would I dub their exclusion from the mempool 'censorship'. The distinction between 'censorship' and 'spam filtering' is entirely subjective.

If i publish a chain of 1000 transactions pointlessly bouncing coins around my own wallet addresses, is that spam?
...

⚠️ ArmchairCryptologist opened an issue: "Nit: Inconsistency in the docs regarding blocks-relay-only connections"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29046)
I was looking into why my node was frequently opening new block-relay-only connections even though it already had two such nodes connected, and while this appears to be intended behavior to counter eclipse attacks, while searching the codebase for this I encountered a minor contradiction in the docs.

Specifically, [doc/reduce-memory.md](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/3e691258d8789a4a89cce42e7e71b130491594d7/doc/reduce-memory.md?plain=1#L29) says:

```
- `-maxconnections=<n>` - the
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "mempool: Don't sort in entryAll":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29019#discussion_r1421721623)
Thanks, seems easy enough to re-ACK, so will push this.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "mempool: Don't sort in entryAll":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29019#issuecomment-1848925011)
Updated 87fa444a04 -> f761f0306b092c06cecd239060b36cd0ba45fa2c ([entryAllNoOrder_0](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/entryAllNoOrder_0) -> [entryAllNoOrder_1](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/entryAllNoOrder_1), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/entryAllNoOrder_0..entryAllNoOrder_1))

* Addressed @martinus [nit](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29019#discussion_r1420051555).

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "kernel: Streamline util library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29015#issuecomment-1848935768)
@ryanofsky

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29015#issue-2029493410:
> the util library is a dependency of the kernel, and we should remove functionality from util that shouldn't be called by kernel code or kernel applications.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29015#issuecomment-1846332843:
> only code that _shouldn't_ be used by the kernel or kernel applications should be moved out of util, not just code that _isn't_ used by the kernel.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi
...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1848935892)
Concept NACK.

> glozow luke added the tests weeks ago, it is more than time to review this PR, you are in charge of the mempool and it is in a disastrous state with no less than 200,000 spam transactions.

@Retropex stop using this type of language. Nobody has to answer to you or anybody about how people are using this software or the Bitcoin network. Your past contributions to this forum gives me little hope you'd succeed but i would urge you to think twice before posting: your comments ar
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "miniscript: make operator""_mst consteval in C++20 mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28657#issuecomment-1848962751)
Needs rebase :)

💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1848965003)
So, we come back to what was originally and consistently advised, based on the free-market principles that fundamentally underly Bitcoin: The "solution" to inscriptions txs is to price them out with non-inscriptions txs. This is a natural process that happens over time, and has at least 2 dimensions:

1. Inscriptions txs (that are willing to pay a high enough fee to have higher priority confirmation) decrease over time, as demand falls, as their novelty wears off. Or, maybe the novelty never wea
...

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "build: Introduce internal kernel library"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28690#pullrequestreview-1774033780)
The last commit 34970bde23dd87fc0fea5a1970880761f7184774 effectively extends the `libbitcoinkernel_la_SOURCES` with the following source files:
- `script/bitcoinconsensus.cpp`
- `util/bytevectorhash.cpp`
- `util/readwritefile.cpp`
- `util/spanparsing.cpp`
- `util/threadinterrupt.cpp`

The resulted `libbitcoinkernel.a` and `libbitcoinkernel.so.0.0.0` get bigger, obviously.

This change is not mentioned in the commit message, and it's not clear whether it is done intentionally.

📝 sipsorcery opened a pull request: "Updated the msvc readme to add a note about avoiding path too long errors when building Qt with Bitcoin Core."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29047)
Trivial addition to the msvc build readme regarding a trick when building Qt with Bitcoin Core.

Would have saved me half an hour if I'd remembered this from the last time I did the build.

✅ sipsorcery closed a pull request: "Updated the msvc readme to add a note about building Qt with Bitcoin Core."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29047)

📝 sipsorcery opened a pull request: "Add a note to msvc readme re building Qt for Bitcoin Core."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29048)
Updated the msvc readme with a note about avoiding path too long errors when building Qt with Bitcoin Core.

Would have saved me half an hour if I'd remembered this from the last time I did the build.

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "Add a note to msvc readme re building Qt for Bitcoin Core."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29048#pullrequestreview-1774041983)
ACK a9b9fb2eeedbd9094d74f8f429622ba7d600dda3, the tip is correct and useful.

However, it won't be needed after migration to CMake as vcpkg's Qt package will be used then.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Add a note to msvc readme re building Qt for Bitcoin Core.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29048#issuecomment-1848977484)
@sipsorcery

There is a linter error in CI.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "build: Introduce internal kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28690#issuecomment-1848980730)
Putting this on draft while we figure out the desired contents of the util library in #29015.

📝 TheCharlatan converted_to_draft a pull request: "build: Introduce internal kernel library"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28690)
This PR introduces a new `libbitcoin_kernel` internal library. It completes the internal library design as laid out in [doc/design/libraries.md](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/design/libraries.md). The external `libbitcoinkernel` library now uses the source lists of the internal library for its compilation.

Should also address https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28548.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "test: detect OS in functional tests consistently using `platform.system()`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29034#issuecomment-1848986424)
Concept ACK.

💬 kashifs commented on pull request "Add multiplication operator to CFeeRate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29037#issuecomment-1848986657)
tACK [1553c80](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29037/commits/1553c8078698df1058b62e8fdadaf74160977b30)

I compiled from source, ran the test suite, and added some additional BOOST_CHECK tests on my local machine that all passed

⚠️ hugomenezes85 opened an issue: "Bitcoin Core - Transaction without permition"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29049)
Hi,
I open my Wallet Bitcoin Core and i notice a transaction with my total amount without any my permition.
Any one can help?


💬 sipsorcery commented on pull request "Add a note to msvc readme re building Qt for Bitcoin Core.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29048#issuecomment-1848996936)
> @sipsorcery
>
> There is a linter error in CI:

Even after I manually checked for whitespace violations on that single line addition :(.

Although it does seem like the linter culprit may be elsewhere? Or, am I missing something?

```
src/test/fuzz/package_eval.cpp:214: non-existant ==> non-existent
src/test/span_tests.cpp:56: memeber ==> member
^ Warning: codespell identified likely spelling errors. Any false positives? Add them to the list of ignored words in test/lint/spelling.
...