🤔 murchandamus reviewed a pull request: "wallet: Track no-longer-spendable TXOs separately"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27865#pullrequestreview-1798375168)
Concept ACK

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "doc: Add multiprocess design doc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28978#issuecomment-1871465548)
ACK 91dc48c14825a9075a57c1eefda202b83b6346ba

📝 1440000bytes opened a pull request: "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149)
Rationale:

- Only this seeder is giving different results that include older versions: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29145#pullrequestreview-1797445282

- Warnings on **luke.dashjr.org** reduces the confidence to use this as DNS seed in bitcoin core: https://pastebin.com/raw/Cwk2a1xr

- He is not following [DNS seed policy](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/dnsseed-policy.md) rule 0 and 1

🤔 murchandamus reviewed a pull request: "Cluster size 2 package rbf"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#pullrequestreview-1777863994)
Concept ACK, did a quick skim review, will review more thoroughly

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1437884761)
Shouldn’t this be greater or equal to _exceed_ the original?

> 6. The package feerate (total package fee / total package vsize) must exceed the min(individual feerate, ancestor feerate) of every transaction that would be evicted (direct and indirect conflicts).

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1424218735)
Nit: Did you mean _replacEable_?

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: document and update `sendall` behavior around unconfirmed inputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28979#discussion_r1437895090)
Done

💬 ishaanam commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: document and update `sendall` behavior around unconfirmed inputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28979#discussion_r1437895284)
I've added a test that does this.

🤔 vincenzopalazzo reviewed a pull request: "RPC/Wallet: Convert walletprocesspsbt to use options parameter"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24963#pullrequestreview-1798511004)
I think the CI is complaing regarding the help command

```
stdout:
2023-12-28T22:14:56.493000Z TestFramework (INFO): PRNG seed is: 8647031483739335376
2023-12-28T22:14:56.493000Z TestFramework (INFO): Initializing test directory /ci_container_base/ci/scratch/test_runner/test_runner_₿_🏃_20231228_220750/rpc_help_5
2023-12-28T22:14:56.823000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-i686-pc-linux-gnu/tes
...

💬 amitiuttarwar commented on issue "Increase # of block-relay-only connections ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28462#issuecomment-1871635546)
thank you @virtu & @mzumsande for the thoughtful discussion around estimating available slots by network! I agree that estimating clearnet inbound slots to be 114 per address to be an overestimation because of availability on multiple networks, so we should update our expectations accordingly.

### suggestion on next steps
from an offline conversation with @mzumsande, we think a reasonable path forward is to continue with the proposal in #28463 to increase max connections to 200 while contin
...

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1871655061)
This PR is just trolling and should be closed/deleted.

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "guix: Use DOS newlines for SHA256SUMS files":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29147#issuecomment-1871656371)
It seems @DrahtBot stops short of making the full SHA256SUMS file?

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1437941333)
This won't work if multiple bits are set

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1871662501)
> This PR is just trolling and should be closed/deleted.

So you are not willing to answer questions about your DNS seed and think its hardcoded forever?

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1437941696)
These bits seem to typically manifest by replacing the 'x' field with either 's' (setuid/setgid+executable), 'S' (setuid/setgid WITHOUT executable), 't' (sticky+exec), or 'T' (sticky NO exec)

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1871670659)
BTW I am working on a [project](https://x.com/1440000bytes/status/1740258212430106966) to monitor DNS seeds for different things. Last time time I enquired about DNS seeds, they asked me to use `seednode`.

This time Peter Todd told me there are some trade-offs. So 60% nodes are working on those trade-offs.

Maybe the real reason is power you feel by seeding all the bitcoin network or misleading them with seed in your case.

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1871680509)
You have asked no questions, only posted false accusations.

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#pullrequestreview-1798562130)
I don't think a removal is warranted, just fix (or explain if there is a legit reason) the issue with only returinng old nodes.

There is the monitoring site at https://www.21.ninja/dns-seeds/ run by @virtu - maybe having some additional statistics about the diversity of results could have caught this issue?

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1871696902)
> I don't think a removal is warranted, just fix (or explain if there is a legit reason) the issue with only returinng old nodes.
>
> There is the monitoring site at https://www.21.ninja/dns-seeds/ run by @virtu - maybe having some additional statistics about the diversity of results could have caught this issue?

It juts covers count and share. There are lot of things you monitor for DNS seeds. You know better than me.

> I don't think a removal is warranted, just fix (or explain if ther
...

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Remove `dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org` temporarily":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29149#issuecomment-1871700172)
> You have asked no questions, only posted false accusations.

1. Why seeder returns IP address of nodes with user agent that look like old nodes?

2. If warnings on your server are true, why should we trust your domain will resolve to "honest" bitcoin nodes?

3. Are you sure that server used for DNS seed is secure?

4. What is the probability that US government agencies wont work with you and affect this last point? Then you spread on social media about your biased opinion with 0.01 %
...