💬 sipa commented on pull request "wallet: Add CoinGrinder coin selection algorithm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27877#discussion_r1438435912)
One complication with the "move decision for add/shift/cut to beginning of loop" approach is that this skipping doesn't work anymore as-is. I'd suggest turning it into a while loop that increments `utxo_pool_index` until the skip condition is no longer satisfied.

📝 SatoshiCopyright opened a pull request: "Licence MIT Original"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29157)
That must be the correct MIT license. Because it was taken from Satoshi Nakamoto (satoshinakam0t0@duck.com) original project Bitcoin-Blockchain.

<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain ho
...

💬 SatoshiCopyright commented on pull request "Licence MIT Original":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29157#issuecomment-1872446772)
That must be the correct MIT license. Because it was taken from Satoshi Nakamoto original project Bitcoin.

💬 SatoshiCopyright commented on pull request "Licence MIT Original":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29157#issuecomment-1872448116)
**@SatoshiNT0 _is owner of Bitcoin._**
**### **

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "Licence MIT Original"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29157)

📝 achow101 locked a pull request: "Licence MIT Original"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29157)
That must be the correct MIT license. Because it was taken from Satoshi Nakamoto (satoshinakam0t0@duck.com) original project Bitcoin-Blockchain.

<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain ho
...

📝 darosior opened a pull request: "PoC: fuzz chainstate and block managers"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29158)
We don't have a fuzzing harness for our main consensus engine [0]. This PR introduces two new targets which respectively fuzz the `BlockManager` and `ChainstateManager` (process headers, blocks, reorgs and assert some invariants in doing so).

There is two main obstacles to achieving this: PoW and io. The blocks and chainstate databases can be stored in memory but blocks still need a valid proof of work and to be stored on disk. Niklas solved the first issue in #28043 by simply introducing a g
...

📝 bitnet-io opened a pull request: "Update net.h bigger TCP socket using larger buffer"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29159)
completely sync a 2gb prune in 8-10 hours instead of 3 days see src/net_processing.cpp also

prototype https://github.com/c4pt000/bitcoin 2 years ago testing

✅ maflcko closed a pull request: "Update net.h bigger TCP socket using larger buffer"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29159)

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: move lock at the top of ReleaseWallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29155#discussion_r1438591791)
If this would be the issue presented in #29073, the test error logs would be showing a node crash. It wouldn't reach the `got_loading_error` check.

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "Cluster size 2 package rbf"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#pullrequestreview-1779525637)
Concept ACK

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1425282679)
In 671de055c8b3ff48b16b93d8389b80fead6342ac
Commit title indicate " [doc] cpfp carveout is excluded in packages "

But the diff is not a only a doc change.

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1425551039)
In 228a5ed16586ef93e7ec5c5da3ef4df0d5fc322f
```cpp
#include <alogorithm>
```

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1425583249)
Would be nice if this commit to be split into two, RBF utility functions and test in one commit and package rbf validation in another?

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "During IBD, prune as much as possible until we get close to where we will eventually keep blocks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20827#issuecomment-1872545821)
ACK d298ff8b62b2624ed390c8a2f905c888ffc956ff

Ran benchmark with hyperfine:
```
hyperfine --show-output --parameter-list commit 96ec3b67a7a7f968d002e13d6fc227f69b7f07d7,d298ff8b62b2624ed390c8a2f905c888ffc956ff --setup 'git checkout {commit} && make -j$(nproc) src/bitcoind' --prepare 'sync; sudo /sbin/sysctl vm.drop_caches=3; rm -r /home/user/.bitcoin/blocks /home/user/.bitcoin/chainstate' -M 3 './src/bitcoind -dbcache=2000 -prune=2000 -printtoconsole=0 -stopatheight=800000'
```

Results w
...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "kernel: Remove dependency on CScheduler":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28960#discussion_r1438670874)
Technically i think this reference can be dangling at `Shutdown()` (if there is still some wallets loaded) since we don't `reset()` the `node.wallet_loader` before resetting `node.main_signals`.

💬 dimitaracev commented on pull request "wallet: move lock at the top of ReleaseWallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29155#discussion_r1438684168)
Correct, this was not the issue as initially thought. The removal of this is only so that we return an appropriate message if it ever comes to this instead of crashing the node. I can change it back if it matters. Not sure if it makes sense this to lead to a node crash to be honest.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "wallet: move lock at the top of ReleaseWallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29155#discussion_r1438714239)
I think it would be good to explain the changes, also, as mentioned previously, steps to reproduce the bug and the fix would be helpful.

💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1872627806)
> Filtering is a very useful step. It is irrelevant to continually bring up the point that miners can still include this stuff in blocks.

Filtering by non-mining nodes is irrelevant to whether mining nodes (miners) sell their block space to those who want to buy their block space. Miners are conducting business, they have direct skin in the game, and mining is designed as a hyper competitive business.

Simultaneously, it is harmful to bitcoin for many non-mining nodes to do this, since it incen
...

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#issuecomment-1872628019)
I'm not sure there's a reason to ever set +w either... maybe it should just be -rpccookieaccess user/group/all or something