💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: fix coin selection tracing to return -1 when no change pos":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29272#issuecomment-1906770454)
ACK d55fdb1a495190e213b1b5127f5d91e4a409765e

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "wallet: fix coin selection tracing to return -1 when no change pos"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29272)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: avoid returning a reference to vMasterKey after releasing the mutex that guards it":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28774#issuecomment-1906815615)
ACK 32a9f13cb805ecf6aebb5cf4e5d92b8a47c4548b

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "wallet: avoid returning a reference to vMasterKey after releasing the mutex that guards it"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28774)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "init: handle empty settings file gracefully":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#issuecomment-1906838728)
ACK e9014042a6bed8c16cc9a31fc35cb709d4b3c766

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "ci: Rename tasks (previous releases, macOS cross)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29218#issuecomment-1906839971)
> a new label can be added, if a dedicated "category" is needed

I think this would be great. Ideally there would just be some link you could go to quickly see recent known CI failures and what the expected error messages look like.

This could avoid the need to debug and search for fragments of error messages when CI tasks are failing. I think a filtered issue list would work just as well as a wiki page (but I might experiment with creating a wiki page anyway since I'm about to go through m
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Add max_tx_weight to transaction funding options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29264#discussion_r1463935963)
hmmm, this change to give a useful error message seems to break tests; I start getting failures in rpc_psbt.py

Can I get some assistance on how this stuff is supposed to bubble up @murchandamus

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "init: handle empty settings file gracefully"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144)

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "init: handle empty settings file gracefully"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29144#pullrequestreview-1839845550)
> Should we perhaps add (and recommend, for non-GUI users), a `-resetguisettings` for non-GUI?

Sure. We could introduce a `-resetsettings` in a follow-up.

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Add max_tx_weight to transaction funding options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29264#discussion_r1463942824)
As above

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Add max_tx_weight to transaction funding options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29264#discussion_r1463942221)
I think you meant either "Transaction building" or "Coin selection" here:

```suggestion
"Transaction building will fail if this can not be satisfied."},
```

```suggestion
"Coin selection will fail if this can not be satisfied."},
```

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Add max_tx_weight to transaction funding options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29264#discussion_r1463954606)
My first thought would be that we are perhaps not counting the empty witness stack of a non-witness input? :thinking:

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Add max_tx_weight to transaction funding options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29264#discussion_r1463944668)
As above

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Add max_tx_weight to transaction funding options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29264#discussion_r1463947916)
If you do, please also add an `assert` that checks whether the fuzzed value is greater than or equal to the result’s weight.

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Add max_tx_weight to transaction funding options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29264#discussion_r1463943149)
As above

💬 chrisguida commented on issue "Prune Node Rescan Project Tracking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29183#issuecomment-1906895178)
Does `scanblocks` work on pruned nodes yet? If not, does this project aim to add that capability?

📝 petertodd opened a pull request: "RBF: Require unconfirmed inputs to come from a single conflicting transaction"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29297)
Extends BIP-125 Rule #2 slightly. Rational: if we allow unconfirmed inputs to come from multiple conflicts, we could allow a desirable transaction, and an undesirable transaction, to be replaced by a single undesirable transaction.

This solves the same problem that https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26451 was intended to solve, in a simpler way.

May not actually be worth adding to Bitcoin Core, as other solutions are coming. But I wrote the code for my replace-by-fee-rate work, where
...

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "Mempool util: Add RBF diagram checks for single chunks against clusters of size 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29242#issuecomment-1906919216)
```
$ echo "BAIBAgICAgIABfcN/f11BwAAAPsAAAICAgICAgICAi0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABwb3J0AgL+//////8hAQICAooBATIBAR4AAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIC/v///////wECAgKKAQEyAQEeAgIiAgICAgICHgACAgIDAgICAgICAiICAgICAExLQAICAgICAgICAv//////////////////////////////////////////////////////AQEBAQEByQEBAQEBAQEB/P8AAC8AGvsAXAEAAgLcAgICAgICAlSbtqZ56uTNNhvmIHMu83ifTNtXiVGR9z3J4We8dnhZegAAAAAAAAD/AAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAXP96AAAAAgICAgAF9w39/QAAAAEAAAABAgICAgICAgICLZC
...

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "Weaken serfloat tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29192#issuecomment-1906925728)
Does dropping 2 lose the test that we haven't broken the serialization format somehow? Maybe it should be comparing a fixed mapping of some values at least?

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add basic type conversion hooks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28921#issuecomment-1906930401)
ACK 6acec6b9ff02b91de132bb1575d75908a8a2d27b