💬 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

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "multiprocess: Add basic type conversion hooks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28921)

📝 theuni opened a pull request: "depends: patch libool out of libnatpmp/miniupnpc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29298)
An alternative to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29232

Rather than switching to the CMake builds which [proved problematic](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29232#issuecomment-1898513919), do the quick and dirty thing of just patching out libtool. Doesn't seem to introduce any new issues.

This should buy us time to upstream the necessary CMake fixes.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "depends: remove dependency on Darwin libtool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29232#issuecomment-1906942254)
Closing in favor of #29298.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "serialization: c++20 endian/byteswap/clz modernization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29263#issuecomment-1906951455)
Added a quick note about `std::byteswap` and c++23.

🤔 achow101 reviewed a pull request: "wallet, rpc: `FundTransaction` refactor"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28560#pullrequestreview-1839971435)
ACK 18ad1b9142e91cef2f5c6a693eeb2d0fbb8c517d

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet, rpc: `FundTransaction` refactor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28560#discussion_r1464018197)
In f7384b921c3460c7a3cc7827a68b2c613bd98f8e "refactor: move parsing to new function"

nit: Making temp variables is not necessary.