👍 Retropex approved a pull request: "Add a `-permitbarepubkey` option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29309#pullrequestreview-1844359954)
tACK https://github.com/vostrnad/bitcoin/commit/8c1114aa61c46e58efb44368b5428d3ccb65f9d0

Steps to test:

1. Build [vostrnad branch](https://github.com/vostrnad/bitcoin/tree/permitbarepubkey)
1. Start a regtest with `-chain=regtest`
1. Create a wallet with `bitcoin-cli createwallet`
1. Get address with `bitcoin-cli getnewaddress`
1. Generate blocks to get bitcoins `generatetoaddress 500 <address obtained previously>`
1. Create a P2PK tx, this [repository](https://github.com/dianerey/bec
...

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#issuecomment-1910735981)
Actually, why wouldn't fs::permissions work on Windows?

💬 MarnixCroes commented on pull request "debugwindow: update session ID tooltip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/788#issuecomment-1910736573)
> Concept ACK
>
> nit: @MarnixCroes, maybe you can add the screenshot for transport v1 and session ID is empty/ not shown, if possible, even this PR doesn't affect that logic.

done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1466747189)
old comment?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1466751943)
at the introductory commit, I don't see how `m_ancestors_of_in_package_ancestors` is non-empty. unused?

I suspect replaced by `package_with_ancestors` usage?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1466727264)
`has_mempool_sibling` since I'm thinking in reference to `ptx` and it's a binary result?

🤔 instagibbs reviewed a pull request: "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#pullrequestreview-1844316858)
`PreCheck`s loop looks so much cleaner, but there's some dead code and like before I'm not super clear which checks are *required* in `AcceptMultipleTransactions` vs anti-DoS type checks. For example, does `ApplyV3Rules` matter inside `AcceptMultipleTransactions`?

I'd like it to be crystal clear to not introduce regressions, and moving forward to cluster mempool we keep all this in mind for future simplification.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1466746854)
can assert that `package_with_ancestors.ancestor_counts.size() == workspaces.size()`?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1466754879)
unused

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1466744432)
random newline

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1466754974)
unused

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#issuecomment-1910755371)
concept ACK, for the record

📝 1amhesus opened a pull request: "Add new kernel"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29322)
<!--
*** 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 how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

✅ 1amhesus closed a pull request: "Add new kernel"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29322)

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "[temp] Add new kernel"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29322)
<!--
*** 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 how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Support self-hosted Cirrus workers on forks (and multi-user)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274#issuecomment-1910846023)
I switched my own machine from Docker to Podman. This removes the need for 7cdb75d572e825b4c0cf74a516f912f94807853f so that's dropped.

Added a commit that explains the process a bit more clearly.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Support self-hosted Cirrus workers on forks (and multi-user)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274#discussion_r1466829063)
These lines are dropped now.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Support self-hosted Cirrus workers on forks (and multi-user)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29274#discussion_r1466829719)
I nuked Docker in favor of Podman. So far it seems to work. I dropped 7cdb75d572e825b4c0cf74a516f912f94807853f.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28948#discussion_r1466864661)
Was thinking about why this is ok. AcceptMultipleTransactions doesn't allow RBF, and future package RBF should work with this?

```suggestion
// The mempool or in-package parent cannot have any other in-mempool children.
// We don't need to handle the "single RBF" case as that is
// handled in ApplyV3Rules for single transaction packages.
// Future package RBF would conflict with the parent as well,
// making this check sufficien
...

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24748#pullrequestreview-1844567036)
Code Review ACK bc9283c4415a932ec1eeb70ca2aa4399c80437b3