💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `maxfeerate` wallet startup option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#issuecomment-1915579486)
Thank you for your comments @josibake @glozow @achow101 , will address review comments shortly.

> if you typo'd a feerate orders of magnitude higher, your maxtxfee should get hit.

I don't think this is true; it depends on what your `maxtxfee` is. Going by the default value of 0.10 BTC.

This is not likely to occur.

I did a manual test on master.

When I set `maxtxfee` to 0.10 BTC on master, if you mistakenly type 10,000 as the fee rate, the max fee exceed error will not be hit.


...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Wallet: Add `maxfeerate` wallet startup option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29278#issuecomment-1915582287)
> just seems really gross to have to now consider both of these in coin selection, especially if a user sets wonky values.

I dont really understand how this can affect coinselection, can you expand please? Thanks

💬 ismaelsadeeq 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#discussion_r1469871777)
```suggestion
int64_t fee;
int32_t size;
```

Should their be more information that will describe the transaction size and fee, base / modified fee, vsize in bytes or something of that sort.
If not I think its okay like this.

---
Unrelated just asking to learn.
Why are'nt we using `CAmount` here for the fee?

In some places I see transaction size as `uint32_t` while some places its `int32_t`.

Should we have a type for size just like `CAmount`?

💬 dooglus commented on issue "New crash in v26.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/785#issuecomment-1915597249)
That didn't take too long:

```
[New Thread 0x7ffe7abff6c0 (LWP 419888)]
[New Thread 0x7ffe7a3fe6c0 (LWP 419889)]

Thread 1 "bitcoin-qt-v26." received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
QSortFilterProxyModelPrivate::build_source_to_proxy_mapping (
proxy_to_source=..., source_to_proxy=..., this=this@entry=0x555557a8f3c0)
at ../../include/QtCore/../../src/corelib/tools/qarraydata.h:61
61 ../../include/QtCore/../../src/corelib/tools/qarraydata.h: No such file or directory.

...

💬 dooglus commented on issue "New crash in v26.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/785#issuecomment-1915600627)
I'll leave the gdb session running for a few days in case there's anything helpful I can type at it. Let me know.

🤔 murchandamus reviewed a pull request: "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#pullrequestreview-1849792773)
ACK 71059cf4267d80d2934b85a7046fc7b64900378b

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1470235298)
In a6ae5b23b1497ab6f4899db49348db623700a2d8 "wallet: track mempool conflicts":

Nit: Should this perhaps also inform about the conflicting transactions like the _BlockConflicted_ state informs about the block?

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "wallet: track mempool conflicts with wallet transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27307#discussion_r1470229826)
I don’t feel strongly about it, please feel free to mark this comment as resolved.

💬 InsanityMatrix commented on issue "Use different datadirs for different signets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27494#issuecomment-1915645704)
Hey, as I haven't seen this being tackled I will happily undertake it. Currently working on it at https://github.com/InsanityMatrix/bitcoin on branch "signet-datadir-changes"

I plan to start with the src/init.cpp file and work my way through the files to change any references to the block directory depending on signet or mainnet, and also plan on making it backwards compatible. Any help would be appreciated, just mention me if you have any ideas or contributions! :)

🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "net: enable v2transport by default"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#pullrequestreview-1849860045)
ACK 292e716cde3325bef83e78f7804d2d0bddf03509

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "test: adds outbound eviction functional tests, updates comment in ConsiderEviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29122#issuecomment-1915658857)
Rebased to fix CI

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "net: attempts to connect to all resolved addresses when connecting to a node":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28834#issuecomment-1915659529)
Rebased to fix CI

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: gives seednode priority over dnsseed if both are provided":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28016#issuecomment-1915660249)
Rebased to fi CI

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1915664301)
Concept ACK

Not sure if it should be enabled for onion/i2p connections by default.

💬 TheBlueMatt commented on issue "Cluster mempool, CPFP carveout, and V3 transaction policy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29319#issuecomment-1915669008)
Looking at my code, I see `version: 2`, `lock_time: (0x20 << 8*3) | (random_garbage & 0xffffff)`,
one segwit non-wrapped input with `sequence: (0x80 << 8*3) | (random_garbage & 0xffffff)`, outputs sorted first by value, then by script_pubkey. There should always be at least one (sometimes two) outputs of exactly 330 sats and all outputs should be P2WSH.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1915676062)
looking at the [CI failure](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6469401004736512?logs=ci#L6015-L6015) very quickly without testing...
maybe you need to update this line too?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/292e716cde3325bef83e78f7804d2d0bddf03509/test/functional/test_framework/test_node.py#L208

💬 sipa commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1915679047)
Hmm, no. The issue is that previous releases may not even support the `-v2transport` flag, so to determine whether to set it, we need to know what version we're talking about.

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "net: enable v2transport by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29347#issuecomment-1915687141)
> Hmm, no. The issue is that previous releases may not even support the `-v2transport` flag, so to determine whether to set it, we need to know what version we're talking about.

Sorry I deleted my comment cos I realised it was wrong as other tests would have failed... originally was:

>> looking at the [CI failure](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6469401004736512?logs=ci#L6015-L6015) very quickly without testing...
maybe you need to update this line too?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob
...

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: p2p: check disconnect due to lack of desirable service flags":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29279#issuecomment-1915723249)
Rebased on master (after the merge of #24748 :tada: ), and tackled https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29279#discussion_r1469196012. Note that I tried enabling v2 transport for this test, but it seems that it is non-trivial and needs some deeper changes in the test framework regarding the order of version messages sent (see slightly related comment https://mirror.b10c.me/bitcoin-bitcoin/24748/#discussion_r1465420112). Will tackle that in a follow-up.

👍 theStack approved a pull request: "test: Treat msg_version.relay as unsigned, Remove `struct` packing in messages.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29067#pullrequestreview-1849950870)
re-ACK 55556a64a8e4e6238f990cf66295c3b9594c2c3d

Checked that since my previous ACK, a rebase + [stickes' suggestion](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29067#discussion_r1468173825) of passing `signed=True` for (de)serializing the CBlockLocator version was applied.