🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "wallet: Fix migration of wallets with txs that have both spendable and watchonly outputs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28868)

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1925168788)
@chrisguida

> For example, Mara pool [when they mined OFAC-compliant blocks](https://www.theblock.co/linked/106865/marathon-ofac-bitcoin-mining-pool-taproot). This was clearly a hostile move, and was clearly done for **short-term profit**. They were almost immediately forced to stop because they knew hashers would move to other pools.

(emphasis mine)

Why do you think Mara was mining OFAC compliant blocks for *short-term* profit? They were leaving fees on the table, and I'm unaware of a
...

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1925193807)
> I don't see how this is relevant. Default mempool policy can either exclude or include certain classes of transactions.

It is relevant and I have edited the comment to make the difference more clear. There is another technical difference in excluding and including. You just need a small percentage of nodes and miners for some transactions to be included. While excluding requires almost everyone to follow the same policy.

> Altering these defaults is defying the user community's explicitl
...

💬 vostrnad commented on pull request "debugwindow: update session ID tooltip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/788#issuecomment-1925201534)
ACK 3bf00e13609eefa6ddb11353519bb1aec2342513

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "policy: Enable full-rbf by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28132#issuecomment-1925228385)
I updated the numbers and rebased the pull-req.

We should get this merged for the next release. It's pretty silly to have a default mempool policy that only 30% of hash power is following.

💬 hebasto commented on issue "ci: Android NDK has too old libc++":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29360#issuecomment-1925295864)
Qt docs [claim](https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/android.html) that it supports Clang 14.0.6 (NDK r25b).

It is possible to build depends with Clang 14.0.7 ([NDK r25c](https://github.com/android/ndk/wiki/Changelog-r25)) with API level >= 33.

However, the compiler errors remain the same, unfortunately.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: Android NDK has too old libc++":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29360#issuecomment-1925301630)
> Clang 14.0.6 (NDK r25b).

Sure, but the issue is the libc++, not clang. A older libc++ is included in r25, see https://github.com/android/ndk/issues/1530#issuecomment-1659055600

💬 hebasto commented on issue "ci: Android NDK has too old libc++":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29360#issuecomment-1925302087)
> > Clang 14.0.6 (NDK r25b).
>
> Sure, but the issue is the libc++, not clang. A older libc++ is included in r25, see [android/ndk#1530 (comment)](https://github.com/android/ndk/issues/1530#issuecomment-1659055600)

Right. I mean, even the latest Qt codebase cannot be compiled with NDK > 25.

💬 chrisguida commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1925319950)
@petertodd
> Why do you think Mara was mining OFAC compliant blocks for _short-term_ profit? They were leaving fees on the table, and I'm unaware of any short term financial incentive they had to to block those transactions.

I would think this is obvious. Filtering OFAC-sanctioned transactions costs a mining pool at most [a few hundred dollars per day](https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/), while [maintaining a good ESG score](https://www.mara.com/about-us#esg) a
...

📝 furszy opened a pull request: "wallet: remove unused 'accept_no_keys' arg from decryption process"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29375)
Found it while reviewing other PR. Couldn't contain myself from cleaning it up.

The wallet decryption process (`CheckDecryptionKey()` and `Unlock()`)
contains an arg 'accept_no_keys,' introduced in #13926, that has
never been used.
Additionally, this also removes the unimplemented `SplitWalletPath`
function.

📝 Chicook opened a pull request: "Create .edicomfigSG"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29376)
I hope this suggestion helps.

<!--
*** 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 impr
...

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Create .edicomfigSG"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29376)

📝 TheCharlatan opened a pull request: "test: Add makefile target for running unit tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29377)
`make check` runs a bunch of other subtree tests that exercise code that is hardly ever changed and have a comparatively long runtime. There seems to be no target for running just the unit tests, so add one.

Alternatively the secp256k1 tests could be removed from the `check-local` target, reducing its runtime.

⚠️ cornwarecjp opened an issue: "Incorrect amount in transaction page"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29378)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

In the Bitcoin Core GUI, I exported the transaction list to csv. Using a spreadsheet program, I added up all transaction amounts in the CSV file. The sum didn't equal the available amount on the overview page of Bitcoin Core.

The available amount on the overview page *does* correspond to the sum of my UTXO amounts (as seen using coin control in the Bitcoin Core GUI). It also corresponds
...

💬 achow101 commented on issue "Incorrect amount in transaction page":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29378#issuecomment-1925469320)
Can you try using 26.0? Display of send to self txs in the gui (and therefore in what the csv contains) was changed in 26.0 and I think that will more accurately reflect the state of these transactions.

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1925475526)
After re-evaluating everything, I ACK this pull request. It makes bitcoin core policies or mempool useless.

Apart from Libre Relay client, it is possible to do similar thing with a python script. Need to improve, because conf saved is used after relaunch.

https://gitlab.com/-/snippets/3645894

This pull request should be merged so that some people can do political drama on twitter but bare multisig tx will be included in blocks.

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#issuecomment-1925475711)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217/commits/8672721deb06e66854a085c9994e99c99160b8a1

⚠️ A420mfer opened an issue: "Bitcoin node."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29379)
I'm not sure if I'm connected to my bitcoin node.. http://192.168.0.12:9000 is my url for JavaScript can this be looked into?

👍 hernanmarino approved a pull request: "debugwindow: update session ID tooltip"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/788#pullrequestreview-1861239224)
Concept ACK

🤔 1440000bytes reviewed a pull request: "set `DEFAULT_PERMIT_BAREMULTISIG` to false"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217#pullrequestreview-1861264882)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28217

No will fuck you and see how things works