💬 SkybuckFlying commented on issue "Blocks remaining falls offscreen with dutch language setting.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/721#issuecomment-1472112609)
I think not, it should be made such that it can display it properly... either re-size the screen such that it is default a little bit wider... or modify it somehow.

It wasn't clear I could resize it, perhaps I tried it and it didn't work.

I did try and re-size it, but I tried to resize the inner screen, not the outer screen.

So it's weird to have to re-size the outer screen to re-size the inner screen that makes 0% sense...

Perhaps a "normal" window/form should be used instead of thi
...

💬 darosior commented on pull request "MiniTapscript: port Miniscript to Tapscript":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27255#discussion_r1138892649)
Alright, finally applied the change to the many occurrences in each commit. It should also be more readable now.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets and request reconciliation (Erlay)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26283#discussion_r1137786018)
I think it might be possible that in between the spot where `txinfo` is queried, and the time we call `m_mempool.GetIter()` some other thread could remove the tx from the mempool (because no lock is held), so that this assert would be hit.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets and request reconciliation (Erlay)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26283#discussion_r1138793203)
Having a mix of float (`limit`) and double (`fractional_peer`) is probably not ideal.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets and request reconciliation (Erlay)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26283#discussion_r1138809864)
`wtxid` is unused

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Use move semantics instead of custom swap functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749#issuecomment-1472282805)
Updated 142718890e718397e0026c315c8940102b9657ce -> 4b31ef43fa198a0618fd61da121bd6f59e8be7f6 ([pr26749.08](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/commits/pr26749.08) -> [pr26749.09](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/commits/pr26749.09), [diff](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/compare/pr26749.08..pr26749.09)).

Addressed @ryanofsky's comments:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749#discussion_r1123317784
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749#discussion_r1123429117

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Use move semantics instead of custom swap functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749#discussion_r1138986823)
Thanks! [Updated](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749#issuecomment-1472282805).

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Use move semantics instead of custom swap functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749#discussion_r1138987783)
Thanks! [Updated](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749#issuecomment-1472282805).

💬 RCasatta commented on pull request "rpc: Optimize serialization disk space of dumptxoutset":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26045#issuecomment-1472285629)
Yeah as I specified in the issue and as @TheCharlatan wrote more ram shouldn't be needed because txid are iterated sorted from leveldb.

I was also wondering why the `bitcoin-cli savetxoutset` API (same goes for `savemempool`) requires to specify a filename instead of writing to stdout that would offer better composition while maintaining the possibility to write to file with `>utxo.bin`

📝 hebasto converted_to_draft a pull request: "refactor: Use move semantics instead of custom swap functions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749)
This PR makes code more succinct and readable by using move semantics.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Use move semantics instead of custom swap functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749#discussion_r1139007798)
Well, the [reason](https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/task/5641079790239744/logs/ci.log) of that change is to avoid using of `vChecks` after it was moved:
```
test/checkqueue_tests.cpp:166:13: error: 'vChecks' used after it was moved [bugprone-use-after-move,-warnings-as-errors]
vChecks.resize(std::min(total, (size_t) InsecureRandRange(10)));
^
test/checkqueue_tests.cpp:168:21: note: move occurred here
control.Add(std::move(vChecks));
^
`
...

👋 hebasto's pull request is ready for review: "refactor: Use move semantics instead of custom swap functions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749)

📝 ismaelsadeeq opened a pull request: "test: Support decoding segwit address in address_to_scriptpubkey()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27269)
[rpc_scantxoutset.py](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/e695d8536e534f1e59de4a62a0d87a93e7a73456/test/functional/rpc_scantxoutset.py#L26) sendtodestination only sends to legacy addresses and scriptPubkeys because [wallet.py](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/e695d8536e534f1e59de4a62a0d87a93e7a73456/test/functional/test_framework/wallet.py#L415) address_to_scriptpubkey does not support conversion of segwit address.

This update enables address_to_scriptpubkey to support the conver
...

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Add support for sighash flags in PSBT (like SINGLE|ANYONECANPAY)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27141#issuecomment-1472352358)
> This is a duplicate for [bitcoin-core/gui#712](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/712) and can be closed

Let's continue the discussion in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/712.

✅ hebasto closed an issue: "Add support for sighash flags in PSBT (like SINGLE|ANYONECANPAY)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27141)

💬 darosior commented on pull request "MiniTapscript: port Miniscript to Tapscript":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27255#issuecomment-1472365761)
In the last push i've:
- Added a commit to avoid a stack overflow during the destruction of a too large `Node`, due to recursive calls in `shared_ptr`'s destructor. (The reason the CI was failing under MSVC.)
- Lowered the maximum size of a TapMiniscript to make sure a spending witness would never hit the maximum standard transaction size limit. (It's still pretty high.)
- Addressed all comments from @bigspider.

This PR is now ready for another round of review.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: Use move semantics instead of custom swap functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26749#discussion_r1139075963)
bug fixes should be separate from refactoring commits

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "mempool: Add mempool tracepoints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26531#issuecomment-1472375220)
ACK d0c6da92c5a4d2a972f884f29dd716da2040fdb2

Code reviewed the mempool tracepoint interface tests and the `mempool_monitor.py` example script including the BCC code for both. Tracepoint placement also looks good and the tracepoint arguments match whats added in the documentation.

Two things to note:
- the `mempool_monitor.py` demo script will, over time, use more and more system resources (RAM and CPU) as mempool events are added to the `events` list. The list is never cleared. The entrie
...

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Ignore datacarrier limits for dataless OP_RETURN outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27261#issuecomment-1472399681)
Concept ACK

Some questions:

> Previously a transaction containing an OP_RETURN without data would be rejected if datacarrier was set to false, or the datacarriersize was set to zero.

Minimum for `datacarriersize` is 1 so tx shouldn't be rejected if `datacarrier` is also 1(default)?

> All this pull-req changes is it'll allow a bare OP_RETURN in the (rare) case that people are disabling datacarrier outputs, because a bare OP_RETURN carries no data.

It is still OP_RETURN output, righ
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ignore datacarrier limits for dataless OP_RETURN outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27261#issuecomment-1472404739)
Honestly I think it's time to discuss removing the `datacarrier` option altogether. Less code and args being threaded through for something that no one sets(?), especially in light of tapscript witness sizes.