💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "httpserver, rest: fix segmentation fault on evhttp_uri_get_query":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27253#issuecomment-1472748621)
@fanquake that's something I've introduced with my last push, I'm on it, thanks.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: fix race condition in encrypted wallet rescan tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27199#issuecomment-1472757290)
ACK dbeca792a9980085d00be0f9d78187ca3a4d7cdc

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: fix race condition in encrypted wallet rescan tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27199)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Issue with `wallet_importdescriptors.py --descriptors` under valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27229#issuecomment-1472769773)
Fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27199

✅ MarcoFalke closed an issue: "Issue with `wallet_importdescriptors.py --descriptors` under valgrind"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27229)

⚠️ dergoegge opened an issue: "Increase fuzz coverage in the wallet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27272)
The wallet has (almost) no coverage: https://marcofalke.github.io/btc_cov/fuzz.coverage/src/wallet/index-sort-l.html. We should change that!

Issues like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27271 should be quite easy for high level fuzz targets to find.

(For people that are interested but unfamiliar with the wallet (like me): I suspect that looking at the unit tests could be helpful for figuring out where to start)

📝 pinheadmz opened a pull request: "system: allow GUI to initialize default data dir"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27273)
closes #27246

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139401775)
Even being a comment in `LookupHost`, you're right, the change is done in the next commit. Thanks

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139404408)
Seems a leftover from my part, didn't did it intentionally, thanks for noticing it. Fixed.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139406701)
Nice find, I think it's better to leave `BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE()` and using `return addr.value_or(CNetAddr{});`. Addressing it.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139407547)
Nice!

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139409510)
Much more cleaner, nice!

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "test: Make the unlikely race in p2p_invalid_messages impossible?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27212#discussion_r1139398466)
I'd just remove this line, otherwise it will stay there for a long time.
After all we have an explanation for why this has failed that makes sense with the log of the failed run, plus a fix that avoid this.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "mempool: Add mempool tracepoints":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26531#discussion_r1139414366)
It would probably make sense to include the time for all of the tracepoints added in this PR?

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "Remove -mempoolfullrbf option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1472835026)
https://petertodd.org/2022/bitcoin-core-nodes-running-fullrbf

17% of Bitcoin Core v24.x nodes were running full-rbf ***and successfully propagating*** when I measured it, and full-rbf transactions propagate well. Quite a few services are using this flag too, eg BTCPay now activates full-rbf by default: https://github.com/btcpayserver/btcpayserver-docker/pull/736 Both Umbrel and Start9 Labs, among others, have added support for this flag to their node offerings.

Also full-RBF replacements are g
...

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1139429347)
Replaced it with `BOOST_REQUIRE()`

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#issuecomment-1472866874)
Force-pushed addressing @vasild's review. Thanks @vasild for your in-depth review and considerations!

💬 mxaddict commented on pull request "doc: fix typo in interface_usdt_utxocache.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27268#issuecomment-1472883070)
Sure

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 05:08 Michael Ford ***@***.***> wrote:

> Can you update the commit message to the same as what I've changed the PR
> title too: doc: fix typo in interface_usdt_utxocache.py.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27268#issuecomment-1472741835>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIDAKKCHF2RJJJUMIZHSJDW4N6MJANCNFSM6AAAAAAV5JB5UM>
> .
> You are receiving this because you aut
...

💬 antuun commented on pull request "[24.x] Backports for 24.0.1":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26616#issuecomment-1472998839)
Is me José can you help me about l can't spend nothing and no body support me l desinstales Wallet of Bitcoin.org because Have malaware so what can l do ?

💬 nostitos commented on pull request "Remove -mempoolfullrbf option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26525#issuecomment-1473050580)
> I'm certainly not inclined to spend $0.60 in fees for an on-chain transaction to pay a $15 phone top-up on Bitrefill.

Not sure where that's getting at but my typical "refill" is for 500$ cards.