💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Stratum v2 Noise Protocol":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29346#issuecomment-2033800494)
(I plan to rebase this after ASan CI is fixed)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2033808117)
> Personally I think it is fine to disable the bpf tests for a few days, or even weeks, as the code is unlikely to break.

To be on the very safe side, maybe open an issue to undo it and tag that for v28.0.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1549143563)
done

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Bump timeouts in feature_index_prune and wallet_importdescriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29791#issuecomment-2033837668)
lgtm ACK 49c0b8b2288e60ae22fcac5d03811cf36ecec058

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#issuecomment-2033839537)
The test passes for me now on macOS.

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "Bitcoin puzzles in lower ranges (starting with 66 as of now) can't be cashed out because of bots and RBF"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29793)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Bitcoin puzzles in lower ranges (starting with 66 as of now) can't be cashed out because of bots and RBF":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29793#issuecomment-2033843601)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base.

General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or one of the Bitcoin subreddits, or any other place that you feel is well suited.

Network-wide consensus and/or P2P changes first need to be discussed with the greater community, for example https://groups.google.c
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "depens: bdb build fails on Intel macOS 13.6.6 ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29792#issuecomment-2033873359)
Can you build other packages with patches applied?

💬 0xB10C commented on issue "Bitcoin puzzles in lower ranges (starting with 66 as of now) can't be cashed out because of bots and RBF":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29793#issuecomment-2033917369)
> Which puzzles? And what does this have to do with Bitcoin Core?

Probably these [low entropy private key "puzzels"](https://privatekeys.pw/puzzles/bitcoin-puzzle-tx).

> Can anything be done about it? The immediate solution that comes to mind is that RBF should be allowed only with the same wallet destination.

This is unrelated to the Bitcoin Core software. Even if Bitcoin Core would limit RBF to transactions paying to the same address, there is no guarantee that other miners and users
...

💬 0xB10C commented on issue "v27.0 Testing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29697#issuecomment-2033920555)
fwiw: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29785

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2033923383)
> If someone implements this, it may also be good to move the runner to a GHA 22.04 VM, to lift the requirements from the self-hosted runners. (But I won't be working on this myself either)

Obviously this would expose the CI to GH changing the kernel below the CI without notice, e.g. https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/commit/05bfab69aef3622f77f754cfb01220108a109c91 . So it may or may not be more or less fragile.

I agree that the CI task is fragile, because it assumes an exact kernel
...

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "[25.x] Finalize 25.2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29794#pullrequestreview-1976030701)
utACK e95c484f7de7fe30d5a2e87c0e7e2a5faf9c1a5f

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "doc: Update the developer mailing list address."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29782)

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "Tons of Socks5() connect to x.x.x.x:8333 failed: connection refused-messages when i use TOR - why?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29759#issuecomment-2033951677)
For me, the Tor daemon also behaves inconsistently (Ubuntu).
If I attempt to make a connection to one and the same non-reachable node (with `addnode` and onetry), I sometimes get a `IntrRecvError::Timeout` (which is not logged unconditionally), and sometimes get an error (`Socks5() connect to x.x.x.x:8333 failed: general failure`). I haven't been able to detect a pattern which of the two happens when, it looks random to me.
From reading the [code](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/3b12fc
...

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#pullrequestreview-1976038089)
ACK 4bf7e1a005853cb57ae3a051bcdfc5c149b1f1db

didn't run fuzz tests

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#discussion_r1549280078)
```suggestion
// The total fee & size of the new diagram minus replaced fee & size should be the total fee & size of the old
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#discussion_r1549281309)
```suggestion
* The sum of the FeeFracs in either of the chunks' data sets cannot overflow (sum fees < 2^63,
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#discussion_r1549266433)
might want to make it clearer if this is descriptive or prescriptive

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Print tsan errors to stderr":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29740#issuecomment-2033984929)
Pulled this into 27.x in #29780.

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2033993210)
> > I'm missing context for this change. Why no PR description and no commit message body?
>
> I put it in the second comment. Edited and moved to the description.

Ok, I did a bit more digging: I was missing the context that https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29765 upgraded the CI images to a newer Ubuntu version and that the `Cirrus CI / ASan + LSan + UBSan + integer, no depends, USDT` job [is now failing](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29786/checks?check_run_id=23346486009)
...