📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "depends: fontconfig 2.14.2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27301)
We need to bump this as the current version doesn't compile under `clang-16`, which is blocking upgrading sanitizer/fuzzing infrastructure (see #27298).

Untested. Need to double-check the gperf/patch dropping.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: fontconfig 2.14.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27301#issuecomment-1479618243)
Concept ACK.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: fontconfig 2.14.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27301#issuecomment-1479622034)
Looks like we can't drop the patch, as we'd still end up needing gperf, however just adapting our current patch to the new code also doens't build, so we'll need to do more there. In any case, even if fontconfig builds, Qt doesn't work (out of the box) with clang-16, so this seems like a waste of time.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "build: debug enable addrman consistency checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27300#discussion_r1144866456)
```suggestion
static constexpr int32_t DEFAULT_ADDRMAN_CONSISTENCY_CHECKS{
#ifdef DEBUG_ADDRMAN
1
#else
0
#endif
};
```

style nit (feel free to ignore, if you don't like it)

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "ci: Use TSan new runtime (llvm-16, take 3)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27298#issuecomment-1479628226)
Could we drop the GUI from the TSan task?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "bench: Expand mempool eviction benchmarking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27019#discussion_r1144872917)
Hmmm, traced out a package size of 4, looks like I'm referencing non-existent outputs, not re-using them(maybe both :) ).

Clearly this is confusing and broken either way.

To take a step back, after doing this I realized https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/bench/mempool_stress.cpp exists. I'm fine if this doesn't get merged if it doesn't add anything new? Helped me learn about the benchmarks if nothing else. Thoughts?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "bench: Expand mempool eviction benchmarking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27019#discussion_r1144880345)
Ah true, I suppose `ComplexMemPool` is already benching eviction of packages. Fine with closing. The effort is appreciated :pray:

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "bench: Expand mempool eviction benchmarking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27019#discussion_r1144884349)
I could change the PR to remove this silly bench.. :P

✅ instagibbs closed a pull request: "bench: Expand mempool eviction benchmarking"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27019)

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "httpserver, rest: fix segmentation fault on evhttp_uri_get_query":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27253#discussion_r1144885003)
Missing `#include <string>` and `#include <string_view>`

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "httpserver, rest: fix segmentation fault on evhttp_uri_get_query"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27253)
ACK 729287530e458febf32e01e542a36e7be4a74fbf

Also checked that the new functional test fails without the patch and succeeds with the patch.

but I think the commit message [should be updated](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27253#pullrequestreview-1348929370) to better describe the bug, the fix, and the behaviour change introduced

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "RPC: Fix fund transaction crash when at 0-value, 0-fee":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27271#issuecomment-1479651136)
@furszy is that an ACK? :)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Make `CCheckQueue` RAII-styled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26762#issuecomment-1479655825)
Updated 5a7932f395c675fad332cbcd0498bb9fefcb33e0 -> f1370b2c1586f7fe487d9f17ee53bcd9b87a9f23 ([pr26762.04](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/commits/pr26762.04) -> [pr26762.05](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/commits/pr26762.05)):

- rebased
- addressed some of @TheCharlatan's comments

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Use of a wallet shouldn't be blocked in prune mode ("wallet loading failed... beyond pruned data")":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27188#issuecomment-1479656461)
> @willcl-ark That still won't work when the pruning point is later than the wallet birth date.

What if it is combined with `getblockfrompeer` logic?

I think we could close this issue in favor of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21267 and with the goal of essentially adding neutrino functionality to a pruning node for the sake of wallet rescans and imports ?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Make `CCheckQueue` RAII-styled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26762#discussion_r1144896704)
Thanks! [Updated](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26762#issuecomment-1479655825).

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Use TSan new runtime (llvm-16, take 3)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27298#issuecomment-1479657784)
> Could we drop the GUI from the TSan task?

Yes, but there is another (linker) bug.

💬 prusnak commented on pull request "Add feerate histogram to getmempoolinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21422#issuecomment-1479660108)
@sipa By not providing sort-of accurate estimations from the current mempool, we force people to rely on third-party estimators, which is arguably much worse than having an independent estimation which works most of the time, although it may be games under certain specific conditions. I think that "perfect is enemy of good" rule applies here perfectly.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Make `CCheckQueue` RAII-styled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26762#discussion_r1144903304)
> This is not consistent with how the other options are handled. This overrides the value of the passed in option even if no argument was passed in. I would handle this the same way as `max_tip_age`...

I'm not sure about this change considering this PR scope. The semantic of the "-par" and "-maxtipage" options are quite different.

> ... and also move the `MAX_SCRIPTCHECK_THREADS` to `chainstatemanager_opts.h`.

Thanks! [Updated](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26762#issuecomment-
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "pruneblockchain should be able to increase the size of pruned blockchain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24286#issuecomment-1479666190)
I think both this issue and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19807 can be closed simply because after we erase undo data, there is no way to recover it without re-syncing from genesis.

If a user wants to keep more data on disk like @carnhofdaki said, you can increase the `-prune` value and wait for it to fill up with new blocks.

If a user just wants pre-prune block data for wallet rescans, I think using neutrino filters and `getblockfrompeer` would be a cool feature, see https://g
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Manual-pruning cursor rewind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19807#issuecomment-1479668791)
See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24286#issuecomment-1479666190 I think these two issues can be closed and a feature we could work on is a neutrino mode for a wallet attached to a pruning node... ?