👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#pullrequestreview-1979056335)
ACK 43e2f6d160b75e88b39777428c2c1892b962f394

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "AcceptMultipleTransactions: Fix workspace not being set as client_maxfeerate failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29735#discussion_r1551177145)
done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "AcceptMultipleTransactions: Fix workspace not being set as client_maxfeerate failure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29735#discussion_r1551177864)
oops yeah, done

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "[WIP] ci: test secp256k1 MSAN asm annotations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29742#issuecomment-2036588259)
> Ready for bump now that https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1512 is merged.

Converted to a proper subtree bump.
Rewrote the PR description.

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "AcceptMultipleTransactions: Fix workspace not being set as client_maxfeerate failure"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29735#pullrequestreview-1979232550)
ACK 14c86ba721e1a208c88ada133ba9e90e24724ea4

Verified the fuzz test catches this problem, seems to run fine with the changes. Thanks for accepting the suggestions.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to latest master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29803)
Updates the libsecp256k1 subtree to https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/commit/4b77fec67a80af41a538b6195317229c77101f87.

Part of #29742. See that PR for more details, the particularly relevant changes are:
* https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1496
* https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1512

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to latest master":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29803#issuecomment-2036606192)
cc @real-or-random @jonasnick

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "guix: Remove another leftover from #29648"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29797)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Invalid port specified in -zmqpubrawtx when using IPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29802#issuecomment-2036618828)
This was broken in #22087, but would be fixed by #27679.

🤔 real-or-random reviewed a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to latest master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29803#pullrequestreview-1979282880)
Concept ACK -- there's nothing on our side that speaks against updating

🤔 real-or-random reviewed a pull request: "[WIP] ci: test secp256k1 MSAN asm annotations"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29742#pullrequestreview-1979289744)
Concept ACK on removing `--with-asm`

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#issuecomment-2036659521)
I am happy to close this pull, if people don't want it.

However, I don't see why running the CI not at all is better than skipping just the bpfcc part.

👋 glozow's pull request is ready for review: "doc: update release-process.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29645)

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "contrib/signet/getcoins.py no longer useable"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29679)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "contrib/signet/getcoins.py no longer useable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29679#issuecomment-2036666539)
Thanks @kallewoof, I can confirm that the script is now working again as expected:


Hopefully "attack mode" is not needed again :)

Closing for now.

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "ci: Temporarily disable bpfcc-tools"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29788#pullrequestreview-1979304780)
ACK fac012c7262f036e9b6f5800e57dcd63870a871c

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1549395161)
probably better to have it while loop making tx until this is true, rather than fail randomly

🤔 instagibbs reviewed a pull request: "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#pullrequestreview-1976216428)
reviewed through 81912ae6649fac5a0d671d2cabe344f787193997

LGTM so far

will review tests

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1549376386)
```Suggestion
// For each output, get all entries spending this prevout.
```

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1549404732)
quick test case that returns empty would be good too