💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "Don't empty dbcache on prune flushes: >30% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28280#issuecomment-2038255584)
Rebased and ran some faster benchmarks, 2 each but only until 400k. Will do some more going to 800k.

| | prune | dbcache | mean time (s) | speedup |
|-----------:|----------:|------------:|--------:|--------------:|
| master | 550 | 16384 | 2,018 | - |
| branch | 550 | 16384 | 1,667 | 17.4% |
| master | 550 | 450 | 2,069 | - |
| branch | 550 | 450 | 1,822 | 11.9% |
| master | 0 | 16384 | 1,447 | - |
| branch | 0 | 16384 | 1,396 | 3.5% |
| master | 0 | 450 | 1,546 | - |
| branch | 0
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665#discussion_r1552459477)
Reviewers might be wondering what the benefits of the ResultTraits are. They are useful for potential future extensions of the move behaviour: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29700/commits/3951afc3b708326cea653951ef331d8f96a28682 .

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665#discussion_r1552474458)
I have not quite grasped yet what the immediate benefit of these more generic decorators on the Messages are. Am I missing something from your draft PRs? I like shiny generics though, so to me a clear benefit of this approach would be to future-proof the result type. I was asking myself if this could be a bit more readable if instead of a forward-declared struct, the `MessagesTraits` were made a concept. After implementing it, I think it is indeed a bit easier to parse at the call site. It also
...

💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#discussion_r1552553259)
The `FeeFrac::size` field is an `int32_t`, which allows using the `FeeFrac{replacement_fees, replacement_vsize}` constructor below.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "feefrac: avoid explicitly computing diagram; compare based on chunks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29757#discussion_r1552556360)
Good point, this isn't testing anymore at all. Gone.

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: refactor: introduce and use `calculate_input_weight` helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29777#discussion_r1552562226)
removed

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: refactor: introduce and use `calculate_input_weight` helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29777#discussion_r1552562328)
removed

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: refactor: introduce and use `calculate_input_weight` helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29777#discussion_r1552562536)
done

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: refactor: introduce and use `calculate_input_weight` helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29777#discussion_r1552565066)
removed the duplicated `scriptSig_large` and added the assertion (small scriptSig, empty witness stack) as suggested

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: refactor: introduce and use `calculate_input_weight` helper":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29777#issuecomment-2038425304)
Thanks for your reviews @kevkevinpal, @naiyoma, I force-pushed with all of your suggestions taken!

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "changed username"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29808)

:lock: achow101 locked an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29808)

⚠️ tuttheking81 opened an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29810)
.

_Originally posted by @tuttheking81 in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29808_

✅ pinheadmz closed an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29810)

:lock: achow101 locked an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29810)

⚠️ Rojolee opened an issue: "Should this heed --noshutdown?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29811)
Should this heed --noshutdown?

_Originally posted by @laanwj in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12904#issuecomment-379314241_

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Should this heed --noshutdown?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29811)

:lock: achow101 locked an issue: "Should this heed --noshutdown?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29811)

⚠️ Richlilyjoy100 opened an issue: "H"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29812)

🤔 stratospher reviewed a pull request: "net: update comment for service bit support info for seed.bitcoin.sipa.be"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29809#pullrequestreview-1981717481)
Concept ACK. thanks for opening this! it's easy to forget to update support for service bit filtering here and the list just keeps getting longer.

another possibility could be just mentioning that the seeder supports service bit filtering and linking to the seeder repo to check the exact list of service bits supported. curious to know what other people think.