📝 Sjors converted_to_draft a pull request: "depends: suggest GNU patch for macOS <= 13"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29814)
Fixes #29792

Adds a note to `depends/README.md` that on older versions of macOS you _may_ need to use GNU patch. I phrased as a troubleshooting hint, rather than make it a default recommendation, because:

1. so far only I ran into it, and fanquake couldn't reproduce
2. BDB is only used for the legacy wallet, which itself is deprecated
3. it seems better to replace as few default tools on macOS as possible

The instructions in `build-osx.md` don't even mention depends, so I don't touch
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: Drop duplicated compiler flags"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29800)

💬 theuni commented on pull request "refactor: Remove gmtime*":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29081#issuecomment-2040186745)
Post-merge utACK fa9f36babaceba6ab2f88e64bc4bc2956f58871f

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "depends: suggest GNU patch for macOS <= 13":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29814#issuecomment-2040194182)
On both machines:

```
/usr/bin/patch --version
patch 2.0-12u11-Apple
```

On the old machine:

```
shasum -a 256 /usr/bin/patch
1c7648162c11d32aa0ee1a05a948a8a548e4a9336106704a43ab986f718efb88 /usr/bin/patch
```

On the new machine:

```
shasum -a 256 /usr/bin/patch
214df67037191e570a95ddfe1427ebaad7c756f53348584d981759309d3dd489 /usr/bin/patch
```

Both are Intel.

💬 kosuodhmwa 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-2040196739)

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "depends: swap some cctools tools for LLVM tools":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29739#issuecomment-2040201882)
Guix builds (x86_64):
```
c39f93edbd44b97256834f1173f23c311a7f7fdf467ecebd4ec930e0691732ad guix-build-77eaee0ba46a/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
4e88994692636055e105346229ad87fcb40569a984fddb278e92b78498a983ef guix-build-77eaee0ba46a/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-77eaee0ba46a-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
f2d7c80d039ecfe9889eada5be4f701f413b22eb679511634a20545528b61a15 guix-build-77eaee0ba46a/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-77eaee0ba46a-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
df23e2877a
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553914876)
done

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553914606)
done

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553911167)
Added. Also WOW, I realized we somehow lost the line where `m_recent_rejects_reconsiderable` is reset. Fixed that.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553914777)
added

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553914701)
done, yay for 20

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553965998)
Wait oof, we don't require the orphanage child to be provided by the same peer who sent the low-feerate tx. I think this would mean you can get other people disconnected by sending a bogus child of the package they're sending.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553914428)
Ok hm. I've simplified the wording a bit. Maybe that helps?

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "test: Fix debug recommendation in argsman_tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29805#pullrequestreview-1983669418)
ACK 561a650e0f669159699224ddd4eb5b1c91cf9ac3

> I didn't investigate further but I suspect that these tests were moved between files.

Yea, looks like that happened in #26489.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: chacha20: always use our fallback timingsafe_bcmp rather than libc's":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29815#issuecomment-2040212245)
utACK 2d1819455cb4c516f6cdf81c11e869a23dee3e6b

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Fix debug recommendation in argsman_tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29805)

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553982455)
think you forgot to push?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1553982697)
we should have tests(in master?) for this I hope.

something below minfee is rejected, block comes in, node should respond to an INV for the same thing again

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "crypto: chacha20: always use our fallback timingsafe_bcmp rather than libc's":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29815#issuecomment-2040235236)
Concept ACK

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Fix waste calculation in SelectionResult":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28366#issuecomment-2040240531)
> Are you still working on this?

Thanks, rebased