💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1583082284)
Ahh I see, it's the same code path.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1583085742)
oh right, neither of these cases will do a package rbf, as the package has in-mempool ancestors.

It would have to be a scenario where the ancestor limits are set to 1, then a package RBF of size 2 replaces that single tx?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Assume HAVE_CONFIG_H, Add IWYU pragma keep to bitcoin-config.h includes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29494#issuecomment-2082750970)
How is it supposed to automatically catch cases when code changes make `#include <config/bitcoin-config.h>` unneeded in a header or source file?

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Add missing Assert(mock_time_in >= 0s) to SetMockTime"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29872)

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1583113813)
Hmm, I think it will always be the same code path that will be hit because the parent transaction (in the cluster size 2 replacement package) will be detected as conflict with the transaction that was carved out (because it has to go through `PreChecks`), and we don't allow package RBF carveout, so the subpackage evaluation will not be executed?

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#discussion_r1583123904)
I think, design-wise, it's a bit counter-intuitive, but I do agree that not overloading `m_recent_rejects` is potentially better

👍 ismaelsadeeq approved a pull request: "Cluster size 2 package rbf"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#pullrequestreview-2028579002)
Code Review ACK 7cede4caa0a6b3dd57397d96ee98239fb890ca32

My comments were addressed and I have reviewed all the commits and test this locally on regtest.

I've fuzz this PR for a while locally and no any crash.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: opportunistically accept 1-parent-1-child packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28970#issuecomment-2082822497)
tACK e518a8bf8abf3d7b83c9013f56d0dca18ae04d6f

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "doc: update release-process.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29645#issuecomment-2082833654)
> Thanks for the context @hebasto. I felt that it was appropriate to move from "before every release candidate" to ~"before every major or minor release"~(EDIT: correction, "before branch-off") because
>
> * I didn't observe that translations were being updated per release candidate.

It happens, but very seldom. We can really ignore them as it simplifies the release process significantly.

> * It made more sense to me that it'd be per release instead of per release candidate since,
...

📝 kevkevinpal opened a pull request: "doc: removed help text saying that peers may not connect automatically"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29994)
Introduced in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23542 and released in version 23.0 there has been significant time since this change (2 years).

This should be removed as it is no longer relevant

💬 glozow commented on pull request "test: Don't rely on incentive incompatible replacement in mempool_accept_v3.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29986#discussion_r1583168472)
makes sense to me. Use `fee_per_output=fee_to_beat_child2*2` ?

💬 laanwj commented on issue "guix: SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is already set in some environments":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29935#issuecomment-2082892926)
Or could cover `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` being set under `FORCE_DIRTY_WORKTREE`, it's not strictly the same, but it's also an intentionally introduced mismatch, and would avoid adding another build option.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Assume HAVE_CONFIG_H, Add IWYU pragma keep to bitcoin-config.h includes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29494#issuecomment-2082902935)
> How is it supposed to automatically catch cases when code changes make `#include <config/bitcoin-config.h>` unneeded in a header or source file?

Yes, it is supposed to catch those. This is already the case and unrelated to this pull request. You can try it yourself. The output will be:

```
^^^
None of the files use a symbol declared in the bitcoin-config.h header. However, they are including
the header. Consider removing the unused include.

^---- ⚠️ Failure generated fr
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: Assume HAVE_CONFIG_H, Add IWYU pragma keep to bitcoin-config.h includes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29494#issuecomment-2082903772)
Rebased (should be trivial to re-ACK)

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "RPC: access RPC arguments by name"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29277#pullrequestreview-2028697430)
Code review ACK 30a6c999351041d6a1e8712a9659be1296a1b46a. Nice change! Implementation is surprisingly simple and additional unit test coverage is welcome, too.

> > Does it work with `OBJ_NAMED_PARAMS`?
>
> Nope. I think we should just address the general use case of getting `OBJ`/`ARR` args with the `Arg` helpers, and then that should help with `OBJ_NAMED_PARAMS` too?

It would be nice to support this for consistency, but benefit is probably more minor since these arguments are already a
...

⚠️ zPapaBear opened an issue: "Error when launching Bitcoin Core"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29995)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

Basically im getting this error while launching, and im fairly new to this so trying to understand what i can do to fix after the 600 gb download. i'm not able to download it all again.

### Expected behaviour

the application to run normally

### Steps to reproduce

its just on launch. noth
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Error when launching Bitcoin Core":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29995#issuecomment-2082921899)
Bitcoin Core makes heavy use of CPU, RAM and disk IO. Hardware defects might only become visible when running Bitcoin Core. You might want to check your hardware for defects.

* memtest86 to check your RAM
* to check the CPU behaviour under load, use linpack or Prime95
* to test your storage device use smartctl or CrystalDiskInfo

Source: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/12206

🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "RPC: access RPC arguments by name"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29277)

💬 zPapaBear commented on issue "Error when launching Bitcoin Core":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29995#issuecomment-2082926097)
ram and cpu are fine, and i believe the drive also is working fine. i took the files and moved them to another HDD. still same issue on launch.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "miniscript: make operator""_mst consteval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28657#issuecomment-2082926872)
Could rebase, as CI on master should now be passing with clang-15 in.