💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#issuecomment-2086222091)
rebased on master due to conflict from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29906

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2086252348)
I wrote:

> we don't want to bump our Guix Time Machine commit just for that.

Actually our Time Machine commit much more recent than I thought. Will defer to @dongcarl.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2086320606)
> > we don't want to bump our Guix Time Machine commit just for that.
>
> Actually our Time Machine commit is much more recent than I thought.

I presume openssl is used in the bootstrap chain, to bootstrap older software, so it probably can never be removed in a time machine bump?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2086326853)
> If I remember correctly, I think that you can likely just patch OpenSSL here since it's not a package that is "core" to Guix like GnuTLS was?

Yes, this is workaround 3.

> "Workaround 3: Disable the tests in the Guix source code for this single derivation"

📝 pinheadmz opened a pull request: "test: use sleepy wait-for-log in reindex readonly"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30006)
Also rename the busy wait-for-log method to prevent recurrence. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039#discussion_r1532578152

💬 hernanmarino commented on pull request "test: Assumeutxo: snapshots with less work should not be loaded":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29428#discussion_r1585286939)
> Why is this removed? The block is in the most-work chain. I think this comment meant a block that is _not_ in the most-work chain, no?

Maybe i missinterpreted the TODO comment meaning . To which TODO were you referring here
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29428#issuecomment-1952480346 ?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Assumeutxo: snapshots with less work should not be loaded":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29428#discussion_r1585289467)
Sorry, I think this was my bad. It looks like there is no TODO for the test you are adding here.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2086353157)
> Disable the tests in the Guix source code for this single derivation

We already have that recommendation, but I think it's better to offer an alternative. "Don't worry about tests not passing" is something I prefer to only do when I really understand how everything works, which I don't.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: use sleepy wait-for-log in reindex readonly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30006#discussion_r1585292029)
```suggestion
with self.nodes[0].assert_debug_log(["Reindexing finished"], timeout=30):
```

I think the timeout needs to be preserved?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: use sleepy wait-for-log in reindex readonly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30006#issuecomment-2086358940)
Thanks. lgtm ACK 453c871184e0d62111028d25ec327cc7dd2f0099, after fixed-up timeout value.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "test: use sleepy wait-for-log in reindex readonly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30006#discussion_r1585294720)
Gotcha, the default timeout in `wait_for_debug_log()` now `busy_wait_for_debug_log()` is 60 unless im mistaken?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: use sleepy wait-for-log in reindex readonly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30006#discussion_r1585296203)
Sure, any value works. But 2 seconds may be a bit on the risky side.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "test: use sleepy wait-for-log in reindex readonly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30006#discussion_r1585296893)
done, thanks

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: use sleepy wait-for-log in reindex readonly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30006#issuecomment-2086446928)
utACK fd6a7d3a13d89d74e161095b0e9bd3570210a40c

📝 achow101 opened a pull request: "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007)
I wrote a [DNS seeder](https://github.com/achow101/dnsseedrs) and have been running it for the past 2 months now. I believe it is ready/good enough to be used as an additional DNS seeder for all of our supported public networks.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "[PoC, nomerge] IPv6 PCP pinhole test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30005#issuecomment-2086638251)
>There is a UPnP plugin, but that's not what you're using (and probably best left uninstalled).

Yea, according to [this list](https://github.com/opnsense/plugins/tree/master), UPnP and PCP is the same plugin. It could be that they can be turned on and off seperately in the plugin configuration (it's similar for OpenWRT).

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Support JSON-RPC 2.0 when requested by client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#discussion_r1585388938)
Without it there is a compile error:

```
In file included from ./rpc/server.h:9:
./rpc/request.h:22:79: error: unknown type name 'JSONRPCRequest'
22 | std::string JSONRPCReply(const UniValue& result, const UniValue& error, const JSONRPCRequest& jreq);
| ^
1 error generated.
```

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#discussion_r1585404894)
Looks like it's missing "." at the end (all the other seeder DNS names have this)--same for the testnet one

💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "test: Assumeutxo: import snapshot in a node with a divergent chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29996#issuecomment-2086782948)
I splitted the original commit into two commits (one for each test). The second test (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29996/commits/af0f401258e0c189799a36f4487eaa751d779e7b) may be redundant with this one: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29428. The only difference is that my test is executed on a node that has a divergent chain after block 199. I did that to cover this scenario described in the comments

`[...] Loading a snapshot when the current chain tip is: [...] Not an anc
...

💬 besoeasy commented on issue "DNS seed "seed.bitcoinstats.com" doesn't support filtering while the comments says it does":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29911#issuecomment-2086948476)
yea seeds resolve to nothing, almost 80% nodes are down