🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "doc: Remove outdated description for --port argument"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30014#pullrequestreview-2034095091)
It may yet be early to do this. I mentioned this change in https://jonatack.github.io/articles/using-alternative-p2p-networks-with-bitcoin-core#bitcoin-core-listening-port but have no statistics on the use of non-8333 ports for running bitcoind.

✅ achow101 closed a pull request: "Initial commit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30015)

📝 achow101 locked a pull request: "Initial commit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30015)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "kernel, refactor: return error status on all fatal errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29700#issuecomment-2088841298)
Rebased 4d2c9de24916f8d69514ea7c7251136e2762fa5c -> f65fa8c91130931713848a97606d5add0fc9b8c5 ([`pr/fatalresult.13`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/fatalresult.13) -> [`pr/fatalresult.14`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/fatalresult.14), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/fatalresult.13-rebase..pr/fatalresult.14)) due to silent conflict with #28970

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Add util::ResultPtr class":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26022#issuecomment-2088844666)
Rebased 8ecac0885ef5b6fc2313cd2f8dfb48c10a05db27 -> 9f58eb795ec5592c59f9af3269f004e589a2368f ([`pr/bresult-ptr.4`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/bresult-ptr.4) -> [`pr/bresult-ptr.5`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/bresult-ptr.5), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/bresult-ptr.4-rebase..pr/bresult-ptr.5)) on top of latest #25665 (no other changes)

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "doc: Remove outdated description for --port argument":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30014#issuecomment-2088858032)
This is a duplicate of #29994.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "net: don't lock cs_main while reading blocks in net processing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26326#discussion_r1586585459)
Would it be woth having a static assert for this when defining `MAX_BLOCKTXN_DEPTH`?

```
static_assert(MAX_BLOCKTXN_DEPTH < MIN_BLOCKS_TO_KEEP, "MIN_BLOCKS_TO_KEEP too low");
```

This was not obvious to me either, but I'm not too familiar with this part of net_processing

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "fuzz: txorphan tests fixups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29974#pullrequestreview-2034150338)
ACK 58594c7

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "net: don't lock cs_main while reading blocks in net processing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26326#discussion_r1586586486)
Would it be worth having a static assert for this when defining `MAX_BLOCKTXN_DEPTH`?

```
static_assert(MAX_BLOCKTXN_DEPTH < MIN_BLOCKS_TO_KEEP, "MIN_BLOCKS_TO_KEEP too low");
```

This was not obvious to me either, but I'm not too familiar with this part of net_processing

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "p2p: index TxOrphanage by wtxid, allow entries with same txid":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30000#issuecomment-2088877822)
should be able to add fuzz coverage easily for differing wtxids but same txids in `src/test/fuzz/txorphan.cpp`

✅ laanwj closed a pull request: "doc: Remove outdated description for --port argument"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30014)

💬 theuni commented on pull request "build: no-longer disable WARN_CXXFLAGS when CXXFLAGS is set":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25972#issuecomment-2088880497)
What's the status of this?

🤔 jonatack reviewed a pull request: "doc: removed help text saying that peers may not connect automatically"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29994#pullrequestreview-2034177812)
I'm not sure this should be removed unless it has been observed to no longer be the case, and in the meantime it does no harm. See also https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30014#pullrequestreview-2034095091.

💬 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_r1586616806)
Oof my bad for not checking more closely. How's this?

```
diff --git a/test/functional/mempool_accept_v3.py b/test/functional/mempool_accept_v3.py
index 8285b82c19..9fc6eff453 100755
--- a/test/functional/mempool_accept_v3.py
+++ b/test/functional/mempool_accept_v3.py
@@ -533,10 +533,27 @@ class MempoolAcceptV3(BitcoinTestFramework):
tx_unrelated_replacee = self.wallet.send_self_transfer(from_node=node, utxo_to_spend=utxo_unrelated_conflict)
assert tx_unrelated_replac
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: Add test case for spending bare multisig":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29120#issuecomment-2088899280)
ACK e504b1fa1fa4d014b329dea81bfdf1aa55db238f

✅ kevkevinpal closed a pull request: "doc: removed help text saying that peers may not connect automatically"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29994)

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "doc: removed help text saying that peers may not connect automatically":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29994#issuecomment-2088902630)
> I'm not sure this should be removed unless it has been observed to no longer be the case, and in the meantime it does no harm. See also [#30014 (review)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30014#pullrequestreview-2034095091).

that's fair I can close this for now, if someone does have concrete statistics feel free to pick this up

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Test case for spending bare multisig?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29113)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: Add test case for spending bare multisig"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29120)

💬 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_r1586637512)
above:
- `fee_to_beat_absolute` is 41600 (above code uses `max(tx_unrelated_replacee, tx_v3_child_2)` but Rule 3 would require us to beat the sum of their fees haha)
- `feerate_to_beat` is 300, i.e. 31200 /104
- `fee_to_beat_feerate` is 300 * (147 + 154) = 90300
- `fee_v3_child_3` is max(41600, 90300) + 5 = 90305
- this means the ancestor feerate is 90305 / (147 + 154) = 300.017