💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "p2p: index TxOrphanage by wtxid, allow entries with same txid":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30000#discussion_r1586417487)
nit: can't we just use `first`?
```suggestion
nErased += EraseTxNoLock(maybeErase->first);
```

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665#issuecomment-2088971908)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665#issuecomment-2080843513

Thanks @stickies-v. I think since `Update()` is not required immediately I might move the first and third commits of this PR to another PR without `Update()`. The only downside will be some churn in the `CompleteChainstateInitialization` function, since I believe at some point it will need to be changed again to use the `Update()` pattern or a similar pattern, when other functions it calls are changed to return `util::R
...

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "opportunistic 1p1c followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30012#pullrequestreview-2034310688)
ACK 6119f76ef72c1adc55c1a384c20f8ba9e1a01206

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Support JSON-RPC 2.0 when requested by client":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27101#issuecomment-2088994389)
@ryanofsky thanks so much, again, for your help. Especially in understanding the `std::move` semantics. I've reviewed each commit in your branch and force pushed it to mine with the only change being specifying json request version in `JSONRPCReplyObj()` calls in `bitcoin-cli.cpp`

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "build: Assume HAVE_CONFIG_H, Add IWYU pragma keep to bitcoin-config.h includes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29494#pullrequestreview-2034337579)
ACK fa09451f8e6799682d7e7c863f25334fd1c7dce3

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "init: Fixes for file descriptor accounting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27539#issuecomment-2089013169)
This was rebased fairly recently, but you have not addressed this open comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27539#discussion_r1203666492 . Are you still working on this?

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "system: use %LOCALAPPDATA% as default datadir on windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27064#issuecomment-2089055814)
ACK 84900ac34f6888b7a851d0a6a5885192155f865c

Tested on Windows. `%APPDATA%/Bitcoin` continues to be used if it exists, `%LOCALAPPDATA%` if not.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "rpc: return warnings as an array instead of just a single one":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29845#issuecomment-2089058662)
re-ACK 42fb5311b19582361409d65c6fddeadbee14bb97

🤔 sr-gi reviewed a pull request: "net: don't lock cs_main while reading blocks in net processing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26326#pullrequestreview-2034387611)
Concept ACK

I agree with @furszy in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26326#discussion_r1381776328 that we should followup this with sending NotFounds for all the blocks that we are unable (or unwilling) to provide

💬 sipa commented on pull request "net: don't lock cs_main while reading blocks in net processing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26326#issuecomment-2089075429)
> we should followup this with sending NotFounds for all the blocks that we are unable (or unwilling) to provide

We can't just change the protocol like that; other software than Bitcoin Core might not expect `notfound` for block messages. But I do believe it would be useful to have *some* way of signalling, and using the information, that a block is unavailable. It would need a short BIP, and a way to negotiate support, but it would mean that over time we may also be able to prefer downloadin
...

💬 IAmAdamRest commented on issue "Manually Banning Peers Results in Crash":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29916#issuecomment-2089079287)
I decided to try on my ubuntu machine as well and had this same issue but I am not a power user by any means. I will look up this gdb thing to see if I can get a log.
happened right after i banned a peer that kept connecting and disconnecting and connecting and disconnecting like hundreds of times over the course of a few minutes. each time the cpu would get high and i had enough it was an
...

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "fuzz: txorphan tests fixups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29974#discussion_r1586788475)
The reason why I choose to do it this way is because I don't think we generally want to be generating the same transaction often, but it won't be an issue if the case is hit once in a while (really infrequently really).

I don't have strong opinions on what the odds for that should be, so I'm happy to change it if someone does, otherwise I'll leave it as is

⚠️ laanwj opened an issue: "Linux debug information for release is broken"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30016)
The debug information in the shipped `.dbg` artifacts seems to be unusable. The `.debug_info` section is corrupt:
```sh
$ tar -zxvf bitcoin-27.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
$ objdump -Wi bitcoin-27.0/bin/bitcoin-cli.dbg

Section '.debug_info' has an invalid size: 0.

bitcoin-27.0/bin/bitcoin-cli.dbg: file format elf64-x86-64

Section '.debug_info' has an invalid size: 0.
```
i've checked various Linux architectures (at least x86_64, ARM, RISC-V) and the same issue exists there.
...

💬 laanwj commented on issue "Linux debug information for release is broken":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30016#issuecomment-2089161664)
Okay, may be a `objdump` bug actually?

`readelf -wi` (which should be equivalent to `objdump -Wi`) parses the same section fine. So does `gdb` it seems?

(FWIW i did try various versions of `objdump` before reporting this)

✅ laanwj closed an issue: "Linux debug information for release is broken"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30016)

💬 laanwj commented on issue "Linux debug information for release is broken":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30016#issuecomment-2089162681)
Closing for now.

💬 cbergqvist commented on pull request "net: Favor peers from addrman over fetching seednodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29605#discussion_r1586817396)
Accidental indentation change?

🤔 cbergqvist requested changes to a pull request: "net: Favor peers from addrman over fetching seednodes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29605#pullrequestreview-2034448189)
Re-tested 33ddd1b4c1cb1165b5068fbf7a9461e295f6cef1. Bumping of timeout seems blocking.

💬 cbergqvist commented on pull request "net: Favor peers from addrman over fetching seednodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29605#discussion_r1586847044)
Switched to using `Span` for a slightly smaller change suggestion in f9bfc588f2e81a7febe233f591b75e41a52db8b4.

💬 cbergqvist commented on pull request "net: Favor peers from addrman over fetching seednodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29605#discussion_r1586850195)
Had to bump the timeout 20 -> 30 seconds for the test to pass. Example commit with extra logging: 46bac29032c0148ce5288faadbcdc3961d522060