💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2091981656)
> perhaps testnet4 should include a variant of the proposed rule from the Great Consensus Cleanup that would require the first block of a difficulty period to be no more than two hours less than the previous difficulty period’s last block’s timestamp.

I have added the corresponding code from #15482 in a separate commit as a basis for discussion.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: build with glibc 2.31":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29987#issuecomment-2092041669)
Guix Build (aarch64)
```bash
d5b65771bb9c1d2e4e49fbb78305e97a99ca43e608ced495f8c437855701d6af guix-build-f5a949b90881/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
113d77f864bac9382aa7598cb038a822aff2c961348ed9ca747a168ec87199bb guix-build-f5a949b90881/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-f5a949b90881-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
4a25c348e2921d27542f39cd5ccb6c7cf3aba72c89fecf69f4f66d63c4d5b623 guix-build-f5a949b90881/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-f5a949b90881-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
6157c1d
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "refactor, fuzz: Make 64-bit shift explicit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30017)

👍 MarnixCroes approved a pull request: "doc: replace remaining "520" magic nums with MAX_SCRIPT_ELEMENT_SIZE"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30024#pullrequestreview-2037275330)
lgtm ffc674595cb19b2fdc5705b355bdd3e7f724b860

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2092079804)
Why does the seeder consider 'default port' for good nodes?

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2092080764)
> Prevent use of the 20-minute difficulty exception on the last block in a difficulty period

I think the worst case here is that someone with significant hashpower quickly mines a few retarget periods to get the difficulty to increase a lot, then stops mining, and no one else is around with enough hashpower who's willing to mine a block.

With the rule above, that means we could get to the end of the period, but would then stall, as the last block would be expensive. With the rule in the PR
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2092089819)
> Why does the seeder consider 'default port' for good nodes?

DNS cannot provide port numbers, but a port must be known when connecting to a node. So we assume the default port, and because of that assumption, DNS seeders need to return nodes that are listening on the default port.

💬 emsit commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2092136022)

> > I'd propose the following coinbase string referencing an article published today regarding testnet: "CCN 02/May/2024 Bitcoin Testnet Could Need Reset"
>
> Happy to add this, I considered my genesis block just a placeholder anyway. The only reason we might use something different is if review here drags on for a few months and people would prefer something fresher by then. I will add it in my next push unless other reviewers disagree with the choice.
>
Is that a joke?
A person who di
...

💬 ajtowns commented on issue "Change estimate_mode default to "ECONOMICAL" in these RPC calls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30009#issuecomment-2092147297)
> This code suggests it does, but I haven't tested:

`estimatesmartfee` rpc defaults to conservative, even if all the wallet stuff defaults to economical via defaulting to rbf-enabled.

💬 laanwj commented on issue "ops: Enable DNSSEC on all Bitcoin DNS Seed domain names":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19714#issuecomment-2092353360)
i checked the current (+30007) list of DNS seeds for having valid DNSSEC and it's still close to the list in the OP (`S` column):
```
Flags: x9
Status DNS name S Totals IPv4 IPv6
nconn/n nconn/n TTL nconn/n TTL
* mainnet
OK seed.bitcoin.sipa.be. 36/39 25/25 3600 11/14 3600
OK dnsseed.bluematt.me.
...

✅ laanwj closed an issue: ""Migrate Wallet" is unclear to translators"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29979)

💬 laanwj commented on issue ""Migrate Wallet" is unclear to translators":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29979#issuecomment-2092407883)
> Can we close this now then? We're not going to find a more appropriate word than "migrate" for this context, and it seems like there's therefore no action to be taken here.

Agree, i don't think using any another word is a substitute for good explanation in this case, and changing it at this point after having used 'migration' for years would only add to the confusion.

💬 Sjors commented on issue "ops: Enable DNSSEC on all Bitcoin DNS Seed domain names":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19714#issuecomment-2092416645)
Yes, I added DNS sec support, as per @Emzy's instructions here: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder/pull/85

Only for mainnet.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor, test: Always initialize pointer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30026#issuecomment-2092417947)
utACK bd2de7ac591d7704b79304089ad1fb57e085da8b

👍 maflcko approved a pull request: "doc: fix broken relative md links"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30025#pullrequestreview-2037520553)
lgtm

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: fix broken relative md links":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30025#discussion_r1588821490)
```suggestion
- GUI, node, and wallet code internal implementations should all be independent of each other, and the *libbitcoinqt*, *libbitcoin_node*, *libbitcoin_wallet* libraries should never reference each other's symbols. They should only call each other through [`src/interfaces/`](/src/interfaces/) abstract interfaces.
```

nit: Might as well make it an absolute path?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "doc: fix broken relative md links":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30025#discussion_r1588822970)
```suggestion
All `release-notes*` files are merged into a single file prior to the release.
```

nit: Could remove the link, as it adds no value?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "chainparams: Add achow101 DNS seeder":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30007#issuecomment-2092443142)
Concept ACK

There's discussion in #29911 about whether we should mention the specific feature bits here.

I tested that the mainnet seed result returns both IPv4 and IPv6 records and tried to connect to a random result. I didn't do any fancier analysis.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor, test: Always initialize pointer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30026#issuecomment-2092445651)
cc @sipsorcery

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "doc: fix broken relative md links":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30025#discussion_r1588835918)
I wanted to but those links a few lines [above](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30025/files/8b3e86285f55d484e71a821a2c4538b2f010be59#diff-b5e0af5339b28c1c6c155d36f0157c62232fd994410334fb09bd7511fef12074R85) were relative so I just thought I'd leave these matching 😢

Will do it now with the other suggestion.