💬 sipa commented on pull request "serialization: Support for multiple parameters":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28929#issuecomment-2113178142)
utACK 8d491ae9ecf1948ea29f67b50ca7259123f602aa

💬 achow101 commented on issue "stringop-overflow warning with GCC 14":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30114#issuecomment-2113179206)
I think might be a GCC bug, I can't figure out what is actually wrong with this code that would trigger the warning.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "crypto: disable asan for sha256_sse4 with clang and -O0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30097#issuecomment-2113193720)
ACK 141df0a28810470e53fdbc6d32d3cb4020fe3ca1

It builds :tada:

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "build: LLD based macOS toolchain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21778#issuecomment-2113223051)
Guix build (aarch64):
```
cf99b6597c64c4d0cd75176d261a53f24779e8c3dbe9e891d9d166ae9d00d182 guix-build-f58a8678957e/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
922e38e2b1a091f20caa014600936689fb9f14bf56fbd80e4c836c518897ff1f guix-build-f58a8678957e/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-f58a8678957e-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
256c68e14a905aa6933a2dc83cad636a14ee99ac4661a287e7817efe421965ab guix-build-f58a8678957e/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-f58a8678957e-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
50eafd4c67
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Implement independent BDB parser":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26606#discussion_r1602105484)
I think it's fixed this time.

📝 theuni opened a pull request: "rpc: avoid copying into UniValue"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30115)
These are the simple (and hopefully obviously correct) copies that can be moves instead.

This is a follow-up from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30094#issuecomment-2108751842

As it turns out, there are hundreds of places where we copy UniValues needlessly. It should be the case that moves are always preferred over copies, so there should be no downside to these changes.

@willcl-ark, however, noticed that memory usage may increase in some cases. Logically this makes no sense to
...

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28765#discussion_r1602118753)
I think this can actually be seeded with anything, it doesn't have to be `m_k0`. IMO it'd better not be, to not repurpose something that is meant for something completely different

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "serialization: Support for multiple parameters"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28929)

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "rpc: introduce getversion RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30112#discussion_r1602136436)
I agree that this would work. I'm a bit reluctant to introduce more log parsing for tests. I'm leaving unresolved: If someone feels strongly about doing this, let me know.

An alternative I have though about is adding the required version information to `test/config.ini`. Again, also open to do this if someone thinks it's important to do it.

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "rpc: introduce getversion RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30112#issuecomment-2113298531)
> > The windows failure is:
> > ```
> > D:\a\bitcoin\bitcoin\src\rpc\node.cpp(223,45): error C2065: 'CLIENT_VERSION_RC': undeclared identifier [D:\a\bitcoin\bitcoin\build_msvc\libbitcoin_node\libbitcoin_node.vcxproj]
> > ```
>
> Should fixed with:
>
> ```diff
> --- a/build_msvc/bitcoin_config.h.in
> +++ b/build_msvc/bitcoin_config.h.in
> @@ -11,6 +11,9 @@
> /* Version is release */
> #define CLIENT_VERSION_IS_RELEASE $
>
> +/* Release candidate */
> +#define CLIENT_VERSION_R
...

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "rpc: introduce getversion RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30112#issuecomment-2113308561)
> Should we eventually deprecate `version` and `subversion` fields from `getnetworkinfo`? If so, updating the `getnetworkinfo` docs is probably in order? No need to rush deprecating anything just yet, but just to indicate the direction?

I'm not too sure about removing `subversion`, but I think we can deprecate `version` at some point as it's identical to `numeric` in `getversion`. If I understand you correctly, you mean adding a note to the `version` docs that users should use `getversion` go
...

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "Update about logo icon (colour) to denote the chain type of the QT instance in About/ Help Message Window/ Dialog":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/762#discussion_r1602153175)
Sorry, that's wrong, I meant to put them just on the private section. I'll fix it soon. Thanks!

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "p2p: detect addnode cjdns peers in GetAddedNodeInfo()":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30085#issuecomment-2113332863)
Confirmed this branch fixes the issue in production on mainnet as well:

```
$ bccli getaddednodeinfo
[
{
"addednode": "fc32:17ea:e415:c3bf:9808:149d:b5a2:c9aa",
"connected": false,
"addresses": [
]
},
{
"addednode": "fcc7:be49:ccd1:dc91:3125:f0da:457d:8ce",
"connected": true,
"addresses": [
{
"address": "[fcc7:be49:ccd1:dc91:3125:f0da:457d:8ce]:8333",
"connected": "outbound"
}
]
}
]
```

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "rpc: introduce getversion RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30112#issuecomment-2113340979)
Concept ACK, would need a release note.

> I'm not too sure about removing `subversion`, but I think we can deprecate `version`

Note that removing `version` from getnetworkinfo would break some bitcoin-cli calls to long-running nodes, unless handled with a version check and would also add an additional RPC call there. Probably not worth it to remove anything.

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "Testsuite for Bitcoin Core 27.0.0 - FAIL: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30020)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "Testsuite for Bitcoin Core 27.0.0 - FAIL: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30020#issuecomment-2113357989)
I'm going to close this for now.

I have tried to reproduce this in a fresh debian bookworm container (not a raspi) but was unable to do so.

I configured, compiled and made with `--with-gui=no`, both with and without the gui dependencies installed (in case that made any difference), but in both cases the `./src/qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt` binary was not built, and so could not be tested (and fail the test as reported here).

If you could provide specific steps for reproduction (leave a comme
...

📝 sr-gi opened a pull request: "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt: 2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116)
This is a re-attempt of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28765

The main differences from it are:

- Most outstanding comments have been addressed (or responded to on the original PR)
- The description of how a node is picked in `IsFanoutTarget` has been updated to reflect what the algorithm is doing (not how it is doing it).
- The way `hash_key` is seeded in `IsFanoutTarget` has changed (from `m_k0` to `wtxid.ToUint256()`). This is to prevent using `m_k0` for something it is not in
...

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt: 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#issuecomment-2113365602)
I've talked to @naumenkogs about picking this up and he was happy about it. I'm happy to close this if he changes his mind.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: De-globalize fReindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29817#discussion_r1602211367)
> I need to test this, but this would be surprising to me.

Indeed, my impression was wrong. When we restart after a previous reindex without passing in `-reindex`, the first step is activating the chain again.

📝 Mmgg002 opened a pull request: "Add files via upload"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30117)
<!--
*** 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 improve coverage are a
...