💬 edilmedeiros commented on issue "contrib/signet/miner: grind will fail for high difficulty chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30102#issuecomment-2113923344)
Thanks for reporting.

About the 2m30s interval, see #30091.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to current master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30120)
This includes changes from the 0.5.0 release: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/releases/tag/v0.5.0

> New function secp256k1_ec_pubkey_sort that sorts public keys using lexicographic (of compressed serialization) order.

> The implementation of the point multiplication algorithm used for signing and public key generation was changed, resulting in improved performance for those operations.
> The related configure option --ecmult-gen-precision was replaced with --ecmult-gen-kb (EC
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to current master":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30120#issuecomment-2113932737)
cc @real-or-random @jonasnick

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "p2p: detect addnode cjdns peers in GetAddedNodeInfo()"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30085)

🤔 edilmedeiros reviewed a pull request: "signet: fixing mining for OP_TRUE challenge"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29032#pullrequestreview-2059510296)
Concept ACK

Code looks good, I'm still to test it.

🤔 edilmedeiros reviewed a pull request: "Feature: Use different datadirs for different signets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29838#pullrequestreview-2059519045)
Concept ACK.

Code looks good, but not tested yet.

Any way to add a functional test for this?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: Pointer Authentication and Branch Target Identification for aarch64 Linux (Guix)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24123#issuecomment-2114000048)
Rebased on #29987.

💬 Waseem650 commented on pull request "p2p: peer connection bug fixes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28248#issuecomment-2114002580)
1884778242

Id

💬 dominicusadinfinitum commented on issue "Testsuite for Bitcoin Core 27.0.0 - FAIL: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30020#issuecomment-2114076620)
@maflcko @willcl-ark

**Steps for reproduction**

git command to create a local copy (“clone”) of the source code:
$ git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git

$ cd bitcoin

Selecting a Bitcoin Core Release:
$ git tag

To synchronize the local code with this version, use the git checkout command:
$ git checkout v27.0.0

Configuring the Bitcoin Core Build (I installed everything I found in the mentioned files) :
The source code includes documentation, which can be found i
...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#issuecomment-2114203144)
> Maybe you can split src/util/netif.h off into a separate PR, along with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b06edec229d5cfc8d0d1a19bd723852e6bcfd9d9.

Sure, could do that.

> So maybe we should just pick one at random rather than announce all three. This also seems orthogonal to PCP.

Thanks, that's interesting.

One problem is that routers might fail to pinhole some of the addresses. For example, Fritz!Box refuses to open ports on temporary privacy ones, which aren't a distingui
...

⚠️ jplix7k opened an issue: "Wrong block mined time in testnet"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30121)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

Currently, all block mined time in testnet could be about 1 hour earlier than current time.

<img width="1285" alt="testnet" src="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/assets/51077262/4df52a40-7b45-4a4d-8535-f1564e9a8705">
link: https://blockexplorer.one/bitcoin/testnet

Timestamp in UpdateTip is wrong.
```
│ app-generic 2024-05-16T06:57:48Z Saw new header hash=000000000000000ba2e091
...

🤔 real-or-random reviewed a pull request: "Update libsecp256k1 subtree to current master"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30120#pullrequestreview-2059788830)
Concept ACK

@hebasto Or would you prefer waiting for https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1529?

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1602742155)
It's hidden as debug because at the moment this is shown when the user doesn't have IPv6. Could boost this to warning if we do the address check first, then don't bother looking for a default gateway if there's none. Will do that.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1602763394)
Whoops, yes, it's `setEnabled`.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1602770267)
Will keep this open but leave it as-is for now. For IPv4 i'm not currently sure how to check if we have (Internet) networking besides checking for a default gateway, and i'd like to keep the two paths reasonably symmetric. Just checking for publicly routable addresses isn't going to cut it for IPv4.

💬 remyers commented on pull request "wallet: add coin selection parameter `add_excess_to_recipient_position` for changeless txs with excess that would be added to fees":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30080#issuecomment-2114278531)
I changed `disable_algos` to `enable_algos` in [3154f83](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30080/commits/3154f833d78c3863842046a61fc3270aaac18ce8). This was suggested by @t-bast because it won't cause problems for existing users when new cs algorithms are added. I believe I have the simplest and safest solution for initializing the `m_enable_algos` `std::bitset` to all true, but there are a few other ways to do it.

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#issuecomment-2114295253)
- Rebased for a trivial merge conflict related to clang installation in `.github/workflows/ci.yml`.
- Addressed a few comments.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "locks: introduce mutex for tx download, flush rejection filters on UpdatedBlockTip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30111#discussion_r1602816185)
Alternatively I can add a commit that removes the `TxOrphanage` lock?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "p2p: index TxOrphanage by wtxid, allow entries with same txid":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30000#discussion_r1602821815)
Good idea. Though it seems that this doesn't apply anymore since the commit is already merged, so resolving.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "locks: introduce mutex for tx download, flush rejection filters on UpdatedBlockTip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30111#discussion_r1602847832)
I expect just removing it would be fine and easy, but no need to bump it up higher in the todo list