💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "[refactor] Check CTxMemPool options in ctor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28830#discussion_r1603522559)
nit: slightly confusing docstring: the `Options` ref is always returned, error is non-empty if options are not valid. Since `Flatten` is internal, this is probably something that mostly should be documented in the `CTxMemPool` ctor anyway though (highlighting that callers should check that `error.empty()`)

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1603525767)
Updated to track both successful and successful deletions (on debug log, to prevent unnecessarily spamming the logs)

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1603383480)
I think this refers to the steps listed at the beginning of the file. Not all of them are covered yet. This PR leaves this right before 2 AFAICT

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1603536079)
Removed

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "locks: introduce mutex for tx download, flush rejection filters on UpdatedBlockTip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30111#issuecomment-2115495260)
> > FWIW I tried something similar, and got an assertion failure in one of the mempool functional tests (maybe mempool_reorg, and thus due to an invalidateblock call?)
>
> Was it mempool_packages.py maybe? Mine tripped there on `invalidateblock` when I was adding `UpdatedBlockTip` to `InvalidateBlock`, and it was a lock ordering problem. My hierarchy is cs_main -> tx_download_mutex -> mempool.cs.

Ah, yes, I think it was.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Fill reconciliation sets (Erlay) attempt 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30116#discussion_r1603548036)
My bad, missed that. Thanks.

⚠️ lctteam opened an issue: "dumpprivkey error"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30124)
bitcoin-core version: 27.0

I execute: `bitcoin-cli getnewaddress`
and
`bitcoin-cli dumpprivkey "address"`

report an error:
```
error code: -4
error message:
Only legacy wallets are supported by this command
```

I need to export the private key of the address, is there any way to do that?
If I want to use dumpprivkey which version of bitcoin core should I use?

thanks.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#issuecomment-2115522891)
sorry forgot to link https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30072 here, added to OP

🚀 ryanofsky merged a pull request: "blockstorage: Separate reindexing from saving new blocks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29975)

✅ willcl-ark closed an issue: "dumpprivkey error"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30124)

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "dumpprivkey error":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30124#issuecomment-2115538080)
You should be able to get the info you need using `bitcoin-cli listdescriptors true`, to include private descriptors.

If that doesn't work for you, you can create a legacy BDB wallet (using a newer version of the software) by following the v26.0 wallet [release notes](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-notes/release-notes-26.0.md#wallet). Of particular importance is use of the `-deprecatedrpc=create_bdb` option to `bitcoind`, before running `bitcoin-cli createwallet ..
...

🤔 ryanofsky reviewed a pull request: "kernel: Streamline util library"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29015#pullrequestreview-2061116999)
Updated b58156701ac132f87b8ef8da1c7d22158c804a81 -> 7689dfd6646054a0be8e62ccbf72d5403e28b548 ([`pr/rmutil.17`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/rmutil.17) -> [`pr/rmutil.18`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/rmutil.18), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/rmutil.17..pr/rmutil.18)) moving check-deps script.

---

re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29015#pullrequestreview-2055052953

> The includes could be cleaned up a bit, especi
...

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "kernel: Streamline util library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29015#discussion_r1603561157)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29015#discussion_r1599843905

> I think rather than `test/` this should go into `contrib/devtools`, which contains functionally similar scripts like `symbol-check`, or `security-check`.

Good suggestion, it does fit in more with those tools, moved over there.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "locks: introduce mutex for tx download, flush rejection filters on UpdatedBlockTip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30111#discussion_r1603602382)
Removed now, thanks

💬 glozow commented on pull request "locks: introduce mutex for tx download, flush rejection filters on UpdatedBlockTip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30111#discussion_r1603602970)
Removed and added a scripted-diff commit to rename `EraseTxNoLock` to `EraseTxInternal`

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1574716741)
While in here, maybe fix the typo

```suggestion
By default the cookie is stored in the data directory, but its location can be
```

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1574722548)
We already print settings somewhere else, and this isn't where the actual permissions are being changed.

💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "init: Add option for rpccookie permissions (replace 26088)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28167#discussion_r1574723868)
nit: "all" seems better than "others" here IMO

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Testsuite for Bitcoin Core 27.0.0 - FAIL: qt/test/test_bitcoin-qt":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30020#issuecomment-2115593433)
@dominicusadinfinitum
> where or how do I get to the debug.log?

In your data directory. Please consult the https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/files.md#data-directory-layout.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "rpc: avoid copying into UniValue":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30115#issuecomment-2115593653)
> Could this be a case for a clang-tidy plugin?

I considered this, but I don't think so. UniValue copies are reasonable in many cases, but our use of them often lends itself to moving. So we can't detect and disable copies as a rule, and (I assume) if clang-tidy detect and suggest possible moves as optimizations, it would be offering a generic version of that already.

Here's an upstream discussion about it that has apparently gone stale: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53489