💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: More accurate coverage reports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30156#issuecomment-2128926094)
https://drahtbot.space/host_reports/DrahtBot/reports/coverage_fuzz/monotree/949abebea0059edd/cc5858cb70d9ce14/fuzz.coverage/index.html

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: More accurate coverage reports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30156#discussion_r1613100595)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6736987506343936:

```
Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
"___llvm_profile_reset_counters", referenced from:
initialize() in libtest_fuzz.a(libtest_fuzz_a-fuzz.o)
"___gcov_reset", referenced from:
initialize() in libtest_fuzz.a(libtest_fuzz_a-fuzz.o)
ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64
```

https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6596250017988608:

```
/usr/bin/ld: libtest_fuzz.a(libtest_fuzz_a-fuzz.o): in function `ResetCoverageCou
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "Fee Estimation via Fee rate Forecasters":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30157#issuecomment-2128952313)
> The state of the node's mempool may not accurately reflect the state of others' mempools, and not even its own mempool when the block is found in the future. It isn't a good single source of information.

Correct. The rationale behind this set of changes can be summed up briefly as follows:

- Add a new standalone modular fee estimation manager to which (many) `Forcasters` can be trivially added or removed (vs modifying `BlockPolicyEstimator`).
- Provide two forcaster implementations whic
...

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "fuzz: More accurate coverage reports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30156#issuecomment-2128953200)
> https://drahtbot.space/host_reports/DrahtBot/reports/coverage_fuzz/monotree/949abebea0059edd/cc5858cb70d9ce14/fuzz.coverage/index.html

The difference only really becomes visible for individual coverage reports, e.g. for process_messages.

💬 kosuodhmwa commented on issue "Log: "no wallet support compiled in" when i start bitcoind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30158#issuecomment-2128954064)
got it , thank you very much!! :-)

✅ kosuodhmwa closed an issue: "Log: "no wallet support compiled in" when i start bitcoind"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30158)

💬 kosuodhmwa commented on issue "Log: "no wallet support compiled in" when i start bitcoind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30158#issuecomment-2128954331)
closed

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "ci: add markdown link check job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30034#discussion_r1613126935)
Sure it could be, but as I see it would need us to write our own markdown parser and link checker.

I don't have the appetite for that myself, hence this approach.

Also see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29965 which may (I didn't fully check yet) permit you to run this lint individually in the future :)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: More accurate coverage reports":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30156#issuecomment-2129004039)
utACK 949abebea0059edd929b653b4b475a5880fc0a3e

💬 zefir-k commented on issue "prune shall not delete blocks it did not download":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30163#issuecomment-2129025083)
> Using the same blocksdir for two different nodes is not supported. Nodes may download blocks in a different order and save them to different locations in the blocksfiles. This will lead to an error at some point, latest when one of the nodes can't find a block where it believes to be one.
>
> Currently, I don't think what you are trying to achieve is possible without copying blocks.
>
Hm, my experience differs: using this regularly and never ran into issues. Since the external HDD contai
...

⚠️ dergoegge opened an issue: "fuzz, wallet_bdb_parser: BDB builtin encryption is not supported"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30166)
```bash
$ echo "AwMAAABhMQUAAAAAAAUxYgAAAAkAAAIAMAkkYpAAAAAAAAAAAACCTU1NAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP////////8ICAgFCAgICAgICAgICAAICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAwMAAABhMQUAAAAAAAUxYgAAAAkwAAAJJGKQAADbMGKF////TU1NTQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP////////8ICAgFCAgICAgICAgIAAAAAP////////8ICAgFCAgICAgICAgICAAICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAwMAAABhMQUAAAAAAAUxYgAAAAkwAAAJJGKQAADbMGKF////Tf///////////////wMDAAAAYTIFAAAAAAAFMQgICAg
...

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "ci: add markdown link check job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30034#discussion_r1613164504)
OK I updated the error message.

Previously:

```
[Err ] ./.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/mypyc/external/googletest/README.md (57, 1) => CMakeLists.txt - Target filename not found.
[Err ] ./.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/mypyc/external/googletest/README.md (280, 10) => docs/PumpManual.md - Target filename not found.
[Err ] ./.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/mypyc/external/googletest/README.md (279, 47) => scripts/ - Target not found.

The following links could not be resolved:
m
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor prep for package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30072#discussion_r1613165490)
Will add that imo it's much clearer to have distinct flags each controlling small pieces of logic within validation (even if one flag could cover multiple things) while the dedicated `ATMPArgs` constructors make decisions on what combinations of the flags are allowed.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor prep for package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30072#discussion_r1613167778)
This is probably from when `CalculateMemPoolAncestors` took an in-out string param and we wanted to make a copy of the string before it got mutated. Probably best to just move the comment to the code where stuff is actually returned.

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "refactor prep for package rbf"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30072)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor prep for package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30072#discussion_r1613175739)
> "single transaction package settings" is exclusively describing the replacement transaction.

The replacement transaction is always going to be the one we're currently validating - maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying :sweat_smile: . I agree "single transaction package" doesn't mean much to me in this context, perhaps "disallowed when evaluating a multi-transaction subpackage or package" ?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "policy: bump TX_MAX_STANDARD_VERSION to 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29496#issuecomment-2129072586)
Rebased for #30072

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1613185703)
Oh I think I get it. In `ProcessPCP` (`mapport.cpp`) we call `PCPRequestPortMap` for every IPv6 address we have, as determined by `GetLocalAddresses()`.

Each port map request is made to the default gateway. This is scope-local addresses, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1610568498
So unlike with IPv4, where a gateway like 192.168.1.1 is reachable through both network connections, the IPv6 default gateway is only reachable through _one_ connection.

And indeed
...

✅ willcl-ark closed a pull request: "contrib: verify-binaries accept full arch-platform specifier"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28418)

💬 willcl-ark commented on pull request "contrib: Fixup verify-binaries OS platform parsing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30147#issuecomment-2129108419)
Yep I agree this is cleaner and works nicely in my initial manual testing :)

I will do a code review early next week, thanks!