💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: remove `FORCE_USE_SYSTEM_CLANG`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30201#issuecomment-2160706291)
Guix Build (aarch64):
```bash
f8487a885a04a4b3c273b2d1ba3ef5e100026f16b03c08e866dbf4cd468d0802 guix-build-7cbfd7a7ce45/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
b3da7604bc7302213d2864bddbccc54ede6374711377b89b2d17a989d2e9e64d guix-build-7cbfd7a7ce45/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-7cbfd7a7ce45-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
d2340b2c084faf01a0db8ea0c077ba9f8c51ef23b680396d88001b33d126788b guix-build-7cbfd7a7ce45/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-7cbfd7a7ce45-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
a79f46
...

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: Remove redundant verack check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30252)

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1634857819)
In d3d653dce34ad1f3235869b8a54f9572e89e5b68 [policy] package rbf

Update places where it is claimed that package RBF is disabled?


```diff
diff --git a/src/validation.cpp b/src/validation.cpp
index 8372fcadca1..d18fc1c0f2c 100644
--- a/src/validation.cpp
+++ b/src/validation.cpp
@@ -602,8 +602,8 @@ public:
/**
* Submission of a subpackage.
* If subpackage size == 1, calls AcceptSingleTransaction() with adjusted ATMPArgs to avoid
- * package policy restrictio
...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1634859550)
> It hits in the fuzzing package_eval fuzzing target.

I was able to reproduce this locally.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "[27.1] Finalize"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30222)

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1634885258)
nit:
```suggestion
// 1 parent paying 199sat, 1 child paying 1300sat.
```

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "Introduce Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30200#issuecomment-2160764070)
> > Additionally the template provider needs to wait, to see if there's a new tip, with g_best_block_cv.wait_until. How would I go about moving that into this interface?

Maybe the simplest way to do it would be to have a waitTipChanged() method that just blocks waiting for a new tip, and would be interrupted when the node shuts down or the mining interface is destroyed. If needed, the waiting interface could have more features and accept a timeout or return an object with wait() and cancel()
...

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "[26.x] backports and final changes for 26.2rc1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30260#pullrequestreview-2110469350)
ACK 7ca424f8e651707effe1380aaf72d9ad0e97aa18

👍 theuni approved a pull request: "depends: remove `FORCE_USE_SYSTEM_CLANG`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30201#pullrequestreview-2110480884)
Tested on Ubuntu 22.04 with downloaded llvm 18 binaries in PATH.

ACK 7cbfd7a7ce45ac68d6041f42f468862f5c193d8c

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1634923804)
done, and found one more place with out of date comment

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Cluster size 2 package rbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28984#discussion_r1634923975)
done

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "test: Assumeutxo: import snapshot in a node with a divergent chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29996#issuecomment-2160819048)
> This PR adds tests to cover two scenarios of loading a snapshot when the current chain tip is:
>
> * Not an ancestor of the snapshot block but has less work
>
> * Not an ancestor or a descendant of the snapshot block and has more work
>
> In the second scenario, the snapshot block does not belong to the most-work chain anymore so I believe it covers this scenario too: `TODO: Valid snapshot file and snapshot block, but the block is not on the most-work chain`. Therefore I delet
...

🤔 theuni reviewed a pull request: "build: Bump clang minimum supported version to 16"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30263#pullrequestreview-2110536012)
Concept ACK.

FWIW on Ubuntu 20.04 I'm using pre-compiled binaries from https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-18.1.4 with no issues.

👍 tdb3 approved a pull request: "test: add coverage for errors for `combinerawtransaction`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30264#pullrequestreview-2110589147)
ACK ab98e6fd03970d6b5a593674c84e762a47b90ea6
Thanks for adding coverage. The new asserts look like they fit in nicely with the existing test code. Ran `rpc_transaction` locally (passed).

💬 theuni commented on pull request "doc: add release note for 29091 and 29165":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30261#issuecomment-2160864707)
Wait for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30263 ?

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "test: add coverage for errors for `combinerawtransaction`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30264)

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: add I2P harness":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30230#discussion_r1635006887)
> Where is GetTime() called in i2p?

It's used in `Sock` (e.g. `RecvUntilTerminator`).

💬 theuni commented on pull request "refactor: reserve memory allocation for transaction outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30093#issuecomment-2160956259)
Changes look good. The bench is not really useful though, because it's testing things that aren't in our code.

I believe @josibake was asking for a bench that demonstrates a before/after of `CreateTransactionInternal`. I'm guessing that's not really feasible though, so I think it's enough to use your bench numbers without actually committing it.

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "refactor: reserve memory allocation for transaction outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30093#issuecomment-2160989550)
Moved the benchmark out to https://gist.github.com/paplorinc/812007eef71d5285be0654375ea3e03e

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2160992009)
> I think that could reduce the difficulty by up to a factor of 16 (if you are willing to wait up to eight weeks), but I don’t see how someone needing to manually intervene and most likely still needing an ASIC mitigates the potential liveness issue here.

If someone's attacking testnet with 4x more hashpower than the rest of the network (ie, 80% hash rate), can't they just do a 50% attack and mine empty blocks? If you're trying to run a chain with minority hashpower you need to do something l
...