💬 maflcko commented on pull request "optimization: Moved repeated `-printpriority` fetching out of AddToBlock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30324#discussion_r1658448718)
NACK on refactoring code that will be removed anyway in the future. The change has no benefit and is causing merge conflicts and hassle down the line.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: De-globalize validation caches":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30141#discussion_r1658468860)
Does this even need to be a fresh random value every time? Couldn't it just be any nothing up my sleeve number?

💬 darosior commented on pull request "descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22838#issuecomment-2196596411)
Will re-review from scratch next week to finally get this over the finish line.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "Wallet: don't underestimate the fees when spending a Taproot output":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26573#issuecomment-2196665299)
Rebased.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: De-globalize validation caches":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30141#issuecomment-2196705221)
Thank you for the reviews @stickies-v and @theuni!

Updated 974934b3c23ce7f34ef46f3dfc13468cd46f4b8a -> 269afa0bf02650067a7507af026165d83678786e ([noGlobalScriptCache_7](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/noGlobalScriptCache_7) -> [noGlobalScriptCache_8](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/noGlobalScriptCache_8), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/noGlobalScriptCache_7..noGlobalScriptCache_8))

* Addressed @theuni's [comment](https://github.com/bitco
...

📝 willcl-ark opened a pull request: "Permit opt-out of finalization during `walletprocesspsbt`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30357)
Fixes: #30077

#28414 added an auto-finalization of PSBTs when callilng `walletprocesspsbt` if we think they're complete, which is generally useful.

However it subverted a check on whether we specifically opted out of finalizing by testing the `finalize` RPC boolean, resulting in a `CHECK_NONFATAL` abort in some situations where it can be avoided. Specifically this might happen (as reported originally) in the case that a `non_witness_utxo` was not provided and a witness signature was invali
...

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "optimization: Moved repeated `-printpriority` fetching out of AddToBlock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30324#discussion_r1658676556)
Makes sense, removed

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "make check errors on big endian OpenBSD 7.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26492#issuecomment-2196820695)
@grubles what's the current status of this issue?

Are you able to test with newer versions of Bitcoin Core, e.g. v27.1 and/or v26.2?

Reading the above, it seems to me like we can probably close this now otherwise.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "net_processing: make any misbehavior trigger immediate discouragement":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29575#discussion_r1658695155)
@sr-gi Do you want to follow-up on this?

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "make check errors on big endian OpenBSD 7.2"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26492)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "make check errors on big endian OpenBSD 7.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26492#issuecomment-2196844812)
Closing for now, due to inactivity

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "kernel: De-globalize validation caches":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30141#issuecomment-2196845660)
re-ACK 475c57ba482abd8675d0d3ccde98452808be5536, addressing outstanding review nits / touchups, no fundamental changes.

💬 grubles commented on issue "make check errors on big endian OpenBSD 7.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26492#issuecomment-2196845849)
Hello, I will give it a try this weekend with the latest OpenBSD since 7.2 is EOL now.

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "make check errors on big endian OpenBSD 7.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26492#issuecomment-2196848131)
Thanks, it would be good to know if it's still a problem.

If it is, we can re-open here (if you comment in here) or open a new issue.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Several randomness improvements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29625#discussion_r1658724899)
That looks very interesting. Going to leave this for a follow-up, as it'll need some benchmarking.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Several randomness improvements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29625#discussion_r1658725627)
Going to leave this as a follow-up (I think making this work with CRTP may mean splitting it up into two concepts).

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Several randomness improvements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29625#discussion_r1658726118)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Several randomness improvements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29625#discussion_r1658726213)
Done.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: remove mempool_persist":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30344#issuecomment-2196906030)
Re-ACK f1478c05458562a9bef5c2ba43959d758e7b4745

> I'll ping you on these in the future to make sure you don't already have them teed up.

No worries, it's nice to see contributions from more developers, and if there is some redundant work every now and then, it just means it was reviewed already :)

🤔 marcofleon reviewed a pull request: "test: Add Compact Block Encoding test `ReceiveWithExtraTransactions` covering non-empty `extra_txn`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30237#pullrequestreview-2148020508)
Code review ACK 55eea003af24169c883e1761beb997e151845225. I ran the `blockencodings` unit test and no issues with the new test case.