✅ achow101 closed an issue: "assumeutxo: nTx and nChainTx in RPC results are off"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29328)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "rpc: Avoid getchaintxstats invalid results"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29720)

💬 Roasbeef commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#discussion_r1663344523)
> It's not clear to me why that is a problem though.

It gives those involved in the creation of the new parameters months of mining before the "public", which will skew the distribution of new testnet coins. If those that mined the chain for months before public release aren't also running faucets to easily disseminate the coins, then we end up in the same position where testnet coins are hard to obtain by developers.

🤔 tdb3 reviewed a pull request: "rename TransactionErrors: MISSING_INPUTS and ALREADY_IN_CHAIN"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30212#pullrequestreview-2155193780)
Approach ACK
Good work increasing clarity. In the past I've had a head-scratching moment with some of these before I learned the nuances, so this should help people.

Left a comment about release notes.

Tested:
- Ran unit/functional tests locally (passed)
- Manually exercised the following scenario (regtest):
- Created a transaction (and broadcasted).
- Generated one block to confirm.
- Attempted to call `sendrawtransaction` with the newly confirmed transaction.
- Receiv
...

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "rename TransactionErrors: MISSING_INPUTS and ALREADY_IN_CHAIN":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30212#discussion_r1663380344)
Although it's only the error message (and the number stays the same), I still think its appropriate add a release note for the change to the user.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/developer-notes.md#release-notes
> Release notes should be written for any PR that:
> ...
> makes any other visible change to the end-user experience.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "kernel: De-globalize validation caches":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30141#discussion_r1663407636)
Thank you for catching this!

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "RFC: Instanced logs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30338#issuecomment-2205008738)
> Thanks AJ, it's great to get specific and find out what actual problems you are concerned about,

What I'm concerned about is making logging unnecessarily complicated to use -- it should be easy to use, and it should be easy to understand what's going on without needing any context from the rest of the module where the logging is happening, or from debates about how logging should work.

You asked about specific problems this change could cause; and I'm happy to give examples, but they'r
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "fuzz: Mutate -max_len= during generation phase":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30371#issuecomment-2205252653)
Re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30371#issue-2384114654

> Locally, I can find the bug with -max_len=84 -use_value_profile=1 on a single thread on a laptop.

I've been running this for a day and did not find the crash. How long was this running for?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: Mutate -max_len= during generation phase":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30371#issuecomment-2205271688)
16kk iterations; N=1. Again, I guess my Laptop just got extremely lucky.

📝 maflcko converted_to_draft a pull request: "fuzz: Mutate -max_len= during generation phase"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30371)
This revives https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28178#issuecomment-1927243781, because it helps to find https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30367, which failed to be found for more than a year on any of the existing fuzz servers.

Locally, I can find the bug with `-max_len=84 -use_value_profile=1` on a single thread on a laptop. The reason is likely that a smaller max_len results in a faster fuzzing speed (iterations). As a side-effect it may also be effective at reducing the size o
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fuzz: Mutate -max_len= during generation phase":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30371#issuecomment-2205276132)
Turning into draft for now, to allow for more time to benchmark and evaluate this.

🤔 maflcko reviewed a pull request: "assumeutxo: Check snapshot base block is not in invalid chain"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30267#pullrequestreview-2155603386)
post-merge lgtm. Left some nits

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Check snapshot base block is not in invalid chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30267#discussion_r1663611194)
What is the point of translating this message when the translation is discarded? Seems wasteful of translator's time, no?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Check snapshot base block is not in invalid chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30267#discussion_r1663631973)
It is not possible to pass a raw c-string pointer to transifex for translation. Only string literals can be translated.

I guess it could make sense to mark `_(const char*)` as `consteval` to catch those issues at compile time?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Check snapshot base block is not in invalid chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30267#discussion_r1663647981)
Is the trailing newline needed? This would be the first `JSONRPCError` with a trailing newline.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Check snapshot base block is not in invalid chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30267#discussion_r1663637823)
Also, this commit is not a "refactor", because it changes logging and RPC error strings slightly.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Check snapshot base block is not in invalid chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30267#discussion_r1663666751)
I think the path is transformed to an absolute one, so the string representation may be different from the one passed in by the user.

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "Use C++20 consteval to verify translation strings"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30379)
It is possible to write `_(str_ptr)`, which is wrong, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30267#discussion_r1663631973.

I am not familiar with the translation build system integration, but it would be good to effectively change the signature of `_` from `auto _(const char*)` to `consteval auto _(const char*)`.

My understanding is that this would catch this error at compile time, saving review effort and follow-up fixup changes.

Assumed compiler error message:

```
error: the
...

📝 willcl-ark opened a pull request: "Ignore files ignored by git in the Markdown Link Checker lint"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30380)
Updating to MLC v0.18.0 includes a new feature which will ignore all files ignored by git: `mlc --gitignore`.

This helps avoid false-positives flagged by this linter in non-project files, such as a developer might expect to have in their working directory (e.g. guix-builds, python venvs, etc.)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Ignore files ignored by git in the Markdown Link Checker lint":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30380#issuecomment-2205498290)
The `lint` suffix in the title should be a prefix :sweat_smile:

lgtm otherwise