🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "[27.x] Even more backports"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30558#pullrequestreview-2254624031)
code review ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/885c4b7bc65c294b4b2fac91392d23a37a1f6485 but 8932090f9ecd933c86ee7800c0858e8d1c0bd40b is missing backport metadata in the commit message.

I verified that all backport commits are clean, except:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/8932090f9ecd933c86ee7800c0858e8d1c0bd40b backported from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/590456e3f1043ba0680e0afec9fd7653db1098bb: merge conflicts from 539404fe0f and 8950053636 which have b
...

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "Fix maybe-uninitialized warning in IsSpentKey"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30691)

👍 ryanofsky approved a pull request: "test: [refactor] Use m_rng directly"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30571#pullrequestreview-2254625428)
Code review ACK 38b03bc3af9fbf483b5a29a54a5ffb36c67b6b41. Just another random seed bug in the prevector tests fixed since last review!

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "test: [refactor] Use m_rng directly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30571#discussion_r1727126557)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30571#discussion_r1725758066

> Starting with commit https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/fae43a97ca947cd0802392e9bb86d9d0572c0fba, the seed is static const per process

Wow, I didn't notice `ctx_seed` was statically caching a random value before this so I've been misunderstanding what the `SeedRandomForTest` function has been doing the whole time. I think this could be made clearer by:

- Renaming `SeedRand::SEED` to `SeedRand::FIXED_SEED`
...

📝 virtu opened a pull request: "WIP: seeds: Add additional seed source and bump uptime requirements for Onion and I2P nodes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30695)
This builds on #30008 and adds data [exported](https://github.com/virtu/seed-exporter) by [my crawler](https://github.com/virtu/p2p-crawler) an additional source for seed nodes. Data covers all supported network types.

### To dos
- [ ] Remove manual nodes
- [ ] Remove WIP label and rebase once #30008 gets merged

### Motivation
- Further decentralizes the seed node selection process (in the long term potentially enabling an _n_-source threshold for nodes to prevent a single source from e
...

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "kernel: pre-28.x chainparams and headerssync update"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30658#pullrequestreview-2254691819)
ACK 221809b81cfcecb04050915eebacffda2599da42

Checked chain params against my nodes (all except testnet3, I just sanity checked that against a block explorer). Checked I get the same headerssync params.

💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#discussion_r1727193200)
Fixed

⚠️ hodlinator opened an issue: "Unit test failures when using multiple jobs and RANDOM_CTX_SEED"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30696)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

While testing #30571 using:
```
RANDOM_CTX_SEED=1 make -j16 check
```
...I discovered that 97e16f57042cab07e5e73f6bed19feec2006e4f7 from #29625 leads to test failures within the first 10 seconds in **blockfilter_index_tests/blockfilter_index_initial_sync**, **argsman_tests/util_datadir** or **addrman_tests** (probably more).

Running without the environment variable, or single-thread
...

💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#discussion_r1727194205)
Done. Thanks!

💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#discussion_r1727195499)
Fixed

💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#discussion_r1727195864)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "[WIP] seeds: Add additional seed source and bump uptime requirements for Onion and I2P nodes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30695#discussion_r1727198083)
This will overwrite instead of append.

💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#discussion_r1727198919)
Done

💬 alfonsoromanz commented on pull request "test: assumeutxo: add missing tests in wallet_assumeutxo.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30455#discussion_r1727199409)
Done. Thanks!

💬 Sjors commented on issue "release: ship codesigned MacOS arm64 binaries":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29749#issuecomment-2304877723)
Getting some feedback from the Stratum v2 folks that it would be useful to have codesigned macOS `bitcoind` and `bitcoin-cli`, both for integration tests and to make workshops easier.

📝 ismaelsadeeq opened a pull request: "Wallet, Bugfix: Lock Wallet Context `cs` Before Adding/Removing Settings"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30697)
This PR fixes #30620.

As described in the issue:
"Creating two wallets with `load_on_startup=true` simultaneously results in only one of the wallets being added to the startup file."

This issue is most likely because the wallet does not lock any mutex before modifying the wallet settings, leading to a race condition when multiple threads call `AddWalletSetting` or `RemoveWalletSetting`.
This can be fixed by locking the wallet context `cs` in both `AddWalletSetting` and `RemoveWalletSetti
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1727240719)
No. I just had to google this magic number and felt slightly rickrolled

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1727243654)
this fails if we have a package to validate...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1727249636)
ohhh i get it now. i thought you found a crash and were giving a cryptic description of the input

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#issuecomment-2304916648)
`3yTMzMzMzMzMzMzMzMw2lcV+LVVYVVX//y1maZY/xcWVxX5VWFVVVVUlugr///8tZmlVCg==`

if you add `TX_RECONSIDERABLE,` to the end of `TESTED_TX_RESULTS`, this should crash because it found a package to try