💬 benthecarman commented on pull request "Allow configuring target block time for a signet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27446#discussion_r1164527141)
added

💬 earuak commented on pull request "doc: remove incorrect line from example":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27454#issuecomment-1505774463)
My suggestion would be to revise the example and remove the offending line to avoid confusion for users. Perhaps you could add a brief explanation about the automatic presence of entries when using **walletcreatefundedpsbt** to help clarify this for users. Something like:

"Note that when using **walletcreatefundedpsbt**, entries are automatically included in the transaction and do not need to be specified separately."

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Export a watch wallet only (with descriptors and without private keys) for an air gap setup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24829#issuecomment-1505778435)
Ok I just pulled v24.0.1 and repeated steps with CLI and GUI, same outcome -- are you still unable to do this?

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "Fix logging RPC and -debugexclude with 0/none values, add test coverage, improve docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#discussion_r1164530898)
Good question. Both of the `EnableOrDisableLogCategories()` functions are created in this PR. They are doing pretty much the same thing, but are not trivially combinable into one function (maybe for a follow-up). If one is changed, it's likely that both should be (maybe a comment to that effect should be added to them), so I named them the same in order that searching/git grepping returns both. That, along with how extracting that function simplifies `SetLoggingCategories` to highlight that bot
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "Fix logging RPC and -debugexclude with 0/none values, add test coverage, improve docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27231#discussion_r1164533054)
Cool, just to be clear I meant combining this `EnableOrDisableLogCategories()` into ` SetLoggingCategories()` and then you only have one named `EnableOrDisableLogCategories()` in the code over in node.cpp

> That, along with how extracting that function simplifies SetLoggingCategories to highlight that both options are being plugged into the same code, were the motivations.

okie doke 👍

⚠️ Bandarfaqih opened an issue: "Enhancing Bitcoin Privacy Protocol Bip Proposal"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

This BIP proposes the direct implementation of several privacy and anonymity-enhancing features in the Bitcoin protocol, including CoinJoin, zk-SNARKs, ring signatures, and stealth addresses directly into the Bitcoin protocol. These features were envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto and other contributors as essential tools for preserving user privacy on the network.

Motivation

Bitcoin's and Bitcoin current level of privacy and anonymity
...

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Enhancing Bitcoin Privacy Protocol Bip Proposal":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455#issuecomment-1505791472)
Thanks. However as I said last time you posted this. This is not the right place to post this.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Enhancing Bitcoin Privacy Protocol Bip Proposal"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455)

💬 Bandarfaqih commented on issue "Enhancing Bitcoin Privacy Protocol Bip Proposal":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455#issuecomment-1505791936)
I have discussed this with the BITCOIN development team and they were welcoming the idea but incentive me to do a discussion feature here in the BTC community before further implementation to have a more mature final consensus proposal for the development and processing of the BIP therefore everyone is welcome to discuss further technical implementation and thoughts.

⚠️ Bandarfaqih opened an issue: "Thanks. However as I said last time you posted this. This is not the right place to post this."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27456)
Thanks. However as I said last time you posted this. This is not the right place to post this.

_Originally posted by @fanquake in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455#issuecomment-1505791472_

I have discussed this with the BITCOIN development team and they were welcoming the idea but incentive me to do a discussion feature here in the BTC community before further implementation to have a more mature proposal for the development and processing of the BIP therefore
...

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "Thanks. However as I said last time you posted this. This is not the right place to post this."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27456)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Thanks. However as I said last time you posted this. This is not the right place to post this."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27456)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Enhancing Bitcoin Privacy Protocol Bip Proposal"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27455)

💬 Tracachang commented on issue "Export a watch wallet only (with descriptors and without private keys) for an air gap setup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24829#issuecomment-1505803844)
> Ok I just pulled v24.0.1 and repeated steps with CLI and GUI, same outcome -- are you still unable to do this?

Just tried again following this commands and I am still unable to see taproot in GUI

```
$ bitcoin-cli createwallet original
{
"name": "original",
"warning": ""
}

$ bitcoin-cli -rpcwallet=original listdescriptors | jq .descriptors -c >> ~/Desktop/watchonly.json
$ bitcoin-cli -named createwallet wallet_name=watchonly disable_private_keys=true
{
"name": "watchonly
...

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "validation: implement MaybeInvalidateFork() and call from rpc getchaintips":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27434#issuecomment-1505813377)
Since I'm already here, I added a commit that fixes the incorrect usage of the term "orphan blocks" in rpc `getchaintips` code

cc: @MarcoFalke (fa0dfdf447d5b84a1849dc823d8508463600136a) and @mrbandrews (87049e832d97d4f2808c0b479b21fc7b16c86934)

💬 benthecarman commented on pull request "Allow configuring target block time for a signet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27446#issuecomment-1505813908)
If anyone is interested in testing, I am running this for a custom signet.

```
[signet]
signetchallenge=512102f7561d208dd9ae99bf497273e16f389bdbd6c4742ddb8e6b216e64fa2928ad8f51ae
signetblocktime=30
addnode=45.79.52.207:38333
dnsseed=0
```

Block explorer: https://mutinynet.com
faucet: https://faucet.mutinynet.com

There is also a rapid gossip sync server and some lightning nodes as well

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Export a watch wallet only (with descriptors and without private keys) for an air gap setup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24829#issuecomment-1505817580)
> Just tried again following this commands and I am still unable to see taproot in GUI

at all? or just in the watch-only wallet?

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1164567117)
Is there a reason for this restriction?

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21283#discussion_r1164574104)
IIRC updating this RPC would require pretty significant changes to it that felt out of scope for this PR. I've left it as something to do in a followup in order to keep the scope of the PR limited to just the bare minimum to work with PSBTv2.

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "Write instructions on offline signing.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9492#issuecomment-1505838532)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/external-signer.md was added by @Sjors over 2 years ago. I also found some good answers about `signrawtransaction` on stack exchange. There is also https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/psbt.md which is about as old. I think PSBT was added to Bitcoin after this issue was opened and although the guides are more geared to multisig, they cover a lot.

@adamjonas do you think those docs are good enough to close this issue? Otherwise I
...