🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "log: expand BCLog::LogFlags (categories) to 64 bits"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26619)

✅ LarryRuane closed a pull request: "logging: use bitset for categories"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26697)

💬 LarryRuane commented on pull request "logging: use bitset for categories":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26697#issuecomment-2327395797)
Closing because #26619 (an alternative to this PR) has merged. We could make this active again because it is arguably cleaner and nicer, but the immediate need to increase the number of logging categories no longer exists.

👍 instagibbs approved a pull request: "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#pullrequestreview-2278214287)
reACK 1d4e33e7f88162cf6fcd6aee0b63973015853591

didn't run the new fuzz test iteration though it seems reasonable to me

via `git range-diff master 2b387a156a1021ad782dc4de2fd34d5b5b81698a 1d4e33e7f88162cf6fcd6aee0b63973015853591`

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1742665719)
this comment is outdated, as TX_REAL now means really whatever the node getdata'd

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Minor build system fixes and amendments":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30803#discussion_r1742669417)
I think we should just remove any dates entirely.

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: add check that too large txs aren't put into orphanage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30784#issuecomment-2327406051)
@glozow:

> Concept ACK, but this should be a unit test, not a functional test looking for logs. We could accidentally delete the `return false;` line but keep the `LogPrint` line, and this test would pass.
>
> > so this is only relevant if tx standardness rules are disabled via -acceptnonstdtxns=1.
>
> Similarly, it's a bit icky to have to disable standardness checks to test this.

Agree! For some reason I haven't even considered doing this as a unit test, but it makes much more sens
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: add getorphantxs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30793#issuecomment-2327411398)
this PR might be a good time to enhance `test/functional/p2p_orphan_handling.py`, reducing our reliance on log messages at least

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "test: add check that too large txs aren't put into orphanage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30784#pullrequestreview-2278486931)
ACK 66d13c870284327abc89d36c0b5cc5f58e96f570

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "http: set TCP_NODELAY when creating HTTP server":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30675#issuecomment-2327442239)
ACK 03d49d0f25ab5660524d5ddd171de677a808b984

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "http: set TCP_NODELAY when creating HTTP server"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30675)

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "test: support std::optional in BOOST_CHECK_* and increase FromUserHex fuzz feature coverage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30618#discussion_r1742776951)
`@{` is [Doxygen grouping syntax](https://www.doxygen.nl/manual/grouping.html). I was trying to make it work properly in generated documentation using `@name` but the `namespace std` parts were always being extracted, so opted for vanilla comment style.

💬 denavila commented on pull request "Deniability - a tool to automatically improve coin ownership privacy":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/733#issuecomment-2327557888)
Yes, it looks like recursive functions were disallowed recently.
I'll rework the code to not use recursion.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Add Signet and testnet4 launch shortcuts for Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26334#issuecomment-2327566780)
ACK cfd03de965a081facbd72316c76603dd7aa511bd

Did not test, but the code matches the pattern used for the other networks.

💬 justinvforvendetta commented on issue "build: Boost 1.74.0 incompatible with Clang 18":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30751#issuecomment-2327567895)
can confirm this issue exists with boost 1.76 under same environment.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "test: support std::optional in BOOST_CHECK_* and increase FromUserHex fuzz feature coverage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30618#discussion_r1742786068)
Was under the impression that Git had some smarts when it came to moving lines around, but at least naive `git blame` usage shows your name & commit on all the moved lines in the **.cpp**. It's straightforward code (going back in history is less necessary), and I understand your attempt to mirror the ordering from the **.h** file.

I think the ordering I pushed for in the **.h** file should stay either way, but maybe go with the more conservative approach in the **.cpp** as a compromise.

👍 tdb3 approved a pull request: "test: add check that too large txs aren't put into orphanage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30784#pullrequestreview-2278662281)
re-ACK 66d13c870284327abc89d36c0b5cc5f58e96f570

Nice unit test addition.

💬 russeree commented on issue "Testnet4 consensus failure due to timewarp related "softfork"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2327623322)
> Anyone have an asic to reorg that?

Hash on the way!

📝 furszy opened a pull request: "Fix peers abruptly disconnecting from AssumeUTXO nodes during IBD"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30807)
Context:
AssumeUTXO nodes prioritize tip synchronization first, meaning they advertise
knowledge of all blocks posterior to the snapshot base block hash. This, in
conjunction with the current protocol behavior where nodes request blocks
from peers that directly advertise them or their descendants, causes honest
peers trying to synchronize historical blocks from AssumeUTXO nodes to
forcibly disconnect, after stalling for ~10 minutes, due to a `getdata` lack
of response while the AssumeUTXO
...

💬 hashbender commented on issue "Testnet4 consensus failure due to timewarp related "softfork"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30786#issuecomment-2327647103)
You have my hashpower 🫡