💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "meta: Isolated fuzzing of net processing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27502#issuecomment-1516620806)
I don't think that #https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27499 is going to increase fuzz performance. Parsing should currently only be done at the beginning once, before any fuzzing happens. Even if parsing were in the hot loop, it probably wouldn't be noticeable. And if you want to construct a PeerManager for each fuzzing iteration, it seems too slow either way, unless you find a way to skip the memory allocations (as you said yourself).

💬 ariard commented on issue "Document CoreDev organization":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27497#issuecomment-1516640923)
Okay, I'll propose a document draft during the coming future to make things more productive. Sorry for the issue tracker usage, unclear where "meta-discussions" should go between the mailing list and here.

💬 dergoegge commented on issue "meta: Isolated fuzzing of net processing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27502#issuecomment-1516641523)
> I don't think that #https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27499 is going to increase fuzz performance.

I think the separation from gArgs makes sense either way, but yea not really a performance improvement. I added the args stuff because I was investigating performance for a target that creates a new TestingSetup each iteration. The argsman setup with all arguments actually was one of the slower things (among block tree db, chainman setup and blockfile creation).

> And if you want to
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "rpc: Add importmempool RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27460#discussion_r1172860400)
Done

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "rpc: Add importmempool RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27460#discussion_r1172860609)
thx, added doc

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Move chain constants to the util library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#issuecomment-1516662993)
> scripted-diff to switch to ChainType::MAIN and args.GetChainType()

I don't think this is feasible, because we have to decide on the type (either calling a helper function for a string or the enum) based on the context, no?

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "p2p: update hardcoded mainnet seeds for 25.x"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27488)

🤔 ryanofsky reviewed a pull request: "RPC: Accept options as named-only parameters"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26485#pullrequestreview-1394502135)
Updated 284173937d156e1c0f291abe0b82274468d242e8 -> eaee226a17546b93245ca1435e4b468c368d9e86 ([`pr/nonly.13`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/nonly.13) -> [`pr/nonly.14`](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/commits/pr/nonly.14), [compare](https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/compare/pr/nonly.13..pr/nonly.14)) making check for duplicate parameter names less strict and adding more test coverage for the check

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "RPC: Accept options as named-only parameters":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26485#discussion_r1172920871)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26485#discussion_r1172071849

> Otherwise a duplicate positional parameter after the `OBJ_NAMED_PARAMS` entry will give an error.

Agree that's not desirable. The reason I wrote it the other way though was that I was trying to prevent the code from allowing two `also_positional = true` parameters from having the same name. I updated the check to just do the right thing in both cases and added test coverage for both.

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "Bump python minimum version to 3.8":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27483#issuecomment-1516742614)
Concept ACK

📝 achow101 opened a pull request: "Bump to 25.99 and remove release note fragments"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27503)
Pre-25.x branch off version bump and release note fragments removal.

The 25.0 draft release notes are in the dev wiki: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/25.0-Release-Notes-Draft

💬 jamesob commented on pull request "Bump python minimum version to 3.8":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27483#issuecomment-1516748540)
It looks like the commit message on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27483/commits/fa762d7f52db9c65df967f9cb22c6be963ce0300 is out of date, which suggests we're swiching from g++-8 to clang, but the contents of the commit suggest we're going to g++-9 instead.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "Switch hardened derivation marker to h (in normalized descriptors and new wallets)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26076#issuecomment-1516830236)
re-ACK bd13dc2f46ea10302a928fcf0f53b7aed77ad260

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: do not backdate locktime if it may lead to fingerprinting":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26902#discussion_r1173003117)
In e979f2ebc8a74474d2bdfee61fd64472e4c4b873 "wallet: do not backdate locktime if it may help wallet fingerprinting"

Each `coin` already has a `depth` member which will be 0 if it is an unconfirmed coin. We can use this instead of having to lookup the parent `CWalletTx`.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: cache IsMine scriptPubKeys to improve performance of descriptor wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26008#issuecomment-1516837867)
> I was looking into how to get rid of the callbacks and avoid duplicating the scriptpubkeys

I added the callback to also allow for other cases where we need to know that the scriptPubKey set has changed, such as with fast rescans with block filters.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "contrib: add tool to convert compact-serialized UTXO set to SQLite database":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27432#issuecomment-1516857024)
> the resulting file has roughly 2x the size of the compact-serialized UTXO set (this is mostly due to encoding txids and scriptpubkeys as hex-strings rather than bytes)

What is the rationale for encoding as text rather than bytes? SQLite can store byte values as BLOBs.

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "Bump to 25.99 and remove release note fragments"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27503#pullrequestreview-1394664513)
ACK 9c24826e7b58722d7b0ddb8f18f985ba6f17b106

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Bump to 25.99 and remove release note fragments"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27503)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Release schedule for 25.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549#issuecomment-1516866543)
25.x has now been branched off: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/25.x.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "addrman: Enable selecting addresses by network"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27214)