💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "Windows bitcoind stall debugging [NOMERGE, DRAFT]":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30956#issuecomment-2443920476)
Alright, our time is finite and hopefully `CryptGenRandom` should be enough for now. Closing.

👍 rkrux approved a pull request: "test: Don't enforce BIP94 on regtest unless specified by arg"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31156#pullrequestreview-2401473616)
tACK e60cecc8115d3b28be076792baa5e4ea26d353a6

Successful make and functional tests. Agree with the approach to enable BIP94 on regtest through the test argument.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "test: Don't enforce BIP94 on regtest unless specified by arg":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31156#discussion_r1820557540)
Worth creating a directory `doc/release-notes-prs` and putting it there?
I see there's a `release-notes` directory that contains notes for the releases.

💬 naumenkogs commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#discussion_r1820609170)
Yeah i agree, was confused initially. Please resolve.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: cover base32/base58/base64 with symmetric roundtrip fuzz (and padding) tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30746#discussion_r1820658956)
However, as the file is taken from upstream, I wonder how much it should be modified at all.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: cover base32/base58/base64 with symmetric roundtrip fuzz (and padding) tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30746#discussion_r1820669760)
hmmm, I'll check it out, I wasn't aware that's how this works (fuzzing is currently completely broken for me locally), but this sounds like a huge blind-spot for fuzzing - like you said, we should investigate, false confidence in this area is dangerous.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "contrib: skip missing binaries in gen-manpages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30986#issuecomment-2444030316)
I wonder if a better approach here would be to further integrate the manpage generation into the build system; given that the two issues of "which binaries exist" and "where do they exist" are already solved in that case. This should also remove the dep on `git`.

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "Remove mempoolfullrbf"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30592#pullrequestreview-2401632616)
re-ACK 806ecd6958e4c0fe2a51bee04e20e0dca515bd40

Documentation changes to address review comments, and further functional test cleanups.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Remove mempoolfullrbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30592#discussion_r1820661404)
Ah, I see. We don't mention BIP125 until further down the document, so I don't think (most) readers are expecting that symmetry here, so I still think it'd least awkward to just remove the item entirely (and renumbering the following items).

We're in bikeshed territory, so I'll stop commenting on it further.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "Remove mempoolfullrbf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30592#discussion_r1820658233)
This list enumerates "BIPs that are implemented by Bitcoin Core". Adding one that isn't implemented seems confusing. I'd just remove the line entirely, we already reference BIP125 in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/da10e0bab4a3e98868dd663af02c43b1dc8b7f4a/doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md?plain=1#L62

If you're worried about discoverability, adding the hyperlink there could be an alternative:

<details>
<summary>git diff on 806ecd6958</summary>

```diff
diff --git a/doc/policy/m
...

💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#issuecomment-2444038494)
Fuzzed the two targets for about 250 cpu hours each. Coverage looks good.
[txdownloadman](https://marcofleon.github.io/coverage/txdownloadman/)
[txdownloadman_impl](https://marcofleon.github.io/coverage/txdownloadmanimpl/)

Finally, the children hanging out in the recent reject filter are quiet 😌

I'll look to run the one honest peer test as well once it's ready.

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "[POC] ci: Test cross-built Windows executables on Windows natively"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31176)
Resolves https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31071.

Things left to do:
- introduce caching
- build and test GUI
- run functional tests

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "build: increase minimum supported Windows to 10.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31172#issuecomment-2444057243)
Concept ACK

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-market-share/windows/desktop/worldwide

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[POC] ci: Test cross-built Windows executables on Windows natively":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31176#issuecomment-2444060142)
@achow101 @fanquake

This PR needs the `actions/download-artifact@*` and `actions/upload-artifact@*` actions to be allowed in the repository Settings - General - Actions - General.

📝 polespinasa opened a pull request: "rpc, cli: return "verificationprogress" of 1 when up to date"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31177)
```getblockchaininfo``` never reaches 1.0 as reported in issue https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31127.
This PR is based on the reviews given on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31135.

Some calls to the function ```GuessVerificationProgress``` remain unchanged pending comments on this proposal.

💬 polespinasa commented on pull request "rpc, cli: return "verificationprogress" of 1 when up to date":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31135#issuecomment-2444063183)
Hi, I tried to go with a proposal on this based on the comments given here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31177

📝 polespinasa converted_to_draft a pull request: "rpc, cli: return "verificationprogress" of 1 when up to date"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31177)
```getblockchaininfo``` never reaches 1.0 as reported in issue https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31127.
This PR is based on the reviews given on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31135.

Some calls to the function ```GuessVerificationProgress``` remain unchanged pending comments on this proposal.

👍 tdb3 approved a pull request: "bench: add support for custom data directory"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31000#pullrequestreview-2401711134)
ACK ebdace5aaf74626da83eeee1f966acaad3ed0c35

Light code review and tested.

```
$ build/src/bench/bench_bitcoin -testdatadir=/mnt/31000/
...
$ ls /mnt/31000/test_common\ bitcoin/
AssembleBlock LoadExternalBlockFile ReadBlockFromDiskTest WalletCreateEncrypted
BlockAssemblerAddPackageTxns LogWithDebug ReadRawBlockFromDiskTest WalletCreatePlain
BlockFilterIndexSync LogWithThreadNames RpcMempool WalletCreateTxUseOnlyPresetInputs
...

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "bench: add support for custom data directory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31000#discussion_r1820702143)
nit: for awareness, may want to mention in OP that this changes directory names from 256-bit randoms to 32-bit randoms. I'm not seeing an issue with it (virtually non-existent likelihood of collision).

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: increase minimum supported Windows to 10.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31172#issuecomment-2444103245)
> > > The cross-compiled on Ubuntu 24.10 bitcoind.exe fails to run on Windows 11 Pro 23H2.
> >
> >
> > Can you provide some actionable information? The CI and cross-compiled unit tests have run & passed.
>
> The only difference from CI is that I run `bitcoind.exe` on Windows, not under Wine.

> This seems like even more reason to do #31071.

This branch @ 7dd0ee89a092c6ec4e305fbdb0cf3afa9e41cab6 rebased on top of the https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31176 fails to run `bitcoin
...