💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1825848831)
My guess is that previous implementation had a different validation ordering and was causing the case to fail in an unexpected way. Removed.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1825848907)
fixed

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1825848958)
fixed

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1825848991)
done

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Dust":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#discussion_r1825849053)
taken

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1825864282)
I think if you created a changeset and immediately invoked `CalculateChunksForRBF()`, then this would be size 0 right? Does anything here break if it is size 0? (It looks ok to me, not sure if I'm missing something.)

💬 ryanofsky commented on issue "Mining Interface doesn't allow for Bitcoin Core to create blocks when it wants":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31109#issuecomment-2451942362)
Yep, the idea is to drop `waitFeesChanges()`.

Thinking about this more, though, I think a better design that would be simpler for clients and the node implementation would not be to add waiting options to the `Mining::createNewBlock()` method, but to add a new `BlockTemplate::waitNext()` method which waits until a better block than the current one can be generated, and then returns a `std::unique_ptr<BlockTemplate>` pointing to the new block.

This would be simpler for clients because they
...

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1825867815)
Should be better now, I think -- now I'm introducing the ancestor caching inside of `CalculateMemPoolAncestors` into the same commit that introduces using the cached value in Apply().

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1825868624)
Added an `Assume()` for it.

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1825868980)
No idea! Gone now.

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1825869389)
Fixed.

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1825869528)
Moved.

📝 brunoerg opened a pull request: "fuzz: fix `implicit-integer-sign-change` in wallet_create_transaction"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31203)
This PR limites the value of `m_confirm_target` to avoid `implicit-integer-sign-change`:
```
/ci_container_base/src/wallet/fees.cpp:58:58: runtime error: implicit conversion from type 'unsigned int' of value 4294967292 (32-bit, unsigned) to type 'int' changed the value to -4 (32-bit, signed)
#0 0x55b6fd26c021 in wallet::GetMinimumFeeRate(wallet::CWallet const&, wallet::CCoinControl const&, FeeCalculation*) ci/scratch/build-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src/wallet/./src/wallet/fees.cpp:58:58
#
...

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1825869661)
Reworded.

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1825870218)
Tried to remove all instances of setMemPoolParents and setMemPoolChildren from code comments.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: fix `implicit-integer-sign-change` in wallet_create_transaction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31203#issuecomment-2451947424)
cc: @maflcko

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1825871071)
This was a good suggestion, thanks -- with the introduction of changesets, we can make `RemoveStaged()` a private method now, and so I updated the commit message to explain that the public removal methods may not be invoked while a changeset is outstanding.

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1825871365)
Gone thanks

💬 sdaftuar commented on pull request "cluster mempool: Implement changeset interface for mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31122#discussion_r1825871510)
Done

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "ci: Do not error on unused-member-function in test each commit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31187#issuecomment-2451951381)
> Can you add a dummy commit to trigger the CI, so that the flag difference can be seen, and to confirm that there are no unwanted interactions?

Done, will drop + force-push once CI runs