💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "rpc: Remove submitblock pre-checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31175#discussion_r1833458457)
Sorry, fixed. Makes me even less certain on keeping the coinbase error around. I'll sleep on it.

📝 threewebcode opened a pull request: "fix: recitfy typos"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31253)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

💬 NicolasDorier commented on pull request "wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29675#issuecomment-2463719253)
Given BIP373 doesn't have test vectors, it would be very useful that either this PR or the BIP include some hard coded PSBT examples to ensure every implementations are on the same page.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "fuzz: fix bad alloc in connman target":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31235#discussion_r1833763202)
I am fine either way and slightly prefer the softer approach of capping it to 100 instead of asserting that it is <=100. There was a discussion some time ago about crashing the program way too easily and reserving the assert/crash only for cases where the continuation of the program really does not make sense. I kind of agree with that.

Yes, `Assume()` is some middle ground between `assert()` and the softer approach. `Assume()` + cap in release builds looks reasonable to me too. Plus document
...

👍 rkrux approved a pull request: "Update manpage descriptions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29686#pullrequestreview-2422844752)
tACK 47f50c7af5572520fd986b313a63a44a76d3c859

Successful make and functional tests. Certainly an improvement for all the executables we have. I generated the man pages for all 6 of them and verified the contents using `man ./doc/man/<executable-name>.1`. Also, compiled and ran the GUI & checked the help section over there. PFB the screenshots from my setup.

<img width="789" alt="Screenshot 2024-11-08 at 12 22 09 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0db4fa0c-5be0-4f70-b7ca-68
...

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "Update manpage descriptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29686#issuecomment-2463916912)
@willcl-ark I just realised it would be great to commit the newly generated man pages here? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/doc/man

There are already outdated man pages in that directory, might as well update them now.

⚠️ thonypony opened an issue: "Proposal: Implement HD Address Generation Mechanism for Outgoing Transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31254)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

HD addressing is just a system for generating new addresses from a single seed. Currently, it automatically generates new addresses only for incoming transactions.

Suggestion/Question: Why not implement the same simple system of generating new addresses from a single seed for outgoing transactions? This could enhance privacy by automatically using a new sending address for each outgoing transaction, similar to how new receiving addres
...

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "Proposal: Implement HD Address Generation Mechanism for Outgoing Transactions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31254)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Proposal: Implement HD Address Generation Mechanism for Outgoing Transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31254#issuecomment-2463936815)
It is not possible to change a given prevout's output script.

Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base.

General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or one of the Bitcoin subreddits, or any other place that you feel is well suited.

Network-wide consensus and/or P2P changes first need to be discusse
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "fix: recitfy typos":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31253#issuecomment-2463948524)
Please squash your commits according to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#squashing-commits

💬 i-am-yuvi commented on pull request "net, init: derive default onion port if a user specified a -port":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31223#issuecomment-2463949135)
Concept ACK

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "refactor: mining interface 30955 followups"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31197#pullrequestreview-2423018734)
ACK 058862581085316927287817b2af01e8f4765a1d

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: mining interface 30955 followups":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31197#discussion_r1833905820)
Nit: Since this is a style fix in the first place already, could also put the bracket on a new line to make clang-format happy.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#issuecomment-2464213134)
`ec7693a9aa...f5fc9451aa`: rebase and drop the commits that were already merged via https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29420

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Update manpage descriptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29686#issuecomment-2464221449)
> I just realised it would be great to commit the newly generated man pages here? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/doc/man
>
> There are already outdated man pages in that directory, might as well update them now.

I don't understand. How are the placeholders outdated and how should they be updated?

👍 maflcko approved a pull request: "Update manpage descriptions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29686#pullrequestreview-2423171386)
ACK 47f50c7af5572520fd986b313a63a44a76d3c859 📠

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

```
untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: ACK 47f50c7af5572520fd986b313a
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Update manpage descriptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29686#discussion_r1833996135)
nit: Why remove testnet4? Makes sense to not duplicate everything here, but leaving the others seems inconsistent. I'd suggest to just say: "..., or the (test)chain selection arguments.\n"

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1834004515)
Marking this as resolved, feel free to comment if you have concerns with the "maximum lifetime" solution.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "rpc: Remove submitblock pre-checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31175#issuecomment-2464228255)
Updated b83d509d59dde352054cccf792d28bb87835e64f -> 309bd56d97f87f973f45897fc00b1bd2fc5cff1a ([submitblock_prechecks_1](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/submitblock_prechecks_1) -> [submitblock_prechecks_2](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/submitblock_prechecks_2), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/submitblock_prechecks_1..submitblock_prechecks_2))


* Removed throw on missing coinbase in `submitblock`.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Broadcast own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29415#discussion_r1834010212)
Marking this as resolved because I removed the requirement to set `-walletbroadcast=0` and extended the `-privatebroadcast` doc.

> My understanding was that anything done via the wallet would work as usual, but that transactions sent via sendrawtransaction would use the private broadcast mechanism if set

Yes, this is exactly how it works now.