💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "p2p: cleanup `LookupIntern`, `Lookup` and `LookupHost`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26261#discussion_r1177587552)
Any reason why not just reuse the already looked up service?
```suggestion
const CService service{Lookup("250.3.1.1", 8333, false).value()};
addrman.Add({CAddress(service, NODE_NONE)}, service);
```

💬 furszy commented on pull request "index: Compare deserialized block hash with the block hash from the blockindex":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26390#issuecomment-1523092479)
yeah @kcalvinalvin, please rebase it. Will check it asap.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: clean up logs when there aren't perf subprocesses":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23928#discussion_r1177611645)
Make sense, gonna address it!

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: clean up logs when there aren't perf subprocesses":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23928#issuecomment-1523097707)
Force-pushed addressing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23928#discussion_r1090676878. Thanks @kouloumos for the review.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "mempool: disallow txns under min relay fee, even in packages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933#issuecomment-1523120410)
reACK bf77fc9cb45209b9c560208c65abc94209cd7919

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "qt: 25.0rc2 translations update":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27517#issuecomment-1523149359)
Updated.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "RPC: Accept options as named-only parameters":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26485#issuecomment-1523170523)
ACK eaee226a17546b93245ca1435e4b468c368d9e86

Failing test looks like it was fixed in #27340 already.

🚀 glozow merged a pull request: "mempool: disallow txns under min relay fee, even in packages"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26933)

⚠️ ryanofsky opened an issue: "CI failure "buster-backports InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available""
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27531)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

Not sure if this CI failure would be fixed by a rebase but the failure happens reliably in the merge_base phase of the "[no wallet, libbitcoinkernel] [focal]" the task in #26485 when the task is rerun:

https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6566074339033088

```
Reading package lists...
W: GPG error: http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-backports InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be v
...

💬 aureleoules commented on pull request "wallet: Refactor and document CoinControl":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26066#issuecomment-1523198262)
Rebased

💬 fanquake commented on issue "CI failure "buster-backports InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27531#issuecomment-1523199075)
Think this might be part of #27492?

⚠️ karask opened an issue: "Cannot disable RBF with walletrbf configuration option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27532)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

I am creating a tx using:

$ bitcoin-cli createrawtransaction '''
[{"txid":"7b6412a0eed56338731e83c606f13ebb7a3756b3e4e1dbbe43a7db8d09106e56","vout": 1}]
''' '''{"mtVHHCqCECGwiMbMoZe8ayhJHuTdDbYWdJ": 0.00004}'''
0200000001566e10098ddba743bedbe1e4b356377abb3ef106c6831e733863d5eea012647b0100000000`fdffffff`01a00f0000000000001976a9148e48a6c5108efa
...

💬 furszy commented on issue "Cannot disable RBF with walletrbf configuration option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27532#issuecomment-1523257213)
`createrawtransaction` does not interact with the wallet. Use the `replaceable` arg to enable/disable RBF.
```
createrawtransaction <inputs> <outputs> <locktime> <replaceable>
```

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "CI failure "buster-backports InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27531#issuecomment-1523283058)
Yeah, sorry this is a duplicate. My recommendation for now would be to rebase, if there has been no or only stale review, and ignore the failure for now? My long term hope is that Cirrus fixes the issue. An alternative might be to revert this part of the CI change.

✅ MarcoFalke closed an issue: "CI failure "buster-backports InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available""
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27531)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: clean up logs when there aren't perf subprocesses":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23928#issuecomment-1523287514)
I still think if the user passes `--perf` and perf is not available, the program should fail and tell the user that perf isn't found. Not sure what the point is to silently ignore what the user asked for and add code for a special case that shouldn't exist.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "p2p, rpc: Manual block-relay-only connections with addnode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24170#issuecomment-1523288640)
b36db71 to c13c986: rebased (will address the oustanding review comments soon!)

💬 karask commented on issue "Cannot disable RBF with walletrbf configuration option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27532#issuecomment-1523304198)
Ah, missed that. Thanks!

✅ karask closed an issue: "Cannot disable RBF with walletrbf configuration option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27532)

💬 ryanofsky commented on issue "CI failure "buster-backports InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27531#issuecomment-1523323865)
Thanks. The thing I don't understand is why rebasing fixes the problem when rerunning the task doesn't fix the problem.

This failure doesn't seem to have anything to do with the contents of the PR, so I wouldn't expect pushing a rebased version of the PR to change anything. How is rebasing actually different than rerunning? Does a github push clear some cirrus cache that would otherwise not be cleared? I think I've been confused about this behavior in other contexts so would appreciate any po
...