✅ achow101 closed an issue: "qa: Intermittent `AssertionError: not(10.00000000 == 340)` in `wallet_assumeutxo.py --descriptors`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31546)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "validation: Send correct notification during snapshot completion"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31556)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: migration, don't create spendable wallet from a watch-only legacy wallet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31423#discussion_r1899757970)
In 788bb48f6712c39995831020dc36297f88c42f71 "wallet: introduce method to return all db created files"

These are created only by BDB.

SQLite makes only `wallet.dat` and `wallet.dat-journal`.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: migration, avoid loading legacy wallet after failure when BDB isn't compiled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31451#issuecomment-2565858913)
ACK 589ed1a8eafe1daed379ebb383602c8f220aef19

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "Assertion pindexPrev && pindexPrev == chainstate.m_chain.Tip() when running regtest"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31562)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "rpc: Extend scope of validation mutex in generateblock"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31563)

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "fuzz: Limit wallet_notifications iterations (take 2)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31467#discussion_r1899761615)
Removing Knapsack is still on my to-do list!

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "validation: Send correct notification during snapshot completion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31556#discussion_r1899762694)
missed this, it could probably be done in a follow-up such as #30455

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: descriptor: fix test for `MaxSatisfactionWeight`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31570)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "rpc: Extend scope of validation mutex in generateblock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31563#issuecomment-2565873162)
Post merge ACK

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Add checkblock RPC and checkBlock() to Mining interface":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31564#issuecomment-2565877701)
Untangled the mess and rebased after #31562.

📝 Sjors opened a pull request: "rpc: add target to getmininginfo and introduce gettarget "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31583)
Extracted from #31564.

There are three ways to represent the proof-of-work in a block:

1. nBits
2. Difficulty
3. Target

The latter notation is useful when you want to compare share work against either the pool target (to get paid) or network difficulty (found an actual block). E.g. for difficulty 1 which corresponds to an nBits value of `0x00ffff`:

```
share hash: f6b973257df982284715b0c7a20640dad709d22b0b1a58f2f88d35886ea5ac45
target: 7fffff000000000000000000000000000000000
...

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "descriptor: remove unreachable verification for `pkh`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31555#issuecomment-2565909356)
crACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/366ae00b779acd59a61719422f0597acb17fb3e0

Checked that `ParseScript()` is never called with `ParseScriptContext::P2WPKH`.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptor: Add proper Clone function to miniscript::Node":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30866#discussion_r1899805412)
Yes, done and deleted the copy constructor.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptor: Add proper Clone function to miniscript::Node":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30866#issuecomment-2565936197)
> I don't think anything in the Bitcoin Core codebase actually needs the `std::shared_ptr` way of storing miniscript subnodes, and `std::unique_ptr` would suffice. The `std::shared_ptr`s were inherited from the miniscript codebase, where the shared_ptrs matter for the policy compiler, but I could understand that Bitcoin Core doesn't want that burden. Using `std::unique_ptr` instead would not leave any chance for shallow duplication.

Indeed, the `std:;shared_ptr` wasn't really needed and I've
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptor: remove unreachable verification for `pkh`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31555#issuecomment-2565938488)
ACK 366ae00b779acd59a61719422f0597acb17fb3e0

💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "Remove unused variable assignment":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31497#issuecomment-2565938730)
Thanks for the reviews.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "descriptor: remove unreachable verification for `pkh`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31555)

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "RPC: Add reserve member function to `UniValue` and use it in `getblock` RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31179#issuecomment-2565964265)
Thanks for taking a look @Eunovo @l0rinc

> could you commit the diff you’ve provided and include the benchmark results in the commit message?

I've added 8d4823b383be4f8cd0152176a4f67b447d29549 For the benchmarks and instead update the PR title with the bench results.

> I ran your benchmarks from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31179#issuecomment-2446067820, but I only see a 7% speedup in the TxVerbosity::SHOW_TXID bench - while the rest were exactly the same as before.

I did
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "RPC: Add reserve member function to `UniValue` and use it in `getblock` RPC":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31179#issuecomment-2565981600)
I can implement my suggestions in separate PRs if you say the RPC speedups would be welcome