✅ jamesob closed a pull request: "assumeutxo"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15606)

⚠️ brandonpille opened an issue: "rpc: Allow importing wallets by data instead of by filename"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27597)
### Please describe the feature you'd like to see added.

Right now we can only import wallets by filename. This means you can only execute that rpc if you are executing it from the system where the bitcoin node is running. But it could be that you are sending the rpc request from outside the node. In that case you don't have access to the file system. So it would be handy to allow passing the content of a wallet dump file instead and also allowing dumping the content not in a file but in the rp
...

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor (tidy): Fixes after enable-debug configure":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27353#issuecomment-1538539627)
I'll drop the commit. Could this be related to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27586 and solve some of the performance issues?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "rpc: distinguish between vsize and sigop-adjusted mempool vsize":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27591#discussion_r1187505606)
I would call this `adjusted_vsize`. Or `vvsize` :-P

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "bench: Add `-sha-implementation` command-line option"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27598)
On the master branch, only the best available `SHA256` implementation is being benchmarked. This PR allows to benchmark different ones.

For example,
```
./src/bench/bench_bitcoin -filter=SHA256.* -sha-implementation=standard
./src/bench/bench_bitcoin -filter=SHA256.* -sha-implementation=sse4
./src/bench/bench_bitcoin -filter=SHA256.* -sha-implementation=sse4,avx2
./src/bench/bench_bitcoin -filter=SHA256.* -sha-implementation=all
```

Found it useful, while working on https://github.c
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "bench: Add `-sha-implementation` command-line option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27598#issuecomment-1538554964)
What about benchmarking all that are available on the system?

💬 Sjors commented on issue "rpc: show P2(W)SH redeemScript in getrawtransaction (and friends)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27391#issuecomment-1538555679)
I think adding fields is fine, unless determining their values is slow for some reason.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "bench: Add `-sha-implementation` command-line option":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27598#issuecomment-1538558986)
> What about benchmarking all that are available on the system?

You mean, as separated benchmarks? Without `-sha-implementation` option?

👍 furszy approved a pull request: "Implement Mini version of BlockAssembler to calculate mining scores"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27021#pullrequestreview-1417018318)
ACK 6b605b91 modulo `miniminer_overlap` test.

Not really blocking, I'm planning to go deeper later. And probably add some explanatory comments and code simplifications.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1187582119)
Done

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1187582254)
Done

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1187582474)
Done

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1187585622)
I just changed the error message and adopted the diff (seems so much better to check whether this is a `nullptr`):
```diff
- if (!output_connection_direction) {
+ if (output_connection_direction == nullptr) {
+ // Only NetWhitebindPermissions() should pass a nullptr.
```

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Remove unused GetTimeMillis":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27594#issuecomment-1538588861)
Concept ACK.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1187591763)
Added right before:
```diff
+ # Whitelist peers to speed up tx relay / mempool sync
```

💬 furszy commented on pull request "fuzz: improve `coinselection`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27585#discussion_r1187594094)
If `CreateCoins` generates a coin that is already inside any of the results, `AddInputs` will throw a runtime error, which the fuzzing framework will detect as a failure when it is not. It is part of the class boundaries.

Same apply for the fuzz `Merge` function commit.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1187595794)
Just added it to make it clearer

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#issuecomment-1538611034)
Force-pushed addressing @jonatack's review.

- Moved `InitializePermissionFlags` out of `CConnman`
- Made `TryParsePermissionFlags` static
- Added more test coverage https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1186367052
- Improved documentation

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: improve `coinselection`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27585#discussion_r1187606760)
> If CreateCoins generates a coin that is already inside any of the results, AddInputs will throw a runtime error, which the fuzzing framework will detect as a failure when it is not. It is part of the class boundaries.

Yes, that's why it calls `CreateCoins` twice and with different "utxos pool". Is there any risk yet?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Update best_header inside Connect/DisconnectTip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26260#issuecomment-1538638453)
I deployed this patch on the two ForkMonitor (mirror) nodes that frequently use `invalidateblock` and `reconsiderblock`. It's cherry-picked on top of the v25.0rc1 and v24.1rc2 tags. Typically we get about one error message per week where the block it rewinds to is not the one we expected. We'll see if that stops.