💬 grubles commented on issue "make check errors on big endian OpenBSD 7.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26492#issuecomment-1538987958)
Ok I have access to the POWER9 machine I was testing with before now. I have FreeBSD 13.2 powerpc64 running on it at the moment with Bitcoin Core v25.0rc1.

Running the tests with `test/functional/test_runner.py --extended` ended up with quite a few failing:

```
feature_addrman.py | ✖ Failed | 1 s
feature_rbf.py | ✖ Failed | 7 s
feature_segwit.py --legacy-wallet | ✖ Failed | 8 s
rpc_psbt
...

💬 golden-guy commented on issue "CPU DoS on mainnet in debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27586#issuecomment-1539007849)
> Same issue with 24.0.1 node today and went back to normal after daemon reload. My node do NOT run in debug mode too.

Same here using the 24.0.1 binaries NOT running in debug mode since yesterday. (Binaries from https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-24.0.1/bitcoin-24.0.1-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz) I didn't restart the node, but used the setban approach as pointed out here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27586#issuecomment-1537784340

Since then, the single core load has decrea
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1187734505)
this comment becomes a bit disconnected from the logic itself.

🤔 instagibbs reviewed a pull request: "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#pullrequestreview-1417261502)
Last bit of nitting:

`AcceptPackage` -> `AcceptAncestorPackage`
`AcceptMultipleTransactions` -> `AcceptSubPackage`

With BIP331 I think maybe knowing what an ancestor package is and how it fits
into this code may become clearer?

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1187848024)
I know what this means, but kinda... odd that `AncestorPackage` can be `!IsAncestorPackage`

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1187856431)
should just leave this example in in the positive sense of it being accepted?

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Move chain constants to the util library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#discussion_r1187890064)
Adding `Assert(false)` seems to throw an error:
```
util/chaintype.cpp: In function ‘std::string ChainTypeToString(ChainType)’:
./util/check.h:73:89: error: control reaches end of non-void function [-Werror=return-type]
73 | #define Assert(val) inline_assertion_check<true>(val, __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__, #val)
| ^
util/chaintype.cpp:23:5: note: in expansion of macro ‘Assert’
23 | Ass
...

📝 furszy opened a pull request: "wallet: don't duplicate change output if already exist"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27601)
If the transaction includes an output that goes to the custom change
address (`CoinControl::destChange`), the transaction creation process
should avoid creating duplicate outputs to the same address.

Instead, it should reuse the existing output to prevent revealing
which address is the change address, which could compromise privacy.

Side note:
This is something that will be using for the #26732 rework.

📝 sr-gi opened a pull request: "net: avoid serving non-announced txs as a result of a MEMPOOL message"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27602)
Currently, non-announced transactions can be served after a BIP35 MEMPOOl message has been received from a peer. By following this pattern, we are potentially allowing peers to fingerprint transactions that may have originated in our node and to perform timing analysis on the propagation of transactions that enter our mempool.

This simply removes the relay bypass so only announced transactions are served to peers.

💬 sr-gi commented on pull request "net: avoid serving non-announced txs as a result of a MEMPOOL message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27602#issuecomment-1539074312)
Motivation: this fix was discussed over IRC by @willcl-ark @glozow @sipa and @darosior

https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2023-05-02.log

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "refactor: Move chain constants to the util library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#issuecomment-1539094705)
Thank you for the reviews!

Updated 95744f9cf1f143b6449a5046a914557b3886e3a2 -> 43dec8806f679005d4484b229f433687526c9133 ([kernelChainType_4](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelChainType_4) -> [kernelChainType_5](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/kernelChainType_5), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/kernelChainType_4..kernelChainType_5))
* Addressed @MarcoFalke's [comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#discussion_r1187440836),
...

💬 desirepl commented on issue "Bitcoin ignores datadir and blocksdir parameter in .conf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27246#issuecomment-1539136159)
@pinheadmz
2023-05-08T22:11:59Z Using data directory W:\BitcoinCore\_strDataDir (this was read from hive)
2023-05-08T22:11:59Z Config file: W:\BitcoinCore\_strDataDir\bitcoin.conf (exist...)
2023-05-08T22:11:59Z Config file arg: blocksdir="W:/BitcoinCore/BlocksDir_/_.no_params"
2023-05-08T22:11:59Z Config file arg: datadir="W:/BitcoinCore/DataDir_/_.no_params" (this is in 2nd line bitcoin.conf, *ignored*)

👍 furszy approved a pull request: "wallet: Load database records in a particular order"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#pullrequestreview-1417686210)
diff ACK 265b9e3

📝 kevkevinpal opened a pull request: "test: added coverage to mining_basic.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27603)
Included a test that checks if the block.vtx.empty() does it throw the correct error, currently we only check if !block.vtx->IsCoinBase()

I've tested to make sure this actually doing what I intended by breaking up this if block into two if blocks with different error messages and running the functional test
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/322ec63b01499c1ec52d3912ee382ebd59f2366b/src/rpc/mining.cpp#L963

This change should increase the test coverage for the `submitblock()` rpc in `.
...

📝 ryanofsky opened a pull request: "add ryanofsky to trusted-keys"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27604)
For maintaining interfaces and other areas of the codebase. Some previous discussion in IRC meeting https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2023-05-04.log

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "make check errors on big endian OpenBSD 7.2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26492#issuecomment-1539515588)
The unit tests pass? (Well, except for ./test/util/test_runner.py ?)

What is the output of one of the functional tests failing with --tracerpc Print out all RPC calls as they are made
` set?

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "Move IsDeprecatedRPCEnabled to rpc/util, rm redundant rpcEnableDeprecated":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27322#issuecomment-1539543097)
Is gArgs guaranteed to be identical in different processes? If not, it would be good to explain why this behavior change is intentional. If yes, it would be good to explain as well.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "refactor: Move chain constants to the util library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27491#discussion_r1188242770)
ah ok, maybe `assert(false)`

💬 darosior commented on pull request "add ryanofsky to trusted-keys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27604#issuecomment-1539625613)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

ACK 59ebee3fb4181baf20fab263cf1b587ece1bd5e2 for adding ryanofsky as a maintainer.

I have not checked the key `4D1B3D5ECBA1A7E05371EEBE46800E30FC748A66`.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQGzBAEBCgAdFiEEWQtykmla/6W2csuy4T/BRc0/QwQFAmRZ+qsACgkQ4T/BRc0/
QwT3lQv/Qud7HqLisikdjcg7jrqa9YBS5j8CwFFIJW5TpY5zqLsm/7nI8RlkakRg
gvj1Ok92RTnhEGaleN/80Bco9uH5PEW+6V0tda5ZS/VqD4P0l3Jra9U0kvnTeWAR
aFRWCK14nelsU2+ccG0cf0yHnqrX3/jJGzINJzx2nJt1xDNVKxrkqahYSZf
...

📝 MarcoFalke opened a pull request: "refactor: Replace global find_value function with UniValue::find_value method"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27605)
The global function has issues:

* It causes gcc-13 warnings, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26926
* There is no rationale for it being a global function, when it acts like a member function

Fix all issues by making it a member function.