💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#discussion_r1983725941)
There is a theoretical legacy-sqlite wallet configuration that could reach this. This is actually an unsupported configuration, although it technically works today.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#discussion_r1983749256)
Got it, thanks.

💬 m3dwards commented on pull request "ci: Test cross-built Windows executables on Windows natively":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31176#issuecomment-2704463827)
ACK 515c64c743d581f84b8be45e5d16968d02264389

Tested that everything runs and passes on my fork. Forced a functional test to fail and saw red. Ran `--extended` tests via a push to a branch and saw that extended tests did not run on a PR.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: use LLVM 20.1.0 for MSAN"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31993)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptor: Move filling of keys from `DescriptorImpl::MakeScripts` to `PubkeyProvider::GetPubKey`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31243#discussion_r1983774339)
> Something around this can be mentioned either in the commit message and/or the PR description.

Added to the commit message.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptor: Move filling of keys from `DescriptorImpl::MakeScripts` to `PubkeyProvider::GetPubKey`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31243#discussion_r1983774453)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptor: Move filling of keys from `DescriptorImpl::MakeScripts` to `PubkeyProvider::GetPubKey`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31243#discussion_r1983774561)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptor: Move filling of keys from `DescriptorImpl::MakeScripts` to `PubkeyProvider::GetPubKey`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31243#discussion_r1983779662)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptor: Move filling of keys from `DescriptorImpl::MakeScripts` to `PubkeyProvider::GetPubKey`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31243#discussion_r1983779926)
Added the comment.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptor: Move filling of keys from `DescriptorImpl::MakeScripts` to `PubkeyProvider::GetPubKey`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31243#discussion_r1983780182)
Removed

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "doc: remove note about macOS self-signing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32003#issuecomment-2704569667)
ACK c873ab6f23e027af1c5837256ce3c9eccaf409cb

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "doc: remove note about macOS self-signing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32003)

💬 laanwj commented on issue "guix: re-enable exported symbol checking for RISC-V":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28095#issuecomment-2704673758)
Reproduction (with gcc 13.3.0 , binutils 2.38, everything from guix build context):
```c++
#include <iostream>

int main()
{
std::string test{"12345"};
std::cout << test << std::endl;

return 0;
}
```

```bash
$ x86_64-linux-gnu-g++ test.cpp -o test.x64 -Wl,--exclude-libs,ALL -fvisibility=hidden -static-libstdc++
$ x86_64-linux-gnu-objdump -T test.x64|grep "\.text"
(no output)

$ riscv64-linux-gnu-g++ test.cpp -o test.rv -Wl,--exclude-libs,ALL -fvisibility=hidden -static-libstdc++
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "seeds: add signet/testnet4, update makeseeds regex, minblocks, fixed seeds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31960#discussion_r1983912898)
Hi @l0rinc, this diff, if I understand you correctly?

```diff
PATTERN_AGENT = re.compile(
r"^/Satoshi:("
- r"0.14.(0|1|2|3|99)"
- r"|0.15.(0|1|2|99)"
- r"|0.16.(0|1|2|3|99)"
- r"|0.17.(0|0.1|1|2|99)"
- r"|0.18.(0|1|99)"
- r"|0.19.(0|1|2|99)"
- r"|0.20.(0|1|2|99)"
- r"|0.21.(0|1|2|99)"
- r"|22.(0|1|99).0"
- r"|23.(0|1|2|99).0"
- r"|24.(0|1|2|99).(0|1)"
- r"|25.(0|1|2|99).0"
- r"|26.(0|1|2|99).0"
- r"|27.(0|1|2|99).0"
- r"|28.(
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "seeds: add signet/testnet4, update makeseeds regex, minblocks, fixed seeds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31960#discussion_r1983914533)
> I don't think this needs compression, explicitly listing the minor versions is easier to read IMO.

Agree

💬 sipa commented on issue "cmake inconsistently overriding `-O3` (sometimes)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31491#issuecomment-2704741455)
I think the goal should be that there is as little "unexpected inconsistency" between builds. Our release (guix) binaries are created with -O2, and most of our testing is with -O2 I believe, so I think the goal should be that people don't get an -O3 build unless they specifically want that. If cmake "Release" builds create -O3 binaries by default, and there are developers out there who set "Release" by default to build binaries that are used in production, that's perhaps undesirable if we don't
...

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "seeds: add signet/testnet4, update makeseeds regex, minblocks, fixed seeds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31960#discussion_r1983946363)
done

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "seeds: add signet/testnet4, update makeseeds regex, minblocks, fixed seeds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31960#discussion_r1983947215)
done

💬 jonatack commented on pull request "seeds: add signet/testnet4, update makeseeds regex, minblocks, fixed seeds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31960#discussion_r1983947384)
done

💬 ariard commented on pull request "BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (no activation)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-2704794077)
@pinheadmz Sure, the conceptual aspects of this PR are better discussed on the mailing list or delving or even on nostr with no moderators. Generally, this is up to the PR author to indicate on which communication channel, they have posted the conceptual motivation of a code change for discussion. Here we have a code change motivated by other arguments (bundle OP_CSFS, OP_CAT) which are not mentioned on the Delving Bitcoin thread itself, and as such making the conversation on the technical ratio
...