💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "indexes: Read the locator's top block during init, allow interaction with reindex-chainstate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25193#discussion_r1191500724)
Another side effect of this PR is I don't think we use the `locator` at all anymore besides its tip hash ?!

✅ glozow closed a pull request: "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "One core in CPU usage rate remains at 100% for a long time, causing serious delays in new blocks and forks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27623#issuecomment-1544419927)
@huzhenyuan Thanks for reporting. As mentioned, Bitcoin Core version 24.1 will be available shortly, and contains some mitigations for the issues you are seeing. I'm going to close this issue for now, as similar/related-to #27586.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "One core in CPU usage rate remains at 100% for a long time, causing serious delays in new blocks and forks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27623)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "[25.0] Backports for rc2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27613#issuecomment-1544422960)
ACK 49a2d66f4e3a01aa697c1b9e5994fd8300953951

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "doc: remove version number from bips.md":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27629#issuecomment-1544424385)
ACK 308caf326db5619141f0c224fa48410293d59330

Remembering to do this for every release is quite annoying.

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "doc: remove version number from bips.md"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27629)

💬 glozow commented on pull request "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#discussion_r1191507748)
Done in #26711

💬 glozow commented on pull request "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#discussion_r1191508134)
Replaced with carats https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0cdb25a2392328afaad7651a0a407396b1922f17..f4e449254e41172b09a41ed9b2cc5c5fe3a5edca

💬 glozow commented on pull request "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#discussion_r1191508377)
Done in #26711 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0cdb25a2392328afaad7651a0a407396b1922f17..f4e449254e41172b09a41ed9b2cc5c5fe3a5edca)

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#issuecomment-1544429056)
IsChildWithParentsTree <---- is this originally what the V3 topo looked like?

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "indexes: Read the locator's top block during init, allow interaction with reindex-chainstate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25193#issuecomment-1544432693)
> In first commit vector `front()` call is replaced by `at(0)` call to avoid undefined behavior in case null locator is loaded.

This happens again later too:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/974140f9e721740f857b45d10d7dbab62fdbbe53/src/index/base.cpp#L100

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "Improve performance of p2p inv to send queues":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27610#discussion_r1191512898)
Cool, @glozow.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: LLVM 15 & LLD based macOS toolchain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21778#issuecomment-1544436498)
> did 13 or 14 have the required options?

IIRC I think so. I'l go back and check, so we can establish a minimum required version.

🤔 stickies-v reviewed a pull request: "[24.x] qt: 24.1rc3 translations update"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27627#pullrequestreview-1423145599)
post merge ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a86b45cafaabd8eb4957b84a0d70484a597eacc7

Also getting the same diff, modulo dutch files.

👍 pinheadmz approved a pull request: "indexes: Read the locator's top block during init, allow interaction with reindex-chainstate"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25193#pullrequestreview-1423149303)
ACK 974140f9e721740f857b45d10d7dbab62fdbbe53

code review and local testing. verified the tests fail without the patches. great bug catch on the rewinding muhash! I also like @furszy idea about dropping the global atomic bool for a rerranged init sequence. I'll be happy to re-review if you included that.

<details><summary>Show Signature</summary>

```
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

ACK 974140f9e721740f857b45d10d7dbab62fdbbe53
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAE
...

💬 glozow commented on pull request "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#issuecomment-1544440056)
> IsChildWithParentsTree <---- is this originally what the V3 topo looked like?

Yep exactly. 1 child multiple parents. Parent's can't spend each other. You can use this for batch-bumping commitment transactions, for example.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "indexes: Read the locator's top block during init, allow interaction with reindex-chainstate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25193#discussion_r1191521866)
That's correct! I didn't want to change the db format though to not break compatibility.

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "indexes: Read the locator's top block during init, allow interaction with reindex-chainstate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25193#issuecomment-1544447815)
Thanks! I'll rebase and address furszy's comments next week!

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#discussion_r1191523726)
Imo, it doesn't seem worthwhile to have the limit:
* the good case (small K) should be far more common than the bad one (large K)
* the limit makes relay of blocks with large K less reliable w.r.t to stalling (reduces to what we have now)
* the limit adds code complexity and a maintenance burden. 10 is not a good value according to your data and if #10984 had been merged then we would need to re-evaluate now. Who's to say this won't change again.