💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019376118)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019371904)
Added a comment.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019372075)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019372720)
No, it's being assigned to below.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019374546)
I've changed the code so that `Include()` and `Skip()` are no-ops once the end is reached.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019375780)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019374728)
Same here, made it have no effect in that case.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019375949)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019375612)
This has been rewritten.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019377271)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019379608)
That's strange, because the builder outliving the graph is definitely a problem (the observer counter in the graph, which has been destroyed, will be subtracted from). I don't see an easy way of allowing this (it'd need the graph to maintain a set of observers, which seems overkill).

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019379802)
Done.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31444#discussion_r2019380171)
Done.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "test: create assert_not_equal util":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29500#discussion_r2019431503)
We're in Python here though. I spent a couple of hours with an LLM in mid-February to brute force this embryo:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...hodlinator:bitcoin:2025/02/assert_ergonomics

<details><summary>Output examples</summary>

Current `assert_equal()`-behavior:
```
2025-03-28T21:15:36.379000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Assertion failed
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/hodlinator/bitcoin/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 178, i
...

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "Fix legacy migration bug":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32161#discussion_r2019445025)
Was this generated with an LLM?

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "Fix legacy migration bug":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32161#discussion_r2019448985)
Could you please explain why you made these changes?

💬 arejula27 commented on pull request "miner: timelock the coinbase to the mined block's height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32155#discussion_r2019460884)
I was discussing with @hodlinator and @Prabhat1308 that a Coinbase UTXO cannot be spent until 100 blocks have been added after it. Wouldn't it be better to set this to static_cast<uint32_t>(nHeight +99 );? This could simplify the logic for the Coinbase spend condition and potentially make mempool and transaction validation more efficient

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "Fix legacy migration bug":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32161#discussion_r2019462360)
I'm not sure that this change preserves the intent of the error, could you explain why you came to the conclusion that this situation is not an internal bug in our handling of the wallet file?

💬 murchandamus commented on pull request "Refactor BnB tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29532#discussion_r2019470411)
Done here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32150/commits/e2a4d86131e8f1661eb450c50b8072147965b111

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "Fix legacy migration bug":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32161#issuecomment-2762678753)
Hi @olaristo109!

Thanks for taking a look at this, you mention adding "a unit test to 'wallet_tests.cpp' to ensure the fix is robust and to prevent future regressions.", but I don't see this in the PR, and the PR contains some unnecessary/unrelated changes, like fixing the "typo" (which is not a typo) in the release notes document.

I am also not convinced that this actually solves the underlying issue in #32112, I left a comment above, but I'm not convinced that the existing [`Assume`, com
...