📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "build, doc: Adjust comment after PR27254"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27656)
This is a follow up for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27254.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Remove interface_ui, util/system from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27636#issuecomment-1546926451)
Thank you for the review @hebasto,

Updated 63e915af5a437d36abdd79a1b90fed2395086589 -> 97b0e28d6f5e86e8c7ee0775d22cd923dabca09d ([chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_1](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_1) -> [chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_2](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_2), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_1..chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_2)).

* Add
...

💬 kallerosenbaum commented on issue "Can't start bitcoin-qt by double-click on linux":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27655#issuecomment-1546927537)
I also tested Bitcoin Core 24.0.1 on Ubuntu 22.04.2 LTS, and I could double click bitcoin-qt to start it there.

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Can't start bitcoin-qt by double-click on linux":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27655#issuecomment-1546930882)
It seems like a Debian-specific problem, as I have no such an issue on Ubuntu (22.04, 23.04) with the downloaded binaries (v24.01, v25.0rc2).

Going to investigate further.

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "build, doc: Adjust comment after PR27254"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27656#pullrequestreview-1425572673)
ACK 3ece0ebf627ee569a9680bf2663697db7a6ae309

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "Introduce `MockableDatabase` for wallet unit tests"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26715#pullrequestreview-1425572973)
ACK 33e2b82a4fc990253ff77655f437c7aed336bc55

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Can't start bitcoin-qt by double-click on Debian 11":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27655#issuecomment-1546935424)
Well, I have:
```
$ file -i bitcoin-24.0.1/bin/bitcoin-qt
bitcoin-24.0.1/bin/bitcoin-qt: application/x-pie-executable; charset=binary
```

The mime type looks correct.

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Can't start bitcoin-qt by double-click on Debian 11":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27655#issuecomment-1546936299)
Just to double check, do you have the [`libxcb-xinerama0`](https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/libxcb-xinerama0) package installed on your system?

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Can't start bitcoin-qt by double-click on Debian 11":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27655#issuecomment-1546936991)
Could be related:
- https://github.com/mate-desktop/caja/issues/1164

💬 kallerosenbaum commented on issue "Can't start bitcoin-qt by double-click on Debian 11":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27655#issuecomment-1546938092)
You should right click it and view options in the graphical file manager. What does the mime type say for you there? Here's mine:

And I have the same result as you using `file`:
```
$ file -i bitcoin-qt
bitcoin-qt: application/x-pie-executable; charset=binary
```

> do you have the [libxcb-xinerama0](https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/libxcb-xinerama0) package installed on your system?

...

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Can't start bitcoin-qt by double-click on Debian 11":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27655#issuecomment-1546939182)
On Ubuntu 22.04:

---

FWIW, there were two PRs that aimed improving `bitcoin-qt` launch UX improvements:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15068
- https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/38

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "kernel: Remove interface_ui, util/system from kernel library"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27636#pullrequestreview-1425576361)
Approach ACK 97b0e28d6f5e86e8c7ee0775d22cd923dabca09d.

In d84952cd64bd03ce444bbf6077d060c92526d040 commit message:
s/"to FatalError"/"to FatalErrorf"/

Maybe make it a scripted-diff?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "kernel: Remove interface_ui, util/system from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27636#issuecomment-1546945193)
nit: https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/task/4542005133443072/logs/ci.log:
```
node/validation_notifications.h should add these lines:
enum class SynchronizationState;
```

```
node/validation_notifications.cpp should add these lines:
enum class SynchronizationState;

node/validation_notifications.cpp should remove these lines:
- #include <kernel/validation_notifications_interface.h>
```

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Remove interface_ui, util/system from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27636#issuecomment-1546961637)
Thank you for the review @hebasto,

Updated 97b0e28d6f5e86e8c7ee0775d22cd923dabca09d -> 2f9c2d245360b3fad6d469a76c2916d75b027b57 ([chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_2](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_2) -> [chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_3](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_3), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_2..chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_3)).

* Add
...

💬 sipa commented on pull request "BIP324: ElligatorSwift integrations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27479#discussion_r1193210027)
I've just added a test for this on the libsecp256k1 side: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1129/files#diff-d7678006ab19bb19a4a8dfb5f497cab0127e33730791c6e0597db203751322d9R365

I may do something similar here when I update again.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "p2p: Increase tx relay rate":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27630#issuecomment-1547072913)
> In the presence of smaller transactions on the network, blocks can sustain a higher relay rate than 7tx/second.

I agree this limit is too small after segwit. I think plausible datapoints for the rate at which we can sustain confirmable txs across the network might be:

* pre-segwit, 2-in, 2-out p2pkh: 374 vb, ~4.5 tx/s
* 2-in, 2-out p2wpkh: 208.5 vb, ~8 tx/s

* pre-segwit, 1-in, 1-out p2pkh: 192 vb, ~8.5 tx/s
* 1-in, 1-out p2wpkh: 109.5 vb, ~15 tx/s
* 1-in p2tr, 1-out p2wpkh:
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "net processing: avoid serving non-announced txs as a result of a MEMPOOL message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27602#discussion_r1193429237)
I was trying to say that if any false negative or false positive arises as a result of a mempool message in this pull request, the same should already be observable (on master or releases) in the absence of a mempool message with normal tx relay? So addressing it here seems unrelated? I presume #27630 is addressing it.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "p2p: skip netgroup diversity follow-up":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27467#issuecomment-1547398410)
One more thing to consider - this PR is a followup to another one (not an out of the blue, standalone one). We use the will-do-in-a-followup practice to avoid invalidating ACKs on the original PR with non-critical changes. If such followup PRs start getting frowned upon or ignored, then that could create a backward pressure to insist to include the small/non-critical suggestions in the original PR because the followup PR will not make it.

@stratospher, @mzumsande, maybe you want to review thi
...

📝 MarcoFalke opened a pull request: "doc: Remove unused NO_BLOOM_VERSION constant"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27657)
This source code is the wrong place to document historic and now irrelevant details. Also, while touching the docs, clarify that the BIP 35 `mempool` message type is currently also guarded by the BIP 111 `NODE_BLOOM` flag, even though BIP 111 does not mention the `mempool` message type.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "doc: clarify processing of mempool-msgs when NODE_BLOOM":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27559#discussion_r1193500972)
#27657