:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "Keep it simple"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27618)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "BIP 39 words update"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27649)

:lock: fanquake locked an issue: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27567)

💬 Xekyo commented on pull request "Switch hardened derivation marker to h":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26076#discussion_r1194046865)
The “nor” here seems misplaced:

```suggestion
For legacy wallets the `hdkeypath` field in `getaddressinfo`
and the serialization format of wallet dumps remain unchanged. (#26076)
```

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "rpc: Add test-only RPC getaddrmaninfo for new/tried table address count":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27511#issuecomment-1548177296)
so sorry for the delay and thank you for the suggestions! the CI is all green now. i've updated the PR to include:
- addrman new/tried/total count for "all networks"
- test coverage for "all networks" and for total (total refers to both new/tried table count)

I'd want this RPC to be the alternative way to access the actual count of all addresses in the addrman.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#issuecomment-1548180934)
@glozow ok so the tree thing is a bandaid in lieu of #26711 , and you'd rather just to that

@joostjager

> If I understood the various threads here and in other prs correctly, I think the consequence of this is that the mempool will be sub-optimal and lead to a block template that earns fewer fees for the miner exposing the endpoint?

Also can have weird effects like your mempool min rate going higher than it should normally.

I think we can easily get #26711 in next release

💬 furszy commented on pull request "wallet: fix deadlock in bdb read write operation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27556#issuecomment-1548189712)
rebased, conflicts solved.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Improve performance of p2p inv to send queues":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27610#discussion_r1194086866)
@dergoegge `INVENTORY_BROADCAST_MAX` has been poorly named for a while. It applies to inbound peers, but to outbounds we send 5 / 2 more.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "fuzz: wallet, add target for `fees`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27647#issuecomment-1548198822)
CI failure seems unrelated

💬 joostjager commented on pull request "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#issuecomment-1548199779)
>Also can have weird effects like your mempool min rate going higher than it should normally.

Is this something that #26711 prevents? Because it seems to me that that PR is less restrictive than the tree-only allowance in this PR.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#issuecomment-1548203219)
To be clear, the tree structure in this PR "should" also stop it.

💬 joostjager commented on pull request "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#issuecomment-1548207594)
By the way, about the diamond example in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#issuecomment-1542695316

This isn't a "child with parents" package and also wouldn't be accepted on regtest with the current master branch because the child has no direct link to the grandparent? (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/d7700d3a26478d9b1648463c188648c7047b1c60/src/policy/packages.cpp#L68)

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1194103566)
Make sense, going to address it.

💬 glozow commented on pull request "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#issuecomment-1548213087)
> By the way, about the diamond example in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#issuecomment-1542695316

> This isn't a "child with parents" package

Sorry, that was a bad diagram (of the unit test I had added). The child is also spending the grandparent. I've updated the comment now.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "cli: rework -addrinfo cli to use addresses which aren’t filtered for quality/recency":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26988#discussion_r1194105588)
noted. not convinced how desirable the additional code complexity is. would like to hear how other people think about code complexity too before deciding what to do next.

💬 stratospher commented on pull request "cli: rework -addrinfo cli to use addresses which aren’t filtered for quality/recency":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26988#issuecomment-1548215577)
Rebased. Looking for feedback on [this comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26988#discussion_r1173966799).

💬 joostjager commented on pull request "rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27609#issuecomment-1548224928)
It is still not completely clear to me what the risk is with merging this PR if #27611 is less restrictive. It would be great if it makes the next release, but also it is another six months delay for this important step.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1194120554)
I think it was accidental, sorry. I will revert it.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#issuecomment-1548238840)
Force pushed addressing:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1191183121
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1191191757
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1191197012
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1191201370

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26711#discussion_r1194127839)
perfect