💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "refactor: Update `XOnlyPubKey::GetKeyIDs()` to return a pair of pubkeys":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32332#discussion_r2057718472)
New code should use `snake_case` for variables according to developer-notes.md.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "miner: timelock the coinbase to the mined block's height":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32155#issuecomment-2826681887)
Failure in `interface_usdt_coinselection` seems to be an instance of #32322.

👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "miner: timelock the coinbase to the mined block's height"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32155#pullrequestreview-2790092196)
Re-ACK 3904fcd6680dce7a9a0f5f91c5a3069b9fc81782

⚠️ maflcko opened an issue: "intermittent issue in feature_bip68_sequence.py: sequence_value = utxos[j]["confirmations"] IndexError: list index out of range"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32334)
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5337593233014784?logs=ci#L3671

```
test 2025-04-23T20:13:04.883000Z TestFramework (ERROR): Unexpected exception caught during testing
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/ci_container_base/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 182, in main
self.run_test()
File "/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build-
...

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "ci: Temporarily disable failing bpf checks"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32335)
The ` interface_usdt_coinselection.py` seems to consistently fail under Linux kernel 6.11.

I don't have a VM with that kernel right now to test, and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32322 is open since two days, so I don't think anyone else has either.

So temporarily disable the failing tests, to allow for more time while unbreaking the CI.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "net: replace manual reference counting of CNode with shared_ptr":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32015#discussion_r2057787797)
> If we start extracting the raw pointers from `unique_ptr` and managing them separately and manually ref-counting then maybe it is better to just use `shared_ptr`.

I think doing ref-counting for snapshots is fine, but agree raw pointers in this codebase are ambiguous. It would be one thing if we started over with strict policies for `shared_ptr`/`unique_ptr`/raw pointers. Then one could consistently use raw pointer to always mean a non-owning "view-pointer" (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "ci: failure in interface_usdt_coinselection.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32322#issuecomment-2826714257)
Done in [32335](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32335) to buy more time to test/fix/workaround this in the meantime.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable failing bpf checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32335#issuecomment-2826730778)
Isn't the problem just a compiler warning that can be suppressed with `-Wduplicate-decl-specifier` alongside the existing suppression?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable failing bpf checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32335#issuecomment-2826745242)
Yes, I suspect so too, but I can't try locally right now. I can push to a new pull request and test via CI, if people don't mind.

📝 maflcko opened a pull request: "test: Suppress upstream `-Wduplicate-decl-specifier` in bpfcc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32336)
(draft)

👍 laanwj approved a pull request: "test: Suppress upstream `-Wduplicate-decl-specifier` in bpfcc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32336#pullrequestreview-2790382441)
Code review ACK facb9b327b9da39ce1e09ed56199be9efb19b5b8

💬 kehl-gopher commented on something "":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/edffb50b984ff1c6a4dfdc4ebdb84ca776eb0666#commitcomment-155808830)
wow

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "test: fix pushdata scripts":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32270#discussion_r2057941914)
Maybe call this just `2byte_push`, since there is no pushdata going on here?

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "test: Suppress upstream `-Wduplicate-decl-specifier` in bpfcc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32336#pullrequestreview-2790397659)
ACK facb9b327b9da39ce1e09ed56199be9efb19b5b8, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Temporarily disable failing bpf checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32335#issuecomment-2826954992)
It seems this PR can be closed in favour of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32336.

📝 dergoegge converted_to_draft a pull request: "fuzz: Expand script verification flag testing to segwit v0 and tapscript"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31460)
The `script_flags` harness aims to test that our script verification flags are soft-forks (i.e. applying flags can only tighten the verification rules and not widen them). `SigVersion::WITNESS_V0` and `SigVersion::TAPSCRIPT` scripts are currently not covered by this test, as fuzzers are blocked from e.g. creating a valid taproot script path spend commitment.

This PR:

* Moves the taproot commitment and witness script hash checks to `BaseSignatureChecker` (real impl in `GenericTransactionSi
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2057968526)
Oops!…I Did It Again

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2057968721)
Ok, sure, changed it to something similar:
```C++
const bool all_zeros{!obfuscation || std::ranges::all_of(std::span(key_bytes).first(write_size), [](auto b) { return b == std::byte{0}; })};
```

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2057968867)
Sure, done

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2057969172)
`assert(m_obfuscation == 0)` is needed to document (and to make sure) that the obfuscation key is already written with obfuscation turned on, so we have to make sure the obfuscation key is 0 to turn it off for this write only.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/test/dbwrapper_tests.cpp#L29-L46 demonstrates the usage of this call - I've updated it to verify that reopening the database will read the obfuscation key correctly.

So without `assert(m_obfuscation == 0)` we might n
...