⚠️ 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
...

🤔 i-am-yuvi reviewed a pull request: "test: Add missing check for empty stderr in util tester"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32327#pullrequestreview-2790454279)
tACK fadf12a56c294696052c4cb6ee5284030ada7498

I've reviewed the changes and tested on my system

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#issuecomment-2827002303)
> Have you ever encountered IBD failures for code that passes CI? Seems like missing test coverage in that case?

yes, extended one of the tests now, hoping that will cover it next time.

> then chided me in public

Definitely wasn't my intention to scold you in any way, just didn't (and still don't) understand what you're objecting to or suggesting in that part of the code. Pushed some changes, if it's still not clear, let's discuss in person.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31250#issuecomment-2827005396)
re-ACK 17bb63f9f9b08e6af60c089234fe878657dbc88e