💬 fanquake commented on issue "Release schedule for 25.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26549#issuecomment-1549341168)
`rc2` binaries are available: https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-25.0/test.rc2/.

👍 stickies-v approved a pull request: "[23.2] Final Changes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27663#pullrequestreview-1428185374)
ACK 7ae937326ae009aa825c5d855b20e79ab1a7e5dc

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "[23.2] Final Changes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27663)

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "Build: Improve handling of suppressed logging in Makefiles"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27041#pullrequestreview-1428196233)
ACK 1b1ffbd014b931afb9435ec10911b9a7c130d3e5

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: document when certain patches can be dropped":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27668#discussion_r1194905748)
According to https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26332:
> Fixed for glibc 2.32.

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "guix: document when certain patches can be dropped"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27668#pullrequestreview-1428176348)
Concept ACK.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: document when certain patches can be dropped":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27668#discussion_r1194915493)
As the `--with-nonshared-cflags` was introduced in glibc 2.29, does it mean we can more explicit about "newer version"?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: document when certain patches can be dropped":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27668#discussion_r1194925154)
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24022:
> Target Milestone: | 2.29

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: document when certain patches can be dropped":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27668#discussion_r1194927519)
If "2.31+" means ">=2.31", right?

⚠️ Sjors opened an issue: "Use muhash for assumeUTXO snapshot "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27669)
Currently `dumptxoutset` uses `hash_serialized_2` for its `txoutset_hash`. The proposed `loadtxoutset` (#27596) then checks this against the hash we hardcode in `CChainParams`.

Unfortunately the only way to check this hash is to rollback the chain to the assume-utxo snapshot height, call the (slow) `gettxoutsetinfo` and then replay to the tip.

If we used the MuHash instead then any user with `-coinstatsindex` can verify it with a simple `gettxoutsetinfo muhash HEIGHT`.

For good measure
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: document when certain patches can be dropped":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27668#discussion_r1194935777)
> According to https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26332:

According to the same thread it was backported to 2.31. Which is all that matters for us.

> "2.31+" means ">=2.31", right?

Yes.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: document when certain patches can be dropped":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27668#discussion_r1194936892)
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24022:

Again. The thread says it was backported to 2.28, which is what matters for us.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: document when certain patches can be dropped":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27668#discussion_r1194938523)
I don't think that gains us anything here, as it's implied we can only use `--with-nonshared-cflags` when it's actually available.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "Build: Improve handling of suppressed logging in Makefiles"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27041)

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "guix: document when certain patches can be dropped"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27668#pullrequestreview-1428237915)
ACK a09269a146b1e32a0e7979692f4455cc2f6faeae, I have reviewed the changes and they look OK.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Use muhash for assumeUTXO snapshot ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27669#issuecomment-1549397147)
cc @jamesob

💬 kouloumos commented on pull request "Introduce `MockableDatabase` for wallet unit tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26715#issuecomment-1549400101)
While reviewing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27666, I observed that this PR changed the performance of the `WalletLoadingLegacy` benchmark:

PR branch (33e2b82a4fc990253ff77655f437c7aed336bc55)
| ns/op | op/s | err% | ins/op | cyc/op | IPC | bra/op | miss% | total | benchmark
|--------------------:|--------------------:|--------:|----------------:|----------------:|-------:|---------------:|--------:|----------:|:-
...

👍 fanquake approved a pull request: "build: Use newest `config.{guess,sub}` available"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26422#pullrequestreview-1428252489)
ACK ea7b8528490d330f0f4e34e9b26ab00ba528f546

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "build: Use newest `config.{guess,sub}` available"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26422)

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "net: support unix domain sockets for -proxy and -onion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27375#discussion_r1194955775)
Yeah