💬 fanquake commented on pull request "bench: Benchmark all `SHA256` implementations that are available on the system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27598#discussion_r1195062719)
> Hm, I don't really like that all of that SHA256 specific code is becoming part of the benchmark framework.

Yea. Concept NACK on the current approach.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on issue "builds: Review use of `@`-prefixed lines in our Makefiles":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18891#issuecomment-1549542504)
With #27041 merged, I checked the remaining few instances and think they all serve a purpose, so I think this could be closed now.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "builds: Review use of `@`-prefixed lines in our Makefiles"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18891)

💬 fanquake commented on issue ""Create Unsigned" should not show the message: "The amount exceeds you balance" without suggesting alternatives":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27659#issuecomment-1549545668)
> Based on that, maybe close this issue?

Ok. Seems like this can be followed up with in the [GUI repo](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui), in any case.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: ""Create Unsigned" should not show the message: "The amount exceeds you balance" without suggesting alternatives"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27659)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Fix "Number of CPUs" output":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27674#issuecomment-1549552123)
lgtm ACK 5d49d987319f262ecbef6ff688fc674ed3b5fa43

🤔 jarolrod reviewed a pull request: "guix: document when certain patches can be dropped"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27668#pullrequestreview-1428445500)
ACK a09269a146b1e32a0e7979692f4455cc2f6faeae

Can confirm the note on the long jump patch ;)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ConnectTip: don't log total disk read time in bench":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27673#discussion_r1195083821)
I'd say it would be fine to move the `++num_blocks_total;` to this line instead, and the `assert` as well. Self-documenting code is better than potentially outdated docs.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Drop support for g++-8":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27662#issuecomment-1549581673)
Could adjust the comment here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/edd2a8644531e6fb8f64ad6acce86f8fdec9ab26/src/txrequest.cpp#L72 to remove mention of GCC 8.x.

Could pull in this commit, to remove the GCC 8 `-lstdc++fs` check: https://github.com/fanquake/bitcoin/commit/b2632e7c7b7dfc5487629d80e11a8cdeaa649ed9.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "ci: Fix "Number of CPUs" output"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27674)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "ConnectTip: don't log total disk read time in bench":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27673#discussion_r1195105709)
We also call `ConnectTip()` from `TestBlockValidity()` and `VerifyDB()`. Do you know how the counter is supposed to behave in those cases?

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "kernel: Remove interface_ui, util/system from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27636#issuecomment-1549605549)
Thank you for the detailed comments on your review @ryanofsky! Very happy to see this being fleshed out into a more general and proper kernel notification interface.

Updated 2f9c2d245360b3fad6d469a76c2916d75b027b57 -> 2c58fbf816d73395167a3046c4ce957829bf45f9 ([chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_3](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_3) -> [chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_4](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/chainstateRmKernelUiInterface_4), [co
...

🤔 fjahr reviewed a pull request: "assumeutxo: net_processing changes"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24008#pullrequestreview-1428107827)
Code review ACK ac9adf012925c770dfe523c5b57451f313cc8be5

This is alright, I am just not loving the new `assumed_first` parameter to be honest. But curious to hear what you say @jamesob . If you change it, I promise to re-review it swiftly.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "assumeutxo: net_processing changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24008#discussion_r1194913264)
This parameter/api seems kind of unnecessary. Do we actually need/want assumed_first=false anywhere explicitly? Otherwise, I would suggest always returning assumed first and adding a comment that this specific ordering is important.

Alternatively, if it is better to have a default behavior of assumed_first=false then I would still find it simpler to `reverse` the order in the one place where it's needed rather than adding the param.

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "assumeutxo: net_processing changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24008#discussion_r1195081071)
nit: I would prefer `in_ibd` here

💬 fjahr commented on pull request "assumeutxo: net_processing changes":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24008#discussion_r1194862228)
somewhat nit: Why not use `ActiveChainstate()` here? From my understanding, it doesn't functionally make a difference but it makes this a cleaner review since the result of this is replacing `ActiveChainstate()`.

💬 furszy commented on issue "Allow getblockfrompeer to use any peer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27652#issuecomment-1549635506)
Ok great sipa and Sjors. Notes taken.

I started implementing this in a separate class `BlockRequestTracker` with its own scheduled task to detect the timeout and re-try + follow the requests progress (which also involves listening to the node disconnection signal etc). But, agree that can also add it to the `FindNextBlocksToDownload` existent mechanism as well.
Could merge both worlds and slowly start decoupling the block downloading logic into a separate module while continue using the `Sen
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ConnectTip: don't log total disk read time in bench":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27673#discussion_r1195171196)
Maybe all globals can be moved to function scope and the `num_blocks_total` can be duplicated to both functions where it is used?

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "ci: Remove unused errtrace trap ERR"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27667#pullrequestreview-1428608268)
ACK fad09b703f5c6d8524a09eef771eb4525f9f3225, tested on Ubuntu 22.04: I can still see warnings from the sanitizers in both unit and functional tests.

📝 ajtowns opened a pull request: "net_processing: Drop m_recently_announced_invs bloom filter"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27675)
This PR replaces the `m_recently_announced_invs` bloom filter with a simple timestamp of the last time we considered sending an INV message to a node. This saves 33kB per peer (or more if we raise the rate at which we relay transactions over the network, in which case we would need to increase the size of the bloom filter proportionally).

The philosophy here (compare with #18861 and #19109) is that we consider the rate limiting on INV messages to only be about saving bandwidth and not protect
...