💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Reintroduce external signer support for Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29868#issuecomment-2859142394)
My Guix build:
```
aarch64
6b1411a20a83a7c8b791ff9ff738748b92d1a86fc7ac2337257ce418e0b966ca guix-build-3a18075aedd7/output/dist-archive/bitcoin-3a18075aedd7.tar.gz
e2f572ad6ac20ed0b66c2db7a81997cf9e090c695364d88fda1c183efe2a2cbd guix-build-3a18075aedd7/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/SHA256SUMS.part
886647c8c0322b1a450cc97efc1bf6a41b5efc8bf02477bb22a694cea1314a42 guix-build-3a18075aedd7/output/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bitcoin-3a18075aedd7-win64-codesigning.tar.gz
4a82a01d9a12fee247e33973480183bf8a2
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: Avoid using helper variables in toolchain file":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31360#issuecomment-2859169316)
Rebased due to a conflict with the merged bitcoin/bitcoin#28710.

💬 davidhrinaldo commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2859202220)
Concept NACK

As a node runner I am fine with the default `-datacarrier` and `-datacarriersize` as is. I am also fine with having the option of _disabling_ OP_RETURN limits if the user desires. I am _not_ okay with the software taking away my ability to decide for myself. If this is merged I will seek alternative software for my node.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "guix: accomodate migration to codeberg"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32439)
https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-mirror.git
https://codeberg.org/futurile/guix-org/src/branch/master/gcd-voting-summary/gcd002-voting-summary.md

📝 kevkevinpal opened a pull request: "test: remove bdb assert in tool_wallet.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32440)
As suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32438#issuecomment-2859123413

legacy wallet and the BDB dependency was removed (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28710) so this assert is safe to delete

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add bitcoin wrapper executable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31375#discussion_r2078042033)
On `master`, when `-daemon` is used to start `bitcoind`, it means logs won't be printed to the console. I believe that's also the literal meaning of daemon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon\_(computing

This PR changes makes the keyword ambiguous to mean bitcoin node executable and start the executable in the background so doing the two things at once is now a bit awkard `bitcoin daemon -daemon`.

Should the be `node`?

So that we can distinguish the two and have a cleaner command `
...

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "Wallet: Fix Non-Ranged Descriptors with Range [0,0] Trigger Unexpected Wallet Errors in AddWalletDescriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32344#issuecomment-2859262423)
Rebased https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32344/commits/fa0993462b3bc8db40c1a6ea2e7f5fd4a22353a6 to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32344/commits/97d383af6d54b463da64f45680a146d7e93eb146

Simplified update non-range descriptor unit test and fixed this warning:

> I notice while running the unit tests that it warns about a lack of assertions. Maybe it's expecting a boost check?
>
> ```shell
> wallet/test/wallet_tests.cpp:76: Entering test case "update_non_range_descriptor"

...

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "Wallet: Fix Non-Ranged Descriptors with Range [0,0] Trigger Unexpected Wallet Errors in AddWalletDescriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32344#discussion_r2078052670)
Decided to simplify the test. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32344/commits/97d383af6d54b463da64f45680a146d7e93eb146

💬 Eunovo commented on pull request "Wallet: Fix Non-Ranged Descriptors with Range [0,0] Trigger Unexpected Wallet Errors in AddWalletDescriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32344#discussion_r2078053908)
I wasn't satisfied with how this would look, so I left it as-is.

🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "qt, docs: Unify term "clipboard""
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/871#pullrequestreview-2822542209)
ACK 3bbdbc0a5e1b409969cedaf249d1d01dea9bcf73

🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "refactor: Removals after bdb removal"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32438#pullrequestreview-2822610785)
maybe also this one:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/fa23a6f75ee69abb626b6dec19dbb5a05f457de0/src/wallet/wallet.cpp#L385-L389

this one:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/fa23a6f75ee69abb626b6dec19dbb5a05f457de0/src/wallet/wallet.cpp#L480-L483

and this one:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/fa23a6f75ee69abb626b6dec19dbb5a05f457de0/src/wallet/wallet.cpp#L290-L293

💬 theStack commented on pull request "test: add test for decoding PSBT with MuSig2 PSBT key types (BIP 373)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32305#issuecomment-2859499477)
Force-pushed again, fixing a small bug in an assertion (kudos to LLM linter for detecting this 👌 )
```ranged-diff
-+ assert "aggregate_pubkey" in in_pubnonce
++ assert "aggregate_pubkey" in in_partialsig
+ assert_equal(in_partialsig["aggregate_pubkey"], in_fake_agg_pubkey.hex())
```

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "docs: Improve `keypoolrefill` RPC docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32429#discussion_r2078166392)
Done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32429/commits/ff35a4b021e12ae33e28c01ffeeb2c1916f7a487

💬 w0xlt commented on pull request "docs: Improve `keypoolrefill` RPC docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32429#discussion_r2078166574)
Done in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32429/commits/ff35a4b021e12ae33e28c01ffeeb2c1916f7a487

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "test: remove bdb assert in tool_wallet.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32440#issuecomment-2859589494)
crACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32440/commits/4b6dd9790b667455ad7de58c67b3f7c9bc50657c

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "docs: Improve `keypoolrefill` RPC docs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32429#pullrequestreview-2822682329)
code review ACK ff35a4b021e12ae33e28c01ffeeb2c1916f7a487

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "lint: Remove string exclusion from locale check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32434#pullrequestreview-2822712091)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32434/commits/fa24fdcb7f474e6959ae4d8fe9759d365c6c021b

💬 NicolaLS commented on pull request "doc: Improve `dependencies.md`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31895#issuecomment-2859720907)
Rebased and dropped the two commits that bumped sqlite/zmq in favor of removing the "Version used" column from the tables entirely (see cb623692a6089c39560a637a2bf064d54aebb4d4).

This commit also removed _"Version Used" refers to the release binaries._ not sure if this should get replaced with something else ? (not necessary imo.)

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "test: refactor: negate signature-s using libsecp256k1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32436#pullrequestreview-2822735624)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32436/commits/bfb7b8876035774eddb200d741aa6a86859069b3

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "refactor: Removals after bdb removal"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32438#pullrequestreview-2822741478)
Approach ACK