🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "test: remove bdb assert in tool_wallet.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32440)

📝 MozirDmitriy opened a pull request: "Fix broken Kyoto Cabinet link in leveldb benchmark doc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32441)
Update the broken link to Kyoto Cabinet specifications from http://fallabs.com/kyotocabinet/spex.html to https://dbmx.net/kyotocabinet/spex.html in the leveldb benchmark documentation. The original domain is no longer available, but the documentation is now hosted at dbmx.net.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "Fix broken Kyoto Cabinet link in leveldb benchmark doc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32441)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: `addhdkey` RPC to add just keys to wallets via new `unused(KEY)` descriptor":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29136#issuecomment-2859906234)
> Quick comment - the PR title and description would now need to be updated to use `unused` instead of `void`

Done

> Also, some documentation in [descriptors.md file](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/descriptors.md) would be nice.

I don't think that `unused()` is really a descriptor that we people should be importing by themselves. I'm not planning on standardizing it with a BIP as I think it's more of an internal implementation detail rather than something that actual
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Keep track of the wallet's own transaction outputs in memory":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27286#discussion_r2078307648)
Fixed

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "(RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32427#issuecomment-2859921949)
Re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32427#issuecomment-2858716091

> How worried are we about file corruption here?

I was hoping to provoke a discussion about this as I alluded to in the PR description - thanks for providing your thoughts on this. I think the proof of work and integrity checks done on loading the index already provide fairly solid guarantees on load, but agree that we should do better. I have also talked to some other people about it offline, and there seems to be s
...

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#discussion_r2078319009)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#discussion_r2078319098)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#discussion_r2078319199)
Done

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: added fuzz coverage for consensus/merkle.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32243#discussion_r2078320533)
> changed back to just `num_txs` in [7c80dcd](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32243/commits/7c80dcd81a844837b5823eb33501e9511cbe3d05)

I think that using just `num_txs` is not correct since it's a position, you could add something like `num_txs > 0 ? num_txs - 1 : 0`.

💬 kevkevinpal commented on pull request "test: added fuzz coverage for consensus/merkle.cpp":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32243#discussion_r2078329613)
that works with me! updated in [0fe4e7d](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32243/commits/0fe4e7d1863afb32608bb0e8ffacffd7e3866f30)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Ensure best block matches wallet scan state":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30221#discussion_r2078353954)
Done and squashed the commits.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Ensure best block matches wallet scan state":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30221#discussion_r2078354485)
Moved to the destructor.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Ensure best block matches wallet scan state":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30221#discussion_r2078354648)
Squashed.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Ensure best block matches wallet scan state":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30221#discussion_r2078354747)
Done

🤔 caesrcd reviewed a pull request: "config: allow setting -proxy per network"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32425#pullrequestreview-2823048212)
ACK 4af5b4d4298b4c69cd9131e87fe50e9386def13a

I have tested the code.

💬 stringintech commented on pull request "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#discussion_r2078426205)
Small nit: I was thinking maybe we could make the template parameter more specific like:

```cpp
template <typename T>
unsigned int GetP2SHSigOpCount(const CTransaction& tx, const std::span<T> coins)
```

This might better align with the "Sorted span" mentioned in the docs, where T would then be either `const Coin` or `std::reference_wrapper<const Coin>`. It might also make the implementation slightly more readable when calling iterator methods like `begin()` and `end()` on the `coins` pa
...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "Fix broken Kyoto Cabinet link in leveldb benchmark doc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32441#issuecomment-2860255728)
You should file this upstream https://github.com/google/leveldb

🤔 mzumsande reviewed a pull request: "(RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32427#pullrequestreview-2823207472)
A full `-reindex` can be necessary for two reasons:
1. corruption in the block tree db
2. corruption in the blk files.

In my personal experience of running a node on crappy hardware a long time ago, it was usually 2. that would happen (I knew that because the reindex wouldn't scan all block files but abort with an error somewhere, and switch to IBD from peers). My suspicion is that while 1. may be the dominant reason in the early years, 2. may be just as important today.

However, if that
...

📝 davidgumberg opened a pull request: "doc: Add troubleshooting note about Guix on SELinux systems"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32442)
This adds documentation instructions taken from the guix manual (https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/guix.html#Installing-the-SELinux-policy) for fixing SELinux policy issues.