🤔 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.

💬 EthanHeilman commented on pull request "CAT in Tapscript (BIP-347)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29247#issuecomment-2860437712)
@AlexSQY That's an interesting question, we are you concerned about here?

Current Bitcoin behavior is `OP_CAT = False` and `DISCOURAGE_OP_CAT = False`. I don't believe we would ever want to set `DISCOURAGE_OP_CAT = False` while `OP_CAT = False` since a disabled opcode should be discouraged.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptors: MuSig2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244#discussion_r2078526779)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptors: MuSig2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244#discussion_r2078526898)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptors: MuSig2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244#discussion_r2078526958)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptors: MuSig2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244#discussion_r2078526998)
Done

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "descriptors: MuSig2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31244#issuecomment-2860444988)
> Seems like the commit message for [2e6dcdb](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/2e6dcdbc8055660a2e20ba81b62b7d26ae0ccb05) ("Add MuSig2 Keyagg Cache class and functions") is out-of-sync, as there is no such class added and also the mentioned `MuSig2KeyAggCacheImpl` doesn't exist.

Updated the commit message.

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "docs: Improve `keypoolrefill` RPC docs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32429#issuecomment-2860463811)
ACK ff35a4b021e12ae33e28c01ffeeb2c1916f7a487

💬 purpleKarrot commented on issue "Depends toolchain doesn't contain enough info to build from depends on a fresh NixOS install":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32428#issuecomment-2860465704)
> Building our own depends implies that we fully rely on them, ideally skipping all other search paths used by CMake's package, library, and header search mechanisms. Therefore, I believe we should retain as many restrictions as possible.

We may do that with a [dependency provider](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/command/cmake_language.html#set-dependency-provider). This will put `find_package()` completely under our control, so restricting CMake's builtin find logic becomes unnecessary.

💬 achow101 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-2860468523)
ACK 4b241867567203b204823a4558c2aa5767acf028

✅ achow101 closed an issue: "`keypoolrefill` doesn't fill keypool to specified parameter"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29924)

🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "docs: Improve `keypoolrefill` RPC docs"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32429)

💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Ensure best block matches wallet scan state":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30221#discussion_r2078681556)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/14892979963/job/41829335187?pr=30221 seems like the same possible issue that you've described where a notification comes in during the unload.

⚠️ pscyfer opened an issue: "check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32443)

✅ pscyfer closed an issue: "check"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32443)

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "qt, docs: Unify term "clipboard"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/871#issuecomment-2861092606)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/871/commits/3bbdbc0a5e1b409969cedaf249d1d01dea9bcf73

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2861778194)
> Deprecation isn't a value judgment but a statement that it will be removed in a future version.

Deprecation doesn't even always mean it will actually be removed in a future version; see #32423 eg.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "policy: uncap datacarrier by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#discussion_r2078889529)
The sBTC-Bridge code linked will just return "unknown error" rather than a more informative message. "multi-op-return" isn't appropriate here, the "datacarrier" error will trigger even for a single OP_RETURN that's larger than the limit. Having "scriptpubkey" here doesn't really seem much more helpful here than "unknown error".

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: accomodate migration to codeberg":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32439#discussion_r2078954217)
Why switch to a [mirror](https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-guix/2025-02/msg00000.html) set up three months ago rather then wait a bit and switch to https://codeberg.org/guix/guix.git, as described in https://issues.guix.gnu.org/76503?