💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2081597874)
Named it as such to minimize diffs - but I also see the logic here - done

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2081597972)
Done

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2081598130)
Was done in the next commit, indeed - localized it, thanks for finding these rebase inconsistencies (likely happened when I changed the order of commits).

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2081598285)
But I *am* Hungarian :p
In the tests I've been using `key_bytes`, applied it here as well.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2081598512)
Valid critique - which is a gateway-suggestion forcing me to admit that we need static extend spans/arrays here :/

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2081598646)
Hah, indeed, thanks!

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2081598779)
Removed, thanks

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "[IBD] multi-byte block obfuscation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31144#discussion_r2081599213)
Good idea, though it doesn't change the final commit

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "bench: replace benchmark block with more representative one (413567 → 784588)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32457#issuecomment-2866425607)
Agree with the rationale of this PR, but having 1MB+ binary files in the repo is really meh.

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "guix: move `*-check.py` scripts under contrib/guix/"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32458)
These scripts are not meant for general developer usage. They are for use on the release binaries, which have been compiled in an environment that makes various assumptions in regards to c library, compiler options, hardening options, patching etc.

Anyone is free to run these scripts against self-compiled binaries, but this isn't something we want to modifying/generalize the scripts to support.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "deps: Bump lief to 0.16.5":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32431#issuecomment-2866437307)
> But moving both to a guix-specific path would be fine with me.

See #32458.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "bench: replace benchmark block with more representative one (413567 → 784588)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32457#issuecomment-2866447793)
Agree - do you have a better idea?

🤔 maflcko reviewed a pull request: "bench: replace benchmark block with more representative one (413567 → 784588)"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32457#pullrequestreview-2827710648)
Is there a benchmark that needs this? If yes, going for synthetic, but representative (and easily adjustable) data may be a better choice for that benchmark.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "bench: replace benchmark block with more representative one (413567 → 784588)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32457#discussion_r2081323234)
Instead of a block, this could just be random bytes from a fast random context?

🤔 TheCharlatan reviewed a pull request: "build: simplify *ifaddr handling"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32446#pullrequestreview-2828221038)
lgtm, waiting for guix build.

🚀 fanquake merged a pull request: "depends: Avoid using helper variables in toolchain file"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31360)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "doc: warn that CheckBlock() underestimates sigops":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31624#discussion_r2081627012)
> since it's relied on by getblocktemplate in proposal mode

That was a mistake on my end, because `checkBlock` calls `connectBlock` which does the full check.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "tests: Expand HTTP coverage to assert libevent behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32408#discussion_r2081628843)
Great catch! I found [this:](https://docs.python.org/3/library/socket.html#socket.timeout)

> `exception socket.timeout`
> A deprecated alias of [TimeoutError](https://docs.python.org/3/library/exceptions.html#TimeoutError).
> Changed in version 3.10: This class was made an alias of [TimeoutError](https://docs.python.org/3/library/exceptions.html#TimeoutError).

Since Python 3.10 is minimum version required in dependencies.md (and the test passes!) I think it's ok to leave as-is

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Removals after bdb removal":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32438#discussion_r2081633399)
I guess it could make sense to use a previous release where bdb wasn't yet deprecated, but not sure if this is worth it, and it could be a follow-up. Removed this commit for now, thanks.

💬 pinheadmz commented on pull request "tests: Expand HTTP coverage to assert libevent behavior":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32408#issuecomment-2866480355)
> Maybe the three commits could be squashed?

Done! thanks for reviewing