💬 furszy commented on issue "Failing to fetch `cfheader` corresponding to block header in `headers` message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27085#issuecomment-1426836560)
Even when the peer sent the `headers` message, the block filter index could still be processing the block signals.
If possible on your tests, call `syncwithvalidationinterfacequeue` to empty the validation interface queue prior to request the `cfheader`s.

💬 Christewart commented on issue "Failing to fetch `cfheader` corresponding to block header in `headers` message":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27085#issuecomment-1426845565)
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, this seems to be the equivalent in the bitcoin core python test harness https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22311

✅ Christewart closed an issue: "Failing to fetch `cfheader` corresponding to block header in `headers` message"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27085)

📝 davidgumberg opened a pull request: "[WIP] p2p: Add random txn's from mempool to GETBLOCKTXN"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27086)
As compact block completion works currently, nodes reveal precisely the subset of transactions from published blocks that they already have in their mempool when they make a GETBLOCKTXN request for the transactions that they are missing. The greatest danger here is that nodes will never request their own transactions. Given a "sufficient number" of `GETBLOCKTXN`'s from a single peer, it will become possible to identify their wallet addresses with some degree of confidence.

Assuming that all
...

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "Modernize rpcauth.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27081#discussion_r1103701701)
nit: `from secrets import token_hex, token_urlsafe`

💬 sipa commented on pull request "[WIP] p2p: Add random txn's from mempool to GETBLOCKTXN":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27086#issuecomment-1426937832)
It's an interesting observation that our responses to compact block announcements reveal something about our mempool, but I'm not sure it's worth the cost of addressing that:
* Blocks are rare, and very expensive to produce, meaning that per block only a few of our peers even get the chance to query us about it (and it's unaffordable to produce more close-to-tip blocks to trigger that).
* Increasing the size of compact block responses may actually add to propagation latency, especially when it
...

💬 hebasto commented on issue "Check usages of `#if defined(...)`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16419#issuecomment-1426991462)
> Is this issue up for grab?

It is. See #16547.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "contrib: Improve verify-commits.py to work with maintainers leaving":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27058#issuecomment-1427049883)
@kristapsk maybe not for this PR, however, that might be a good way to make it safe to use a revocation date. The rule would then be that a timestamp must exist with a median time past before that date.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665#issuecomment-1427053301)
Concept ACK.

💬 saadbitcoin commented on pull request "doc: Remove copyright years (headers only)":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26817#issuecomment-1427058675)
> سنوات حقوق التأليف والنشر لها العديد من القضايا:
>
> * قد يكونون مخطئين. على سبيل المثال ، يمكن أن يحدث هذا عندما يتم نقل الكود من ملف إلى آخر دون الاستيلاء على سنوات حقوق النشر. أو قد يحدث عندما يتم إدخال السنوات الخاطئة بواسطة برنامج نصي أو مطور.
> * هم زائدة عن الحاجة. `git`يتتبع بالفعل تاريخ المؤلف لكل سطر من التعليمات البرمجية في كل التزام.
> * ليست هناك حاجة لإنشاء "حقوق الطبع والنشر" ، راجع https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects/ ، أ
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665#issuecomment-1427060487)
It seems the 7cdb7d1e9573ae60e7335af5d3de99191ad68b3f commit adds `src/wallet/test/availablecoins_tests.cpp` by accident, doesn't it?

💬 furszy commented on pull request "test: fix immediate tx relay in wallet_groups.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26970#issuecomment-1427061801)
Seems that what I wrote [above](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26970#issuecomment-1404981802) was suggested years ago #9923. Might be a good opportunity to revive the topic.

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: fix immediate tx relay in wallet_groups.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26970#issuecomment-1427064053)
> Seems that what I wrote [above](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26970#issuecomment-1404981802) was suggested years ago #9923. Might be a good opportunity to revive the topic.

See #26441

💬 Ayms commented on issue "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043#issuecomment-1427069403)
What is the process to have someone do the PR for this? Or I do it and most likely it will be a very shxtty one since I am not a C/C++ expert, then wasting the time of everybody

It's urgently required, I did consider OP_RETURN as a dart in the past but changed my mind, it's adapted to the current evolutions, not flooding bitcoin with 2 txs while only 1 is needed

If not the best 1 tx solution is super simple: store in addresses, and super bad at the end because burning bitcoins, while still
...

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "refactor: Rename variable to avoid shadowing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27087)
This PR is a follow up of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26661 that introduced a local variable shadowing which I've noticed while reviewing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25665.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "wallet: Coin Selection, return accurate error messages":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26661#discussion_r1103836760)
The local variable `res` in here shadows another one: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/76dc547ee7b05864e7b1b6c55fc0301d47aa3a15/src/wallet/spend.cpp#L658

Fixed in #27087.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Rename variable to avoid shadowing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27087#issuecomment-1427080909)
cc @furszy

👍 53jk1 approved a pull request: "refactor: Rename variable to avoid shadowing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27087)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on issue "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043#issuecomment-1427112143)
See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md

⚠️ instagibbs opened an issue: "24.0.1 crash on restart"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27088)
I've seen this a couple of times in CLN's CI, and thought it was probably worth reporting:

```
2023-02-12T13:39:59.7526313Z ************************
2023-02-12T13:39:59.7526645Z EXCEPTION: NSt10filesystem7__cxx1116filesystem_errorE
2023-02-12T13:39:59.7527060Z filesystem error: cannot get current path: No such file or directory
2023-02-12T13:39:59.7527421Z bitcoin in AppInitRPC()
```
This is on a restart of bitcoind between test runs, seen here: https://pipelines.act
...