needs moderation: The comment "Should be no gui after #33099" could be seen as off-topic or unclear because it mentions a specific issue number without providing context or explaining the relevance to the current code change.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32989#discussion_r2245584929
Should be no gui after #33099

needs moderation: The prompt accuses another commenter of "obvious dishonesty," which violates the policy by attacking the person rather than discussing the technical points.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3140588217
>It's irrelevant whether or not anyone considers any transaction "spam", all that matters is if miners are mining them, and they are.

Of course it's relevant if we're discussing what we relay and what we don't.

>All you accomplish by rejecting transactions that are getting mined is slowing down block propagation, and potentially wasting CPU cycles and bandwidth by downloading and processing the transaction twice.

Completely false. It's sad to see such obvious dishonesty in here.

needs moderation: The comment criticizes the author personally for not answering questions, rather than focusing on specific technical ideas or decisions.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3140988868
Concept NACK

This author has not answered things.

needs moderation: The comment seems to bring in a geopolitical aspect by mentioning "Russian users," which is not relevant to the technical discussion and can potentially speculate about people's motives. This could divert from the on-topic discussion.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141025268
Concept NACK

Even Russian users are bitcoin users.

needs moderation: The comment seems to be vague and off-topic, not addressing any particular idea or technical discussion related to the code changes.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141045136
glozow how things works....

needs moderation: The comment contains assumptions about another user's intent, suggesting they are "just trolling," which violates the policy against speculating about people's motives.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141404798
> It's the USD that has fallen, Bitcoin has only increased _relative to_ it.

Making such a bold claim—especially one that clearly contradicts observable reality—without any justification makes it seem like you're just trolling. Bitcoin hasn’t only risen against the USD; it has also significantly outperformed gold, stocks, and nearly every other asset over the past decade.

needs moderation: The word "Sugabitcoin" seems out of context and could potentially be interpreted as spam or an irrelevant comment not adhering to the on-topic requirement.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33108
### Motivation

Sugabitcoin

### Possible solution

_No response_

### Useful Skills

* Compiling Bitcoin Core from source
* Running the C++ unit tests and the Python functional tests
* ...


### Guidance for new contributors

Want to work on this issue?

For guidance on contributing, please read [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) before opening your pull request.

Needs moderation: The comment veers into speculating on motives and capabilities by discussing the state of Bitcoin mining centralization and its implications, which can be seen as general criticism rather than focusing directly on the technical aspects.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3141854197
NACK. I think the direction of this change makes sense in isolation, but interacts too badly with other default mempool policies.

Users will always prefer to transact at the lowest fee given the current demand for tx confirmation, and miners will always prefer to earn more fees by filling blocks with extremely cheap txs rather than mine half empty blocks. Both these market forces are set to intensify over the long run as fiat inflation goes on and Bitcoin's block subsidy runs out. I don't eve
...

needs moderation: The comment is off-topic and seems to be a personal message rather than a contribution to the discussion about code or technical ideas.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33109
hi my name is christo sorry to bother you, if you have time you can read my massage so that we can keep in touch

needs moderation: The comment speculates about miners' potential actions and motivations regarding censorship and regulatory blacklisting, which may not be directly relevant to the technical discussion at hand.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3144090821
Concept ACK, FWIW. The long and short of it is that mempool/relay (fee) policy is ineffective as a "spam filter", since the node will have to accept the transaction anyway if it is mined, so trying to use it as such is futile. Meanwhile, rejecting transactions that are being mined is detrimental to block propagation in particular and overall node/network performance in general. As such, changing the defaults to match what is actually being mined is warranted as long as the DoS resistance is not
...

needs moderation: The comment contains a link without further context, which could be considered off-topic or spam. It doesn't provide any specific feedback or discussion related to the code changes.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33114#issuecomment-3144786536
Got the same here: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5816988552921088?logs=ci#L2099

needs moderation: This comment appears to be off-topic and does not seem to relate to any technical ideas or discussions about Bitcoin Core development. It also seems to involve personal matters or disputes.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33123
I am from Costa Rica from San Ramon de Alajuela, I clarify that I have never received or asked for 5k or 10k of bitcoin from anyone and they have never sent me bitcoins from anyone or through hanbot... Hannah wiggins aka hanbot must be clear about that situation write to the mercitudinous@protonmail.com by LAEV lerry alexander Elizondo Villalobos

needs moderation: The comment lacks context and does not provide a constructive suggestion for replacing the assert, making it difficult to assess its relevance and usefulness.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33127#discussion_r2249412210
Should probably just replace the assert

needs moderation: The comment about a "typo in added parenthesis: beggining" seems to be incorrect as there is no visible typo or parenthesis issue in the code chunk provided.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32541#discussion_r2250635349
Typo in added parenthesis: beggining

needs moderation: The comment is incomplete and lacks context, making it unclear if it follows the policy.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33074#issuecomment-3151100176
#33133 probably too

needs moderation: The comment "Taken." is unclear and lacks context, making it potentially off-topic or irrelevant to the code change being discussed.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33105#discussion_r2252276375
Taken.

needs moderation: The comment contains general criticism and criticism of individuals or groups rather than focusing on specific technical ideas or decisions.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33126#issuecomment-3152622710
> > to better support forked clients
>
> Concept N-A-C-K
>
> This is not something Bitcoin Core needs to support.

No I guess it isn't, but hopefully that means the spirit of FOSS that is invoked as an excuse when Bitcoin Core does something a large % of its users dislike is something we can stop pretending applies here.

Making life harder for no good reason for people who fork this repo is lamentable behaviour.

Otherwise, ACK.

needs moderation: The comment appears to be off-topic, as it discusses a log message issue rather than focusing on technical ideas or decisions.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2252700858
In 09c9f828250e3840d7557374ff568204305e2679 "test: add truc wallet tests"

This log is not supposed to be here.

needs moderation: The comment appears to be a log or trace output which is generally not allowed unless explicitly requested or contextually appropriate.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32896#discussion_r2253418093
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4521033710960640?logs=ci#L2066:

```
[11:45:25.309] test 2025-08-04T15:45:24.445408Z TestFramework (ERROR): Unexpected exception
[11:45:25.309] Traceback (most recent call last):
[11:45:25.309] File "/ci_container_base/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 195, in main
[11:45:25.309] self.run_test()
[11:45:25.309]
...

needs moderation: The comment is not very descriptive and does not provide any useful feedback or context; it might be misinterpreted as spam or a low quality comment.:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33116#discussion_r2254283425
fixed