[bitcoin] martinus opened pull request #21006: rpc: reduce LOCK(cs_min) scope in rest_block: ~5 times as many requests per second (master...2021-01-reduce-cs_main-lock-in-rest_block) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21006
[bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #21000: fuzz: Add UBSan suppressions needed for fuzz tests to not warn under -fsanitize=integer (master...fsanitize-integer) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21000
wumpus: heya, just wanted to send you a general expression of support. i think you acted prudently wrt the recent csw saga. you do great work for bitcoin. hope the bs you get from internet randos doesn't get to you. :)
In "High-priority for review" PRs (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8) #19203 is listed, but #20788 is not. I think that #20788 would help both #19203 and #20685 - the same (or very similar) Sock class is defined in all 3 PRs. So maybe add #20788 to hi-prio for review?
wumpus hey you dont know me because im just a random bitcoiner, but i know youre getting a lot of heat because of events that happened today and how you reacted. I want to say that i personally appreciate the work you do and have done for bitcoin very much, and i know many others do too, even if most of the time no one says it. So im saying it now.
yes, that's fine, I don't think it has to be one or the other, though I would prefer not to add and maintain a complete tracing infrastructure inside bitcoin core when there are existing solutions, but if it has a clear scope, sure
if there really is a discrepancy between bip125 and what bitcoin core implements, it could be mentioned in doc/bips.md
On topic, it involves Bitcoin Core website operations and the devs that are spineless.
"The Bitcoin Core website was modified to remove references to the whitepaper, their local copy of the whitepaper PDF was deleted, and with less than 2 hours of public review this change was merged."