l0rinc

Thanks @maflcko & @hodlinator for the comments, I've [rebased](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/37e5fcfd4fad2f2daed041ddfd60b0c28e5da6b6..7ae68c6ac2d25a7373fc4f8fc5241dd9fec744ec) the PR in the first push without any changes and [addresses your concerns](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7ae68c6ac2d25a7373fc4f8fc5241dd9fec744ec..3b66b7e20ddba94d251c97818700d46030b14cc5) in the second one - let me know...

Yes, we already have the "checkpoints", we're just ignoring them. The difference is that we're also validating the checkpoints themselves - giving the assumeutxo scenario more credence ("every IBD verifies...

> second-class citizen to normal IBD Agree, IBD would validate that the AssumeUTXO hashes are correct - lending its credibility to the quicker alternative.

Agree, can we rather prohibit double negations?

Concept ACK, but I'm not yet sure about the approach. Let me know if I misunderstood something important here. Edit: > All logs will be prefixed with [*] if there...

Thanks for your patience, re-reviewed everything from scratch - the focused commits help a lot. ACK 80a596ecca5df9f471d9fbcd9fcd15ddd296cdca

reACK c3fa29db1b05aa51f74cc8be5bdae59be4f3b7c0 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/80a596ecca5df9f471d9fbcd9fcd15ddd296cdca..c3fa29db1b05aa51f74cc8be5bdae59be4f3b7c0: * Removed many `` inside `ToScript` * out_exp -> string_view * braces in wallet_crypto_tests.cpp and crypter.cpp * remove_reference -> remove_reference_t

> does not make the binary smaller (built x86_64-linux-gnu guix bitcoind binary) - actually grows by 0.04% (~49.6 KB). Not sure if it's a dealbreaker of not, but it seems...

ACK 41d934c72df6449d2ceb2330d05b959b24350d95

recrACK 50e61f448eedfe0ccfa07f3124aeef9c7762a69b I only left nits, I'm fine with merging it as is.