l0rinc

CI failure seems unrelated, please restart or rebase so we can ACK - and don't worry about our reacks :) > Update https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b8b3a9f18670ec7bf246a57950cdae7e034a264d -> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/56267cf84281789186035f09898cce3d749748ec ([apply-taptweak-method-04](https://github.com/josibake/bitcoin/tree/apply-taptweak-method-04) -> [apply-taptweak-method-05](https://github.com/josibake/bitcoin/tree/apply-taptweak-method-05) ([compare](https://github.com/josibake/bitcoin/compare/apply-taptweak-method-04..josibake:apply-taptweak-method-05)) I...

> lint CI failure is unrelated and fixed by #30499 ~seems that PR is also failing~ fixed now

utACK 9afa2c9e50370b2918377f3f3eac0950a4296ec0

To make sure my [benchmarks related post](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30051#discussion_r1687854257) doesn't get lost in resolved comment land, lemme' repost it here: ```patch diff --git a/src/bench/sign_transaction.cpp b/src/bench/sign_transaction.cpp --- a/src/bench/sign_transaction.cpp (revision 8d573611575c3fa66f08407aa9b02f91b29a94c3) +++ b/src/bench/sign_transaction.cpp (date...

ACK ec973dd19719541dbcd6f3a6facf6f5dd7cf439c - will happily reack if you decide to apply @ismaelsadeeq's suggestions

Thanks for the review @edilmedeiros, some of the existing BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE messages are either in [indicative](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/test/bloom_tests.cpp#L51) or [subjunctive](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/test/bloom_tests.cpp#L31) grammatical moods (even in the same file, as you can see). I'm fine...

> I don't think this change makes sense k, closing.

I did a few benchmarks on HDD and SSD separately (no raspberry pi yet, but I understood @davidgumberg did some of those and saw a significant speedup), to see the...

Finished benchmarking with the default 2 mb file size vs 4, 8, 64 and 128 mb. This time it's full IBD with real peers until 800k blocks on a HDD....

ACK d196442c015c4cbf490751a650ecb3aa29321442