Luke Dashjr

Most users won't know what "signet" means, and it isn't self-explanatory like "testnet"... If you want a shortcut, please figure out a way to resolve this. NACK as-is.

idk, I think it makes more sense to have two separate methods rather than different security-sensitivity based on an argument.

Concept NACK. Prefer recursive locks over fragile assumptions about the rest of the codebase.

Specifically, I don't think we should need `NO_THREAD_SAFETY_ANALYSIS` - surely there's a better way?

Hmm, won't this break native builds that require a newer config.* than we ship?

I like the idea of an explicit `force` parameter. But it shouldn't be a positional argument.

Can we make the bump transaction and then abort if our own mempool rejects it? (Further GUI UX stuff belongs in a separate PR IMO)

Please open a new, separate issue for bugs in your merge script/bots. It's off-topic here. This PR still merges cleanly to master. 0.20, and 0.21.

There's nothing to work on. It just needs review.

Considering IBD bottleneck is often I/O, and Microsoft's documentation says WSL1 is better for that, I think someone should do some benchmarks before we drop WSL1 support.