Jon Atack

(Thanks @tdb3, repushed to put the text suggested by @pablomartin4btc in the right place.)

Started down this path in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30084#issuecomment-2106039274, along with other issues I may have found (unsure) but didn't push there. May take a look at continuing it if no one is...

Concept ACK

This brings back memories when contributing to Ruby on Rails, that `skip ci` was requested to be used in any doc-only changes. No strong opinion, but when opening or updating...

> > when opening or updating a PR that only touches a markdown file, I'd use this > > We might still want to run spell check and such things...

If I understand correctly, reviewers (or possibly DrahtBot) should signal if `[skip ci]` is being used inappropriately in any case. If skipping it is considered appropriate for certain changes (e.g....

> I don't think it is appropriate to skip, even for markdown, see the reply above: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30898#issuecomment-2352219690 > There are many other linters that do raise, and even many that...

Thanks for bubbling this up. Per the plan in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20484#issuecomment-734786305 of which #20391 and #20546 are the first steps, `settxfee` and `estimatesmartfee` may become hidden RPCs in favor of new...

@adamjonas thank you for the reminder -- that PR unblocked a hurdle to the plan in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20484#issuecomment-734786305 and am picking up https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20391 again.

Hi @andrewtoth, it looks like your last comment here was on Jan 20, six months ago. Are you still working on this BIP draft?