12017-01-19T00:00:30 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22017-01-19T00:00:47 *** blueyez has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
32017-01-19T00:03:33 *** blueyez has quit IRC
42017-01-19T00:17:16 *** Guest88196 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
52017-01-19T00:17:28 <Guest88196> hey guys
62017-01-19T00:17:49 <Guest88196> Allah is doing
72017-01-19T00:18:06 <Guest88196> sun is not doing allah is doing
82017-01-19T00:18:09 <Guest88196> to accept Islam say that i bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad peace be upon him is his slave and messenger
92017-01-19T00:19:16 *** sipa_ is now known as sipa
102017-01-19T00:19:36 *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112017-01-19T00:19:58 <sipa> Guest88196: off topic
122017-01-19T00:24:39 *** Guest88196 has quit IRC
132017-01-19T00:35:05 *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142017-01-19T00:35:36 *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152017-01-19T00:41:17 *** cheese_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
162017-01-19T00:41:18 *** cheese_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172017-01-19T00:45:45 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182017-01-19T00:46:08 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192017-01-19T00:51:08 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
202017-01-19T00:55:35 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212017-01-19T00:55:52 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
222017-01-19T00:56:11 *** aalex has quit IRC
232017-01-19T01:00:15 *** abpa has quit IRC
242017-01-19T01:00:27 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252017-01-19T01:00:51 *** cheese_ has quit IRC
262017-01-19T01:37:29 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
272017-01-19T01:45:09 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
282017-01-19T01:49:51 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
292017-01-19T01:52:04 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302017-01-19T01:57:45 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
312017-01-19T02:00:26 *** wasi has quit IRC
322017-01-19T02:01:10 *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
332017-01-19T03:01:05 *** lightningbot has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
342017-01-19T03:03:00 *** TD-Linux has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
352017-01-19T03:07:54 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #9579: Net: Trivial-review: Make SendMessages easier to review (master...0.15-split-sendmessages) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9579
362017-01-19T03:15:07 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
372017-01-19T03:23:46 *** GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
382017-01-19T03:31:53 *** pigeons_ is now known as pigeons
392017-01-19T04:00:51 *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
402017-01-19T04:03:40 *** jtimon has quit IRC
412017-01-19T04:11:04 *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
422017-01-19T04:13:53 *** Victor_sueca has quit IRC
432017-01-19T04:28:01 *** Alopex has quit IRC
442017-01-19T04:29:07 *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452017-01-19T04:56:44 *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
462017-01-19T05:00:04 *** dermoth has quit IRC
472017-01-19T05:01:14 *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
482017-01-19T06:03:55 *** wump is now known as wumpus
492017-01-19T06:24:29 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] droark opened pull request #9580: Fix various minor linearization script issues (master...linearizefix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9580
502017-01-19T06:42:09 *** davec has quit IRC
512017-01-19T06:57:44 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
522017-01-19T06:59:24 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9529: Bug fix: Update the instance variable self.lastDate (not the locally scoped variable lastDate) (master...fix-bug-in-BlockDataCopier) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9529
532017-01-19T07:02:01 *** zxzzt has quit IRC
542017-01-19T07:02:27 *** zxzzt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
552017-01-19T07:02:47 *** ryanofsky has quit IRC
562017-01-19T07:03:14 *** ryanofsky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
572017-01-19T07:12:19 *** aalex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
582017-01-19T07:19:40 *** aalex has quit IRC
592017-01-19T07:21:27 *** jeremyru1in is now known as jeremyrubin
602017-01-19T07:25:40 *** chjj has quit IRC
612017-01-19T08:00:49 *** BashCo has quit IRC
622017-01-19T08:04:02 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
632017-01-19T08:04:17 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 11 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6012967c4746...9c9af5ab2d9e
642017-01-19T08:04:18 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c735540 Matt Corallo: Move ORPHAN constants from validation.h to net_processing.h
652017-01-19T08:04:18 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master edded80 Matt Corallo: Make ATMP optionally return the CTransactionRefs it replaced
662017-01-19T08:04:19 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1531652 Matt Corallo: Keep shared_ptrs to recently-replaced txn for compact blocks
672017-01-19T08:04:29 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9499: Use recent-rejects, orphans, and recently-replaced txn for compact-block-reconstruction (master...2016-12-recent-tx-cache-cmpct) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9499
682017-01-19T08:10:51 *** paveljanik has quit IRC
692017-01-19T08:28:26 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
702017-01-19T08:49:19 *** echonaut has quit IRC
712017-01-19T08:49:36 *** echonaut has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
722017-01-19T08:54:03 *** vidjogamer has quit IRC
732017-01-19T09:11:11 *** juscamarena has quit IRC
742017-01-19T09:14:12 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #9581: [pep-8] Prefer "foo not in bar" to "not foo in bar" (master...test-for-membership) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9581
752017-01-19T09:17:41 *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
762017-01-19T09:20:44 *** echonaut has quit IRC
772017-01-19T09:21:01 *** echonaut has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
782017-01-19T09:22:25 *** waxwing has quit IRC
792017-01-19T09:35:03 *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
802017-01-19T09:53:50 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #9582: [pep-8] Prefer "foo is None" to "foo == None" (master...is-none) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9582
812017-01-19T09:56:34 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #9582: [pep-8] Prefer "foo is None" to "foo == None" (master...is-none) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9582
822017-01-19T09:56:45 *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
832017-01-19T10:23:22 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
842017-01-19T10:24:41 *** gabby_carol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
852017-01-19T10:30:37 *** gabby_carol has quit IRC
862017-01-19T10:33:02 *** arubi has quit IRC
872017-01-19T10:35:03 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
882017-01-19T10:36:58 *** arubi has quit IRC
892017-01-19T10:37:14 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
902017-01-19T10:56:40 *** fanquake has quit IRC
912017-01-19T11:26:28 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
922017-01-19T11:47:52 *** arubi has quit IRC
932017-01-19T11:48:06 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
942017-01-19T12:02:37 *** cannon-c has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
952017-01-19T12:23:48 *** aalex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
962017-01-19T12:25:49 *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
972017-01-19T12:34:11 *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
982017-01-19T12:58:12 *** aalex has quit IRC
992017-01-19T13:12:10 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9c9af5ab2d9e...41cb05cc8f3c
1002017-01-19T13:12:10 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fc089ae James White: Add IPv6 support to qos.sh
1012017-01-19T13:12:11 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 41cb05c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9552: Add IPv6 support to qos.sh...
1022017-01-19T13:12:26 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9552: Add IPv6 support to qos.sh (master...qos-ipv6) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9552
1032017-01-19T13:25:44 *** windsok has quit IRC
1042017-01-19T13:45:45 *** wvr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1052017-01-19T13:52:01 *** cannon-c has quit IRC
1062017-01-19T14:08:58 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1072017-01-19T14:09:16 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1082017-01-19T14:16:40 *** windsok has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1092017-01-19T14:21:10 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/41cb05cc8f3c...e9e7993007a9
1102017-01-19T14:21:11 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c70622e John Newbery: Docs: Update CONTRIBUTING.md...
1112017-01-19T14:21:11 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e9e7993 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9542: Docs: Update CONTRIBUTING.md...
1122017-01-19T14:21:24 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9542: Docs: Update CONTRIBUTING.md (master...CONTRIBUTINGcomponents) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9542
1132017-01-19T14:29:11 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142017-01-19T14:29:32 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e9e7993007a9...054d664215ca
1152017-01-19T14:29:33 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9f03110 Jeremy Rubin: Add Basic CheckQueue Benchmark
1162017-01-19T14:29:33 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master aad4cb5 Jeremy Rubin: Address ryanofsky feedback on CCheckQueue benchmarks. Eliminated magic numbers, fixed scoping of vectors (and memory movement component of benchmark).
1172017-01-19T14:29:34 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 054d664 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9498: Basic CCheckQueue Benchmarks...
1182017-01-19T14:29:47 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9498: Basic CCheckQueue Benchmarks (master...checkqueue_bench) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9498
1192017-01-19T14:31:03 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1202017-01-19T14:36:17 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1212017-01-19T14:44:52 *** aalex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222017-01-19T14:46:41 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1232017-01-19T15:23:34 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1242017-01-19T15:25:06 *** hosiawak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1252017-01-19T15:27:14 *** jnewbery1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1262017-01-19T15:39:01 *** whphhg has quit IRC
1272017-01-19T15:40:17 *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1282017-01-19T15:52:01 *** hosiawak has quit IRC
1292017-01-19T15:59:30 *** xinxi has quit IRC
1302017-01-19T16:01:37 *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312017-01-19T16:02:06 <instagibbs> When is feature freeze happening? May have missed memo if changed.
1322017-01-19T16:05:10 <sipa_> it was postponed to today, i believe
1332017-01-19T16:06:59 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #9583: Move wallet callbacks into cs_main (this effectively reverts #7946) (master...2017-01-revert-7946) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9583
1342017-01-19T16:12:52 <BlueMatt> sorry jonasschnelli, I think we waited too long to fix all the issues #7946 caused for 0.14
1352017-01-19T16:12:55 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7946 | Reduce cs_main locks during ConnectTip/SyncWithWallets by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #7946 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1362017-01-19T16:14:04 <BlueMatt> in 0.15 we'll need to re-add it
1372017-01-19T16:17:11 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1382017-01-19T16:17:17 <sipa_> all we need is that the wallet has its own idea of what the best chain is, right?
1392017-01-19T16:17:21 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1402017-01-19T16:17:33 <sipa_> so its responses are consistent
1412017-01-19T16:17:50 <BlueMatt> morcos: is writing up an issue with two other concerns we just found
1422017-01-19T16:18:10 <BlueMatt> even #9570 is a big chunk of code for 0.14
1432017-01-19T16:18:15 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9570 | Block Wallet RPCs until wallet is synced to our current chain by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9570 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1442017-01-19T16:18:23 <BlueMatt> and it would need a few more changes
1452017-01-19T16:18:40 <sipa_> sigh
1462017-01-19T16:19:00 <BlueMatt> sipa_: did you look at 9570?
1472017-01-19T16:19:03 <BlueMatt> its nontrivial
1482017-01-19T16:19:23 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1492017-01-19T16:19:35 <sipa_> but is it needed once the wallet has its own idea about the chaintip?
1502017-01-19T16:19:49 <BlueMatt> 9570 gives the wallet its own idea about the chaintip
1512017-01-19T16:19:56 <sipa_> oh
1522017-01-19T16:19:58 <BlueMatt> though not in a very full-featured way
1532017-01-19T16:19:59 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1542017-01-19T16:20:11 <BlueMatt> but, its a bit too late to be making major changes like that for 0.14, I think
1552017-01-19T16:20:38 <BlueMatt> i think at the start of the 0.15 release cycle we should move the wallet callbacks into a separate thread with all these fixes and let it simmer for 0.15
1562017-01-19T16:20:50 <sipa_> ok
1572017-01-19T16:21:06 <BlueMatt> same with multi-threaded message handler
1582017-01-19T16:21:59 <BlueMatt> 'cause a lot of these wallet issues on master are only realistic if you call submitblock (though some are also triggerable as a result of the additional ActivateBestChains added in #9375)
1592017-01-19T16:22:02 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9375 | Relay compact block messages prior to full block connection by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9375 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1602017-01-19T16:24:32 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1612017-01-19T16:28:35 <morcos> sipa: #9584
1622017-01-19T16:28:36 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9584 | Synchronization problems with wallet. · Issue #9584 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1632017-01-19T16:29:04 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt closed pull request #9570: Block Wallet RPCs until wallet is synced to our current chain (master...2017-01-fix-wallet-rpc-stale) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9570
1642017-01-19T16:49:03 *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1652017-01-19T16:49:42 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1662017-01-19T17:19:09 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1672017-01-19T17:19:13 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1682017-01-19T17:21:40 *** wvr has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1692017-01-19T17:32:05 *** aalex has quit IRC
1702017-01-19T17:36:21 *** handlex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1712017-01-19T17:38:47 *** handlex has quit IRC
1722017-01-19T17:42:40 *** waxwing has quit IRC
1732017-01-19T17:58:42 *** sipa_ is now known as sipa
1742017-01-19T18:00:40 *** jtimon has quit IRC
1752017-01-19T18:17:01 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1762017-01-19T18:22:12 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1772017-01-19T18:23:47 *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1782017-01-19T18:35:00 <luke-jr> sipa: Can you give me a text-"verbal" okay for some license to put on BIPs 30, 32, 62, 66, and 103?
1792017-01-19T18:35:03 <luke-jr> CodeShark: ^ for BIP 123
1802017-01-19T18:39:38 *** aalex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1812017-01-19T18:43:13 <cfields> BlueMatt/morcos: I'm staring at the locking issue too, writing up some potential fixes (throwaways) in order to understand the issue fully
1822017-01-19T18:44:55 *** norotartagen has quit IRC
1832017-01-19T18:48:56 <MarcoFalke> jonasschnelli: #9461 is ready for merge, if you are here right now.
1842017-01-19T18:48:58 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9461 | [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9461 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1852017-01-19T18:49:45 <MarcoFalke> Fixing the nit should be done for the whole src/qt tree, so you can leave it for another pull
1862017-01-19T18:50:17 <instagibbs> reminder: meeting in 10
1872017-01-19T18:50:31 <MarcoFalke> oh nice. Will be here today
1882017-01-19T18:50:34 <MarcoFalke> :P
1892017-01-19T18:50:34 *** norotartagen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1902017-01-19T18:50:48 <MarcoFalke> I think #9554 is ready as well.
1912017-01-19T18:50:50 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9554 | [test] Avoid potential NULL pointer dereference in addrman_tests.cpp by practicalswift · Pull Request #9554 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1922017-01-19T18:52:08 <MarcoFalke> I remember someone was worried about NULL pointer derefs showing up in the release notes and they cause panic, when in fact there should be no reason to panic...
1932017-01-19T18:52:14 <MarcoFalke> Should I change the title before merge?
1942017-01-19T18:52:34 <wumpus> yes, if you change the title preferably do it before merge
1952017-01-19T18:53:42 <CodeShark> luke-jr: license?
1962017-01-19T18:53:53 <luke-jr> CodeShark: yes, for the BIP text
1972017-01-19T18:54:33 <CodeShark> public domain, not sure what you mean by license
1982017-01-19T18:54:58 <CodeShark> Example?
1992017-01-19T18:55:04 <luke-jr> ok, PD is acceptable since it predates BIP 2 I guess
2002017-01-19T18:55:06 <MarcoFalke> ugh, another 0.14 blocker: #9585
2012017-01-19T18:55:07 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9585 | An error has occurred and has been logged. Please contact this bot's administrator for more information.
2022017-01-19T18:55:25 <luke-jr> CodeShark: ideally it would be one of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki#Recommended_licenses
2032017-01-19T18:55:26 <CodeShark> Or what would you suggest otherwise?
2042017-01-19T18:55:52 <cfields> MarcoFalke: Not a feature-freeze blocker, just a bug
2052017-01-19T18:56:04 <CodeShark> luke-jr: ok, let me look it over and get back to you then
2062017-01-19T18:56:09 <luke-jr> CodeShark: k thanks
2072017-01-19T18:56:16 <BlueMatt> any last-minute review for #8456?
2082017-01-19T18:56:19 <BlueMatt> or #9461?
2092017-01-19T18:56:21 <BlueMatt> or #9294
2102017-01-19T18:56:22 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8456 | [RPC] Simplified bumpfee command. by mrbandrews · Pull Request #8456 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2112017-01-19T18:56:24 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9461 | [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9461 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2122017-01-19T18:56:26 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2132017-01-19T18:56:27 <BlueMatt> those are the 3 for feature freeze
2142017-01-19T18:56:44 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: well if push comes to shove we can always revert the qt version bump
2152017-01-19T18:57:04 <MarcoFalke> Jup
2162017-01-19T18:57:07 <luke-jr> IMO 8456 can be merged
2172017-01-19T18:57:33 <luke-jr> 9294 is prob good too, maybe btcdrak wants to re-ACK
2182017-01-19T18:59:48 <sdaftuar_> cfields: when you have a chance, please see #9586
2192017-01-19T18:59:49 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8456: [RPC] Simplified bumpfee command. (master...ba-rpcbumpfee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8456
2202017-01-19T18:59:50 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9586 | bip68-sequence.py failing on master after recent net changes, due to mocktime interaction · Issue #9586 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2212017-01-19T19:00:00 *** sdaftuar_ is now known as sdaftuar
2222017-01-19T19:00:02 <sipa> PLOINK
2232017-01-19T19:00:04 <jonasschnelli> \o/
2242017-01-19T19:00:07 <BlueMatt> mtg time
2252017-01-19T19:00:10 <wumpus> #startmeeting
2262017-01-19T19:00:10 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Jan 19 19:00:10 2017 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
2272017-01-19T19:00:10 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
2282017-01-19T19:00:14 <Chris_Stewart_5> ello
2292017-01-19T19:00:23 <MarcoFalke> cfields: If you need the gitian log for the failing build: https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/nightlybuilds/2017-01-19/build-win.log
2302017-01-19T19:00:44 <cfields> MarcoFalke: ah, didn't realize gitian was actually failing. Thanks.
2312017-01-19T19:00:47 <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 instagibbs
2322017-01-19T19:00:54 <morcos> here
2332017-01-19T19:00:58 <CodeShark> Hi
2342017-01-19T19:01:11 <instagibbs> prezent
2352017-01-19T19:01:19 <MarcoFalke> topics?
2362017-01-19T19:01:20 <jtimon> here
2372017-01-19T19:01:27 <morcos> suggested topic #9583 and #9584
2382017-01-19T19:01:28 <wumpus> topic: last-minute merges before feature freeze
2392017-01-19T19:01:29 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9583 | Move wallet callbacks into cs_main (this effectively reverts #7946) by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9583 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2402017-01-19T19:01:30 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9584 | Synchronization problems with wallet. · Issue #9584 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2412017-01-19T19:01:35 <instagibbs> Last stuff to shove in before freeze naturally...
2422017-01-19T19:01:38 <kanzure> hi.
2432017-01-19T19:01:57 <jonasschnelli> I guess https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 is ready...
2442017-01-19T19:02:02 * btcdrak is half here
2452017-01-19T19:02:13 <gmaxwell> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier
2462017-01-19T19:02:19 <sipa> any 0.14 milestoned PRs that we don't expect are reasonable to make it?
2472017-01-19T19:02:27 <jtimon> suggested topic, what's missing to branch 0.14
2482017-01-19T19:02:28 <BlueMatt> #9535 got thourough review from jtimon (and others) and is a big win
2492017-01-19T19:02:28 <wumpus> do we all agree 9294 is ready?
2502017-01-19T19:02:30 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9535 | Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9535 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2512017-01-19T19:02:39 <instagibbs> any multiwallet stuff isn't going to make it I assume
2522017-01-19T19:02:46 <BlueMatt> i like 9294, but i think it needs another review
2532017-01-19T19:02:53 <wumpus> multiwallet was already untagged
2542017-01-19T19:02:54 <BlueMatt> I'm ok with merge as long as one or two folks give it a postumous ack
2552017-01-19T19:03:05 <sipa> i have not reviewed 9294, sorry
2562017-01-19T19:03:12 <gmaxwell> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/21
2572017-01-19T19:03:14 <sipa> (but i plan to, whether it's merged or not)
2582017-01-19T19:03:36 <jonasschnelli> we can always fix issues after the freeze
2592017-01-19T19:03:40 <instagibbs> I could give it an updated review, but not sure if that's enough
2602017-01-19T19:03:43 <luke-jr> there's a pre-MW PR that's probably ready, but not a prioirty
2612017-01-19T19:04:02 <sipa> pre-mimblewimble?
2622017-01-19T19:04:06 <jonasschnelli> heh
2632017-01-19T19:04:08 <gmaxwell> I think #9526 should be dropped from that. (perhaps we should do something later, but it shouldn't be tagged #14)
2642017-01-19T19:04:08 <luke-jr> multiwallet ;)
2652017-01-19T19:04:09 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9526 | -blocksonly should disable sharing of mempool with dbcache · Issue #9526 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2662017-01-19T19:04:10 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14 | bitcoin: URI and/or bitcoin-request MIME type for click-to-pay · Issue #14 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2672017-01-19T19:04:36 <btcdrak> issue #14 ?
2682017-01-19T19:04:38 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14 | bitcoin: URI and/or bitcoin-request MIME type for click-to-pay · Issue #14 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2692017-01-19T19:04:41 <BlueMatt> I'd consider 9526 is a bugfix, but i guess i dont care strongly either way
2702017-01-19T19:04:47 <luke-jr> #8775 specifically
2712017-01-19T19:04:50 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8775 | RPC refactoring: Access wallet using new GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest by luke-jr · Pull Request #8775 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2722017-01-19T19:04:50 <sipa> i think 9526 is a bugfix
2732017-01-19T19:04:59 <luke-jr> but it seems it conflicted again, so I guess less than ready anyway :x
2742017-01-19T19:05:51 <BlueMatt> ok, so to conclude, #9461 and #9294 - 9461 i think is ready-ish (one more look-over, please, its easy?), and 9294 I think we should merge with a few commitments to postumous reviews
2752017-01-19T19:05:53 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9461 | [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9461 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2762017-01-19T19:05:56 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2772017-01-19T19:06:37 <jtimon> I generally dislike that we fork the branch knowing that some fix will be needed in both branches in advance
2782017-01-19T19:06:40 <BlueMatt> 9377 we agreed previously was bugfix, and 9526, if we merge it for 14, i'd call a bugfix
2792017-01-19T19:07:04 <MarcoFalke> jtimon: There won't be a branch today
2802017-01-19T19:07:09 <BlueMatt> jtimon: no, we branch in 2 weeks
2812017-01-19T19:07:19 <MarcoFalke> We still have next week to fix bugs
2822017-01-19T19:07:19 *** davec has quit IRC
2832017-01-19T19:07:22 <jtimon> the whole "we can merge it after fork, because it's a bugfix" concept
2842017-01-19T19:07:37 <sipa> the fork is only in 2 weeks
2852017-01-19T19:07:37 <wumpus> who is talking about a fork?
2862017-01-19T19:07:45 <sipa> bugfixes can go in in between
2872017-01-19T19:07:53 <wumpus> bugfixes can be merged, by definition, after the feature freeze
2882017-01-19T19:07:57 <jtimon> oh, I see, just mean 0.14 git fork, ie just branching
2892017-01-19T19:07:59 <wumpus> because it's a feature freeze nto a bug fix freeze
2902017-01-19T19:08:12 <jonasschnelli> Yes. And technically 9294 is kind-of-a-fix for the missed HD chain split in 0.13. And there are no things to fix... only stuff to improve
2912017-01-19T19:08:24 <sipa> jtimon: today (or whenever we decide) is the feature freeze. the actual 0.14 branch is only created in 2 weeks
2922017-01-19T19:08:29 <BlueMatt> 9294 has string changes, so must be today or not at all
2932017-01-19T19:08:34 <wumpus> the branch is created at rc1 time
2942017-01-19T19:08:54 <jtimon> sipa: thanks I mixed feature freeze with branching
2952017-01-19T19:08:56 <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: Yes. I'm happy to merge it without the Consensus::Params::nPowTargetTimespan change
2962017-01-19T19:08:56 <wumpus> (so that releases happen from a branch, not from master)
2972017-01-19T19:09:06 <jonasschnelli> If no objections...
2982017-01-19T19:09:12 <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: open a new pr for that change, and then merge it, I'd say
2992017-01-19T19:09:25 <MarcoFalke> jonasschnelli: Agree
3002017-01-19T19:09:25 <BlueMatt> (merge the one without the Consensus::Params thing, then open a pr to change it)
3012017-01-19T19:09:29 <jonasschnelli> Okay.
3022017-01-19T19:09:34 <jtimon> so ideally all the bugfixes we know will be merged before branching, forget about my previous comment then
3032017-01-19T19:09:50 <morcos> I apologize for not reviewing 9294, but i feel like i never got up to speed enough with the code in question. I do thik that although it's not critical and isn't already tagged 0.14, #9535 could be merged now and i know cfields wants it too
3042017-01-19T19:09:52 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9535 | Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9535 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3052017-01-19T19:10:11 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2ef52d3cf11b...b25068697fdb
3062017-01-19T19:10:11 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 40ec7c7 Jonas Schnelli: [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding
3072017-01-19T19:10:12 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b250686 Jonas Schnelli: Merge #9461: [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding...
3082017-01-19T19:10:17 <wumpus> all the bugfixes we know and can realistically make the release (or are critical enough to delay it) should be merged before rc1, yes, thus before the branch
3092017-01-19T19:10:18 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: multiwallet pains me. because darn, such a simple set of changes remaining. we need to get out of this mode where all the intensity is in the week before feature freeze. :P (maybe new major version every month. :P )
3102017-01-19T19:10:20 <sipa> i think 9525 is pretty trivial
3112017-01-19T19:10:26 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #9461: [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding (master...2017/01/qt_sync) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9461
3122017-01-19T19:10:35 <sipa> eh, 9535
3132017-01-19T19:11:22 <wumpus> all the intensity isn't in the week before feature freeze, we've merged tons of stuff in the last months
3142017-01-19T19:11:29 <morcos> it's got enough ack's are there any objections to 9535 sipa?
3152017-01-19T19:11:33 <luke-jr> it's okay
3162017-01-19T19:11:47 <BlueMatt> sipa: ok, so press the button? I'd call jtimon's review pretty thourough (even ignoring all the lock testing I plan on doing in the next 2 weeks)
3172017-01-19T19:11:53 <wumpus> and some things won't make a release, that's okay
3182017-01-19T19:12:45 <jtimon> BlueMatt: I wouldn't call it complete, but I noted the parts I did not do
3192017-01-19T19:12:46 <wumpus> priority for 0.14 is solving the nasty remaining issues, like the wallet sync problems
3202017-01-19T19:12:46 <BlueMatt> ok, so we need to figure out what to do about #9294, does anyone have any objections to merging so that we can freeze and getting postumous acks?
3212017-01-19T19:12:48 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3222017-01-19T19:12:56 <morcos> assuming someone is about to press merge on 9535, the only open question is do we hold off the feature freeze for 9294 (what he said)
3232017-01-19T19:13:05 <BlueMatt> wumpus: next topic...lets finalize list of things for freeze today first :p
3242017-01-19T19:13:41 <wumpus> BlueMatt: I agree with the two you mentioned
3252017-01-19T19:14:01 <cfields> i'm afraid i'm unable to provide meaningful review on 9294. I had a few nits that weren't worth pointing out, but nothing else
3262017-01-19T19:14:02 <wumpus> #9461 and #9294
3272017-01-19T19:14:04 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9461 | [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9461 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3282017-01-19T19:14:07 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3292017-01-19T19:14:22 <sipa> what about #9519 and #9377. are those bugfixes?
3302017-01-19T19:14:24 <jonasschnelli> 9461 is merged
3312017-01-19T19:14:25 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9519 | Exclude RBF replacement txs from fee estimation by morcos · Pull Request #9519 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3322017-01-19T19:14:26 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9377 | fundrawtransaction: Keep change-output keys by default, make it optional by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9377 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3332017-01-19T19:14:35 <BlueMatt> sipa: yes, bugfixes with no translation string changes
3342017-01-19T19:14:47 <sipa> ok
3352017-01-19T19:14:48 <morcos> 9519 is a bugfix and it's extremely simple
3362017-01-19T19:14:50 <BlueMatt> (if we decide to merge them, I'm confident in calling both bugfixes)
3372017-01-19T19:14:55 * jonasschnelli going to rebase 9377
3382017-01-19T19:15:18 <jtimon> cfields: same for me, I just did concept aCK for #9294
3392017-01-19T19:15:22 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3402017-01-19T19:15:34 <instagibbs> If it helps hd split get in, I promise a tACK after the fact
3412017-01-19T19:16:07 <cfields> sipa: do you plan on needing to change any behavior or meaning of any options for #9526?
3422017-01-19T19:16:08 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9526 | -blocksonly should disable sharing of mempool with dbcache · Issue #9526 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3432017-01-19T19:16:17 <wumpus> ok that leaves #9294 then, let's all review that
3442017-01-19T19:16:20 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3452017-01-19T19:16:28 <BlueMatt> ok, so acks on the following for today: hd split (9294), net lock split (9535)
3462017-01-19T19:16:29 <wumpus> #action review #9294 asap so it can still make the cut
3472017-01-19T19:16:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3482017-01-19T19:16:44 <BlueMatt> then we can move on to next topic
3492017-01-19T19:17:29 <jonasschnelli> Should we touch/chat about the wallet sync issue? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9583
3502017-01-19T19:17:32 <BlueMatt> ok, next topic: wallet inconsistency (revert #7946 for 0.14 is pr 9583), see issue #9584 and #9148
3512017-01-19T19:17:34 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7946 | Reduce cs_main locks during ConnectTip/SyncWithWallets by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #7946 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3522017-01-19T19:17:34 <BlueMatt> ?
3532017-01-19T19:17:35 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9584 | Synchronization problems with wallet. · Issue #9584 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3542017-01-19T19:17:36 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9148 | Wallet RPCs can return stale info due to ProcessNewBlock Race · Issue #9148 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3552017-01-19T19:17:44 <wumpus> #topic #9583 and #9584 (morcos)
3562017-01-19T19:17:46 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9583 | Move wallet callbacks into cs_main (this effectively reverts #7946) by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9583 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3572017-01-19T19:17:47 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9584 | Synchronization problems with wallet. · Issue #9584 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3582017-01-19T19:18:11 <morcos> gmaxwell: please make sure you see this so you don't complain later that you didn't realize we were sticking everything back into cs_main again
3592017-01-19T19:18:12 <jonasschnelli> I apologise for 7946,... I wasn't aware that this could cause sync issues
3602017-01-19T19:18:26 <wumpus> I tagged 9535 for 0.14 (I uess that's the intent?)
3612017-01-19T19:18:39 <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: ehh, nbd, thats why it was early in a release cycle...sadly no one fixed it before now :(
3622017-01-19T19:18:47 <morcos> wumpus: yes or just merge. i think its ready, but not sure why it hasn't been
3632017-01-19T19:18:48 <BlueMatt> turns out there is complicated machinery to fix it, eg #9570
3642017-01-19T19:18:50 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9570 | Block Wallet RPCs until wallet is synced to our current chain by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9570 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3652017-01-19T19:18:50 <BlueMatt> but like x2
3662017-01-19T19:19:10 <BlueMatt> I'm working on a version of it, but I really dont like that much change this late in cycle
3672017-01-19T19:19:25 <BlueMatt> so hopefully we can get the changes in super early in 0.15, and get lots of eyes on it through that cylc
3682017-01-19T19:19:26 <BlueMatt> e
3692017-01-19T19:19:31 <BlueMatt> ^ this is my recommendation
3702017-01-19T19:19:39 <wumpus> morcos: well it's not tagged for 0.14, so it has been hidden for me as that's what I've been focusing on
3712017-01-19T19:19:40 <BlueMatt> which is merge 9583
3722017-01-19T19:20:06 <BlueMatt> wumpus: the issue to track this (9148) has been tagged for 14 all along
3732017-01-19T19:20:11 <CodeShark> What's the target date for 0.15?
3742017-01-19T19:20:11 <cfields> BlueMatt: which is your recommendation? 9538?
3752017-01-19T19:20:15 <BlueMatt> cfields: yes
3762017-01-19T19:20:25 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b25068697fdb...82274c02ed2d
3772017-01-19T19:20:25 <cfields> heh, laggy.
3782017-01-19T19:20:26 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d7c58ad Matt Corallo: Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending...
3792017-01-19T19:20:26 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 376b3c2 Matt Corallo: Make the cs_sendProcessing a LOCK instead of a TRY_LOCK...
3802017-01-19T19:20:27 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 82274c0 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9535: Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending...
3812017-01-19T19:20:42 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9535: Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending (master...2017-01-cs-vsend-split) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9535
3822017-01-19T19:21:05 <morcos> Can anyone think of any downside for merging 9583? Is there any chance we made further changes later that somehow were depending on the fact that we weren't holding cs_main through the wallet updates any more?
3832017-01-19T19:21:07 <cfields> BlueMatt: sadly, I think I agree. I've been down the rabbit hole today trying to come up with something simple, and it gets more complicated (and I become less comfortable) quickly.
3842017-01-19T19:21:22 <wumpus> CodeShark: see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8719
3852017-01-19T19:21:33 <morcos> I can't think of anything htat could make sense, but really thats the only downside I could imagine... Otherwise its just not making an improvement that would have been nice to make..
3862017-01-19T19:22:00 <CodeShark> wumpus: thx
3872017-01-19T19:22:01 <jonasschnelli> morcos: Yes. Downside is slighly slower sync/rescan
3882017-01-19T19:22:02 <BlueMatt> (and I do not believe it is (yet) a major performance regression because this is pretty much all called from the single ProcessMessages thread)
3892017-01-19T19:22:10 <gmaxwell> I don't think any design depended on not holding it, varrious testing might have.
3902017-01-19T19:22:19 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: I don't see how it could result in a slower sync, it's all in one thread.
3912017-01-19T19:22:41 <gmaxwell> (and the networking thread doesn't itself grab cs_main)
3922017-01-19T19:23:09 <cfields> morcos: isn't there still one site where it gets called without cs_main though?
3932017-01-19T19:23:12 <jonasschnelli> Hmm.. I guess I'm wrong. #7946 didn't and it was acctually a stepping stone for stuff that's not PRed.
3942017-01-19T19:23:14 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7946 | Reduce cs_main locks during ConnectTip/SyncWithWallets by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #7946 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3952017-01-19T19:23:16 <BlueMatt> my intention for 0.15 is to move these callbacks into a background thread asap
3962017-01-19T19:24:34 <BlueMatt> cfields: that will not be true after the revert, i think
3972017-01-19T19:24:40 <morcos> cfields: Do you mean after the reversion in 9583? I don't think so?
3982017-01-19T19:25:10 <cfields> ok, maybe i traced it wrong. Will do again.
3992017-01-19T19:25:14 <BlueMatt> ok, if no one has any conceptual objections to 9583, then I dont think there is much to discuss on it now, just note that thoruough review is needed
4002017-01-19T19:25:49 <wumpus> any other proposed topics?
4012017-01-19T19:25:56 <sipa> sad, but i accept that 9583 is probably the only viable solution for 0.14
4022017-01-19T19:26:25 <BlueMatt> indeed
4032017-01-19T19:26:35 <BlueMatt> one step forward, one step back, but at least we learned something
4042017-01-19T19:26:39 <BlueMatt> 2 steps forward for 0.15 :)
4052017-01-19T19:26:43 <luke-jr> âº
4062017-01-19T19:27:07 <jonasschnelli> We could wrap it in #ifdef WALLET_ENABLED... *duck*
4072017-01-19T19:27:26 <BlueMatt> its used in net_processing
4082017-01-19T19:27:56 <jonasschnelli> I meant the cs_main lock for SyncTransaction, but just kidding.
4092017-01-19T19:29:52 <wumpus> any other proposed topics?
4102017-01-19T19:30:06 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: are we still doing #9501 for 0.14?
4112017-01-19T19:30:08 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9501 | Final Alert for 0.14 · Issue #9501 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4122017-01-19T19:30:28 <gmaxwell> AFAIK we are. When should we be sending it to the network?
4132017-01-19T19:30:39 <sipa> i think this is a good a time as any
4142017-01-19T19:30:39 <petertodd> gmaxwell: +1
4152017-01-19T19:30:47 <sipa> *as
4162017-01-19T19:30:52 <gmaxwell> We can't PR the message send until we're ready for the message to hit the network.
4172017-01-19T19:31:02 <wumpus> #topic Final Alert for 0.14
4182017-01-19T19:31:07 <gmaxwell> Okay I can do that today, I don't think we need any delays or announcements given the prior alert.
4192017-01-19T19:31:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: we could PR it without the signature
4202017-01-19T19:31:14 <petertodd> gmaxwell: ACK
4212017-01-19T19:31:19 <wumpus> let's just do it
4222017-01-19T19:31:23 <luke-jr> fine with me
4232017-01-19T19:31:28 <achow101> ACK
4242017-01-19T19:31:32 <petertodd> wumpus: <insert meme here>
4252017-01-19T19:32:26 <gmaxwell> K. well at least we don't have to discuss text for it.
4262017-01-19T19:33:01 <achow101> I can pr an update to the bitcoin.org post
4272017-01-19T19:33:01 <wumpus> hehe
4282017-01-19T19:33:16 <BlueMatt> 9108 needs an 0.14 tag, i believe
4292017-01-19T19:33:29 *** jdjehjssidi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4302017-01-19T19:33:45 <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: not necessarily
4312017-01-19T19:33:49 <BlueMatt> i vote 9392 gets a non-0.14 tag
4322017-01-19T19:33:53 <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: it fixes an 0.14-tagged issue
4332017-01-19T19:34:02 <BlueMatt> so either that or 9034 loses its tag
4342017-01-19T19:34:07 <jonasschnelli> WatchOnly where always with birthday 0
4352017-01-19T19:34:13 <sipa> https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder963/500x/74859963.jpg
4362017-01-19T19:34:15 <jonasschnelli> indeed
4372017-01-19T19:34:29 <gmaxwell> There are a number of importmulti serious bugfixes I have queued which I was waiting until after the freeze to finish.
4382017-01-19T19:35:01 <jonasschnelli> ack on untag #9034 for 0.14?
4392017-01-19T19:35:03 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9034 | importmulti does not respect the given timestamp · Issue #9034 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4402017-01-19T19:35:28 <wumpus> BlueMatt: tagged
4412017-01-19T19:35:31 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I assume that is related to #9491?
4422017-01-19T19:35:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9491 | Importmulti api is confusing in a way that could lead to funds loss. · Issue #9491 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4432017-01-19T19:35:54 <morcos> wait i'm confused... gmaxwell you don't want those merged before 0.14 or you do?
4442017-01-19T19:36:55 <jonasschnelli> I guess he don't..
4452017-01-19T19:36:57 <morcos> nm, BlueMatt confused me... importmulti fixes should be in 0.14, i think we all agree
4462017-01-19T19:37:14 <sipa> yes
4472017-01-19T19:37:27 <jonasschnelli> Ah.. okay. I read it wrong.
4482017-01-19T19:37:30 <luke-jr> the impression I got is that gmaxwell just has more work to do on them, and was prioritising stuff before it
4492017-01-19T19:37:38 <sipa> agree
4502017-01-19T19:37:54 <BlueMatt> I'm ok with untagging #9027 for 14 - it was pointed out that we can do a simple fix to address the issue mentioned there, but there are other issues so its nontrivial to *really* fix
4512017-01-19T19:37:55 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9027 | Unbounded reorg memory usage · Issue #9027 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4522017-01-19T19:39:42 <morcos> so in the category of fixes
4532017-01-19T19:40:21 *** To7 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4542017-01-19T19:40:23 <morcos> wumpus and sipa when you get a chance, take a look at #9371... i think thats the direction you wanted me to go... and if we do 9583.. its pretty clearly no change in behavior from what txConflicted would have done..
4552017-01-19T19:40:25 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9371 | Notify on removal by morcos · Pull Request #9371 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4562017-01-19T19:41:42 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] paveljanik opened pull request #9587: Do not shadow local variable named `tx`. (master...20170119_Wshadow_net_processing) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9587
4572017-01-19T19:42:23 <wumpus> morcos: will do
4582017-01-19T19:43:45 *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4592017-01-19T19:44:03 *** jdjehjssidi has quit IRC
4602017-01-19T19:45:30 <wumpus> ok, any other topics?
4612017-01-19T19:45:39 <sipa> i propose lunch
4622017-01-19T19:45:39 <BlueMatt> I'm done (finally) :p
4632017-01-19T19:45:48 <BlueMatt> sipa: too late, already did that
4642017-01-19T19:46:01 <wumpus> let's end early then
4652017-01-19T19:46:06 <wumpus> #endmeeting
4662017-01-19T19:46:06 <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Jan 19 19:46:06 2017 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
4672017-01-19T19:46:06 <lightningbot> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-01-19-19.00.html
4682017-01-19T19:46:06 <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-01-19-19.00.txt
4692017-01-19T19:46:06 <lightningbot> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-01-19-19.00.log.html
4702017-01-19T19:46:37 <luke-jr> sipa: if you get a minute, can you give me at least a text-"verbal" ACK for some copyright license to put on BIPs 30, 32, 62, 66, and 103 please? is BSD-2-Clause okay?
4712017-01-19T19:46:49 <jonasschnelli> Anyone has an idea how to deal with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9294#pullrequestreview-17535025?
4722017-01-19T19:47:01 <sipa> luke-jr: ACK on 2-clause BSD for 30,32,62,66,103
4732017-01-19T19:47:10 <luke-jr> sipa: thanks
4742017-01-19T19:47:13 <sipa> (and for any other BIPs I contributed to)
4752017-01-19T19:47:14 <jonasschnelli> We did the same for 0.13 HD, but I actually think its a good finding by gmaxwell
4762017-01-19T19:47:45 <sipa> yeah, there is a race there
4772017-01-19T19:48:00 <sipa> that's always the case when a feature needs to be tied to a version number
4782017-01-19T19:48:18 <morcos> i don't see any problem leaving FEATURE_HD_SPLIT = 139900
4792017-01-19T19:48:21 <jonasschnelli> sipa: keeping in 139999 looks bad but is efficient?
4802017-01-19T19:48:24 <morcos> that seems the correct way to do it
4812017-01-19T19:48:41 <jonasschnelli> Agree with morcos
4822017-01-19T19:48:54 <sipa> a better way would be to disentangle the wallet version number for the software version number
4832017-01-19T19:49:09 <sipa> so the wallet version can just be bumped in the same PR as the feature is introduced
4842017-01-19T19:49:11 <jonasschnelli> Yes.
4852017-01-19T19:49:23 <morcos> ok.. but then you end up with a lot of version
4862017-01-19T19:49:26 <jonasschnelli> Together with a switch-away from BDB. :)
4872017-01-19T19:49:32 <morcos> i had this exact same issue with fee estimation
4882017-01-19T19:49:46 <morcos> for the data files it got merged with 139900
4892017-01-19T19:50:55 <morcos> but yeah if you ever wanted to backport something, it would be important to have different version for different feature types
4902017-01-19T19:51:21 <sipa> for the wallet we could just introduce a serialized set of strings
4912017-01-19T19:51:29 <sipa> one for each compatibility-breaking features
4922017-01-19T19:51:38 <BlueMatt> just set it to 14XXX and if it doesnt get merged set it to 15XXX prior to merge
4932017-01-19T19:51:47 <BlueMatt> i dont see whats wrong with a wallet saying 14 prior to 14
4942017-01-19T19:51:53 <jonasschnelli> I guess I once did that (what sipa said)
4952017-01-19T19:52:01 <jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8369
4962017-01-19T19:52:04 <jonasschnelli> #8369
4972017-01-19T19:52:06 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8369 | [FOR LATER USE][WIP][Wallet] add support for a flexible "set of features" by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #8369 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4982017-01-19T19:52:16 <BlueMatt> ok, nvm, Ive been told I'm wrong
4992017-01-19T19:52:17 *** windsok has quit IRC
5002017-01-19T19:52:18 <BlueMatt> anyway, doesnt matter
5012017-01-19T19:52:22 <BlueMatt> pick a number out of a hat, I say
5022017-01-19T19:52:28 <BlueMatt> (and dont change it)
5032017-01-19T19:52:48 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #9588: qt: Use nPowTargetSpacing constant (master...Mf1701-qtParams) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9588
5042017-01-19T19:53:14 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5052017-01-19T19:54:52 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
5062017-01-19T19:58:59 *** davec has quit IRC
5072017-01-19T20:00:37 *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5082017-01-19T20:05:07 *** cryptapus has quit IRC
5092017-01-19T20:09:16 *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5102017-01-19T20:11:46 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5112017-01-19T20:19:40 *** Netmage has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5122017-01-19T20:22:53 *** windsok has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5132017-01-19T20:26:50 <sdaftuar> sipa: i've been thinking about PrecomputedTransactionData (prompted by jl2012's pr, #9572, where he proposed skipping the calculation for non-segwit tx's)
5142017-01-19T20:26:52 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9572 | Skip witness sighash cache for non-segwit transactions by jl2012 · Pull Request #9572 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5152017-01-19T20:28:08 <sdaftuar> now that we avoid copying CTransaction's around, by deserializing directly to a shared pointer, which in turn gets stored in the mempool and typically reconstructed into a block via compact block relay, that we could calculate these PrecomputedTransactionData's just once
5162017-01-19T20:28:21 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
5172017-01-19T20:28:22 <sdaftuar> and store them somewhere, and avoid recalculation in ConnectBlock
5182017-01-19T20:28:37 <sdaftuar> my first thought was to just store them in CTransaction itself
5192017-01-19T20:29:13 <sdaftuar> which is not so hard to code up, but i don't know that the overhead is worth it in every situation, for instance reading a block off disk to deliver to a peer
5202017-01-19T20:29:20 <sdaftuar> or reading a tx off the network that we end up discarding
5212017-01-19T20:32:15 <sdaftuar> sipa: anyway i'd be curious to know whether you think this is worth pursuing, and if so what route you'd suggest i try. for instance, i could try adding extra information to CTransaction that may be changed after it's deserialized, but that would undo all the effort you just went through to make it never change after deserialization!
5222017-01-19T20:32:57 *** Netmage has quit IRC
5232017-01-19T20:33:03 <gmaxwell> We should generally figure out how to cut out needless computation in reading blocks from disk generally... like we shouldn't be computing hashroots just to reply to a getdata.
5242017-01-19T20:33:08 <gmaxwell> (or in wallet rescan)
5252017-01-19T20:33:13 *** Netmage has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5262017-01-19T20:33:53 <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: yeah that occurred to me as well. i think there are other situations too, though -- such as someone sends you a giant block off the network that you end up not processing (say because it's low work)
5272017-01-19T20:34:11 <sdaftuar> we deserialize each transaction and calculate its hash before deciding to ignore it
5282017-01-19T20:34:17 <sdaftuar> and my proposed code would have quadrupled the hashing...
5292017-01-19T20:35:50 <gmaxwell> I do like the ideal of stapling that stuff to the transaction.
5302017-01-19T20:37:20 <sdaftuar> any suggestions on the best way to do it? i've been brainstorming with ryanofsky and bluematt, some of the options that have been proposed include: keeping CTransaction as it is, but adding a new container CHashedTransaction that contains it and adds extra data, and storing that in the mempool
5312017-01-19T20:37:44 <sdaftuar> or, adding mutable data to the CTransaction, and possibly also some kind of synchronization primitives so that it can be updated after the fact (? ew)
5322017-01-19T20:44:37 <gmaxwell> I was thinking the container thing/
5332017-01-19T20:44:40 * gmaxwell lunch &
5342017-01-19T20:45:12 <ryanofsky> sdaftuar, for the mutable data approach, you could use c++11 call_once (http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/call_once) to implement it without having to use low-level synchronization primitives directly
5352017-01-19T20:50:23 *** handlex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5362017-01-19T20:52:29 *** arubi has quit IRC
5372017-01-19T20:52:44 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5382017-01-19T20:56:11 *** arubi has quit IRC
5392017-01-19T20:56:11 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5402017-01-19T20:57:04 *** Netmage has quit IRC
5412017-01-19T21:04:30 *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5422017-01-19T21:05:01 * luke-jr glares at Travis for being so slow
5432017-01-19T21:22:48 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #9589: Use incrementalRelayFee for BIP 125 (RBF) replacement logic (master...incrementalFee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9589
5442017-01-19T21:26:48 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #9590: Improve readability by removing redundant casts to same type (master...remove-redundant-casts) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9590
5452017-01-19T21:47:59 <achow101> gmaxwell: when is the alert going out?
5462017-01-19T22:00:05 *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5472017-01-19T22:33:54 *** marcoagner has quit IRC
5482017-01-19T22:34:24 *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5492017-01-19T22:38:53 *** chjj has quit IRC
5502017-01-19T22:40:10 *** aalex has quit IRC
5512017-01-19T22:47:50 *** waxwing has quit IRC
5522017-01-19T22:48:38 *** Greybits has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5532017-01-19T22:52:13 *** handlex has quit IRC
5542017-01-19T22:58:58 *** Greybits has quit IRC
5552017-01-19T23:07:21 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5562017-01-19T23:28:54 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
5572017-01-19T23:33:22 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #9591: [WIP] count mempool and extra pool matches correctly in PartiallyDownloadedBlock::InitData() (master...compactmatches) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9591
5582017-01-19T23:44:15 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #9592: [Qt] Add checkbox in the GUI to opt-in to RBF when creating a transaction (master...pr/grbf) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9592
5592017-01-19T23:53:49 *** handlex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5602017-01-19T23:56:30 *** chjj has quit IRC