1 2017-10-12T00:04:14  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #11488: Codeai fixes: remove dead code, prevent possible division by zero. (master...codeai-fixes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11488
  2 2017-10-12T00:04:28  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  3 2017-10-12T00:04:40  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2017-10-12T00:04:56  <fanquake> I guess their AI didn't bother checking the open pull requests..
  5 2017-10-12T00:12:17  *** jb55 has quit IRC
  6 2017-10-12T00:16:21  <esotericnonsense> `CodeAi suggests` is hilarious
  7 2017-10-12T00:20:05  <sipa> they're pretty good suggestions
  8 2017-10-12T00:24:39  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
  9 2017-10-12T00:35:06  <esotericnonsense> fanquake: you really missed a trick with the response. 'fanquake suggests an issue is raised on the CodeAi github regarding ...' :p
 10 2017-10-12T00:36:24  <TD-Linux> I'm impressed that none of them were false positives
 11 2017-10-12T00:36:57  <sipa> TD-Linux: perhaps they're human-filtered?
 12 2017-10-12T00:39:43  <fanquake> sipa If you're are doing some review, could you check #11073 ?
 13 2017-10-12T00:39:45  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11073 | Remove dead store in ecdsa_signature_parse_der_lax. by BitonicEelis · Pull Request #11073 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 14 2017-10-12T00:39:53  *** chartractegg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 15 2017-10-12T00:45:52  *** chartractegg has quit IRC
 16 2017-10-12T00:49:14  *** chartractegg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 17 2017-10-12T00:52:08  *** meshcollider has quit IRC
 18 2017-10-12T00:59:51  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 19 2017-10-12T01:01:17  *** dabura667 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2017-10-12T01:07:06  *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 21 2017-10-12T01:17:10  *** wxss has quit IRC
 22 2017-10-12T01:23:25  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
 23 2017-10-12T01:23:49  *** chartractegg has quit IRC
 24 2017-10-12T01:24:05  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 25 2017-10-12T01:32:28  *** wxss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 26 2017-10-12T01:37:23  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 27 2017-10-12T01:42:12  *** chartractegg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 28 2017-10-12T01:45:17  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 29 2017-10-12T01:54:50  *** Deacyde has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 30 2017-10-12T02:04:13  *** chartractegg has quit IRC
 31 2017-10-12T02:07:08  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
 32 2017-10-12T02:12:02  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 33 2017-10-12T02:13:17  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 34 2017-10-12T02:13:31  *** bigtimmyc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 35 2017-10-12T02:13:39  <bigtimmyc> hello
 36 2017-10-12T02:14:25  <bigtimmyc> looking for some advice fellas
 37 2017-10-12T02:16:24  <sipa> you're generally better off on #bitcoin, but without asking a question it's hard to know
 38 2017-10-12T02:17:16  <bigtimmyc> just looking for general starter advice for development
 39 2017-10-12T02:17:21  <bigtimmyc> should I go to #bitcoin?
 40 2017-10-12T02:18:06  <bigtimmyc> just a little confused with how to get started
 41 2017-10-12T02:19:38  *** chartractegg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 42 2017-10-12T02:20:05  <wxss> bigtimmyc: this channel is for development of the Bitcoin Core client, you may want to try #bitcoin for starting advice
 43 2017-10-12T02:20:36  <bigtimmyc> sounds good, thanks
 44 2017-10-12T02:20:41  <bigtimmyc> JOIN #bitcoin
 45 2017-10-12T02:20:43  <bigtimmyc> fuck
 46 2017-10-12T02:20:47  <sipa> almost!
 47 2017-10-12T02:26:53  *** chartractegg has quit IRC
 48 2017-10-12T02:39:26  *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 49 2017-10-12T02:48:27  *** clusk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 50 2017-10-12T03:10:17  *** meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 51 2017-10-12T03:14:24  *** goatpig has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 52 2017-10-12T03:15:22  *** xHire has quit IRC
 53 2017-10-12T03:20:59  <BlueMatt> someone wanna close #11481? he's asking why there are two tx sizes (hint: segwit.....)
 54 2017-10-12T03:21:00  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11481 | Different size and same transaction · Issue #11481 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 55 2017-10-12T03:52:27  *** owowo has quit IRC
 56 2017-10-12T03:58:11  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 57 2017-10-12T04:08:34  *** wxss has quit IRC
 58 2017-10-12T04:15:21  *** Deacydal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 59 2017-10-12T04:17:26  *** Deacyde has quit IRC
 60 2017-10-12T04:26:59  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 61 2017-10-12T04:26:59  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 62 2017-10-12T04:44:54  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kallewoof opened pull request #11489: [wallet] sendtoaddress style argument (master...201709_segwitwallet2_sendtoaddress) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11489
 63 2017-10-12T04:53:14  *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 64 2017-10-12T04:57:23  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
 65 2017-10-12T04:58:31  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 66 2017-10-12T05:04:30  *** goatpig has quit IRC
 67 2017-10-12T05:28:55  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 68 2017-10-12T05:30:29  *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
 69 2017-10-12T05:48:49  *** bigtimmyc has quit IRC
 70 2017-10-12T05:49:21  *** DrOlmer has quit IRC
 71 2017-10-12T05:49:53  *** DrOlmer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 72 2017-10-12T05:57:11  *** fanquake has quit IRC
 73 2017-10-12T06:40:30  *** clusk has quit IRC
 74 2017-10-12T06:41:04  *** clusk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 75 2017-10-12T06:45:40  *** clusk has quit IRC
 76 2017-10-12T06:48:41  *** clusk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 77 2017-10-12T06:56:14  *** h1d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 78 2017-10-12T06:56:25  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 79 2017-10-12T07:00:38  *** RoyceX has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 80 2017-10-12T07:01:38  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] justicz closed pull request #11201: [WIP] [RPC] Add verifyrawtransaction RPC (master...maxj_add_verify_tx_rpc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11201
 81 2017-10-12T07:18:04  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 82 2017-10-12T07:19:01  *** sanada has quit IRC
 83 2017-10-12T07:20:33  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 84 2017-10-12T07:22:05  *** RoyceX has quit IRC
 85 2017-10-12T07:24:37  *** sanada has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 86 2017-10-12T07:54:12  *** pbase has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 87 2017-10-12T07:58:30  *** Emcy has quit IRC
 88 2017-10-12T08:08:19  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 89 2017-10-12T08:17:37  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
 90 2017-10-12T08:19:34  *** alreadylate has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 91 2017-10-12T08:24:00  *** alreadylate has quit IRC
 92 2017-10-12T08:25:19  *** Cogito_Ergo_Sum has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 93 2017-10-12T08:29:57  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 94 2017-10-12T08:32:24  *** Emcy_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 95 2017-10-12T08:32:40  *** promag has quit IRC
 96 2017-10-12T08:33:35  *** clusk has quit IRC
 97 2017-10-12T08:33:37  *** Emcy has quit IRC
 98 2017-10-12T08:35:44  *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
 99 2017-10-12T08:38:03  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
100 2017-10-12T08:43:15  *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
101 2017-10-12T09:05:27  *** Emcy_ has quit IRC
102 2017-10-12T09:06:03  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
103 2017-10-12T09:19:07  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
104 2017-10-12T09:21:10  *** promag has quit IRC
105 2017-10-12T09:22:03  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
106 2017-10-12T09:36:17  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
107 2017-10-12T09:38:19  *** promag has quit IRC
108 2017-10-12T09:47:16  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
109 2017-10-12T09:53:31  *** roadcrap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2017-10-12T10:02:22  *** h1d has quit IRC
111 2017-10-12T10:02:40  *** pbase has quit IRC
112 2017-10-12T10:05:04  *** dabura667 has quit IRC
113 2017-10-12T10:17:50  *** promag has quit IRC
114 2017-10-12T10:19:07  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
115 2017-10-12T10:22:19  *** promag has quit IRC
116 2017-10-12T10:29:08  *** btcdrak has quit IRC
117 2017-10-12T10:32:12  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
118 2017-10-12T10:37:15  *** wxss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
119 2017-10-12T10:40:55  *** xHire has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2017-10-12T10:47:40  *** Emcy has quit IRC
121 2017-10-12T10:48:21  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122 2017-10-12T10:50:25  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
123 2017-10-12T10:52:57  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
124 2017-10-12T10:58:53  *** Emcy has quit IRC
125 2017-10-12T10:59:28  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
126 2017-10-12T11:01:52  *** Emcy has quit IRC
127 2017-10-12T11:02:10  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
128 2017-10-12T11:27:22  *** esotericnonsense has quit IRC
129 2017-10-12T11:34:42  *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
130 2017-10-12T11:40:41  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/892809309c1b...a865b38bf332
131 2017-10-12T11:40:41  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 55509f1 practicalswift: Document assumptions that are being made to avoid division by zero
132 2017-10-12T11:40:42  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a865b38 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11133: Document assumptions that are being made to avoid division by zero...
133 2017-10-12T11:41:12  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11133: Document assumptions that are being made to avoid division by zero (master...div0) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11133
134 2017-10-12T11:41:37  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a865b38bf332...3bb77ebee6e3
135 2017-10-12T11:41:38  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bfebc0b Eelis: Remove dead store in ecdsa_signature_parse_der_lax....
136 2017-10-12T11:41:38  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3bb77eb Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11073: Remove dead store in ecdsa_signature_parse_der_lax....
137 2017-10-12T11:42:04  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11073: Remove dead store in ecdsa_signature_parse_der_lax. (master...deadstore) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11073
138 2017-10-12T12:01:03  *** xwin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
139 2017-10-12T12:01:13  *** xwin has left #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2017-10-12T12:04:09  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
141 2017-10-12T12:06:41  *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
142 2017-10-12T12:29:04  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
143 2017-10-12T12:46:57  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
144 2017-10-12T12:49:13  *** meshcollider has quit IRC
145 2017-10-12T12:55:06  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 7 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3bb77ebee6e3...f74459dba6de
146 2017-10-12T12:55:07  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master edafc71 Russell Yanofsky: Fix uninitialized URI in batch RPC requests...
147 2017-10-12T12:55:07  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e02007a Russell Yanofsky: Limit AuthServiceProxyWrapper.__getattr__ wrapping...
148 2017-10-12T12:55:08  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9f67646 Russell Yanofsky: Make AuthServiceProxy._batch method usable...
149 2017-10-12T12:55:38  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11277: Fix uninitialized URI in batch RPC requests (master...pr/mb) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11277
150 2017-10-12T13:22:59  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
151 2017-10-12T13:38:48  *** merehap_ has quit IRC
152 2017-10-12T13:42:23  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
153 2017-10-12T13:49:53  *** DrOlmer has quit IRC
154 2017-10-12T13:50:04  *** DrOlmer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
155 2017-10-12T13:56:44  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
156 2017-10-12T14:22:37  <wumpus> github has something new apparently
157 2017-10-12T14:22:38  <wumpus> Label issues and pull requests for new contributors
158 2017-10-12T14:22:38  <wumpus> Now, GitHub will help potential first-time contributors discover issues labeled with help wanted or good first issue
159 2017-10-12T14:24:17  <wumpus> a good idea, though I don't like that we have to add labels in exactly their syntax (and probably capitalization) now
160 2017-10-12T14:25:10  *** wraithm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
161 2017-10-12T14:30:51  <Sentineo> yeah I saw that, but the idea is certainly nice
162 2017-10-12T14:31:08  *** NielsvG has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
163 2017-10-12T14:38:22  <wumpus> maybe rename "Easy to implement" to "good first issue"? it's the same idea after all
164 2017-10-12T14:38:43  <wumpus> was introduced for the same reason
165 2017-10-12T14:39:41  <Sentineo> well easy to implement is relative :) easy for who?
166 2017-10-12T14:41:09  *** promag has quit IRC
167 2017-10-12T14:52:12  <wumpus> it only makes sense as a label if it's broadly true
168 2017-10-12T14:54:13  <Sentineo> indeed
169 2017-10-12T14:54:22  <wumpus> everything might be easy to implement for a single person with matching super-specialized knowledge
170 2017-10-12T14:55:18  <wumpus> we can add an "easy to implement for sipa" label and add it to all issues *ducks*
171 2017-10-12T14:58:09  *** harding has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172 2017-10-12T14:58:37  <sdaftuar> +1
173 2017-10-12T15:11:24  <midnightmagic> +1
174 2017-10-12T15:19:24  <Sentineo> :D
175 2017-10-12T15:24:30  *** BashCo has quit IRC
176 2017-10-12T15:25:07  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
177 2017-10-12T15:26:57  *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
178 2017-10-12T15:29:36  *** BashCo has quit IRC
179 2017-10-12T15:45:40  *** jb55 has quit IRC
180 2017-10-12T15:47:17  *** Ofelia has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
181 2017-10-12T15:50:47  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182 2017-10-12T15:53:24  *** ananteris has quit IRC
183 2017-10-12T16:26:43  *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
184 2017-10-12T16:28:13  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
185 2017-10-12T16:31:26  *** karelb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
186 2017-10-12T16:42:23  <promag> sipa: in case you missed https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11221/files#r143359150
187 2017-10-12T16:51:29  *** Emcy has quit IRC
188 2017-10-12T16:55:01  *** promag has quit IRC
189 2017-10-12T16:56:52  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
190 2017-10-12T16:57:10  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
191 2017-10-12T17:26:04  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192 2017-10-12T17:27:00  *** timothy has quit IRC
193 2017-10-12T17:33:50  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
194 2017-10-12T17:45:04  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
195 2017-10-12T17:45:54  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
196 2017-10-12T18:17:04  *** mess110 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
197 2017-10-12T18:26:07  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
198 2017-10-12T18:26:11  <mess110> hi, I am trying to work on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7734 and I wanted to ask for advice
199 2017-10-12T18:26:23  <mess110> I added the icon on the GUI, designed the icon for proxy/no proxy (still needs work, but I got this), you can see my progress here:
200 2017-10-12T18:26:27  *** wxss has quit IRC
201 2017-10-12T18:26:37  <mess110> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...mess110:add_proxy_icon?expand=1
202 2017-10-12T18:26:43  <mess110> I am stuck figuring out if I need to show the icon enabled or disabled depending if a proxy/tor proxy is used.
203 2017-10-12T18:26:51  <mess110> I can look into settings, but I don't think that is a complete solution because it doesn't handle command line options.
204 2017-10-12T18:26:57  <mess110> I tried itterating over proxies here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...mess110:add_proxy_icon?expand=1#diff-0db7dd184df07a48c307ccc182021a68R266
205 2017-10-12T18:27:03  <mess110> but I always get not connected, even with tor browser running locally, so I was wondering if someone could give me some advice, thanks in advance
206 2017-10-12T18:34:41  *** mmgen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
207 2017-10-12T18:40:46  <luke-jr> I guess there's a question of what conditions the icon should be lit; Tor *only*, or Tor at all?
208 2017-10-12T18:41:16  <sipa> how do we know you're proxying through tor?
209 2017-10-12T18:42:47  <wumpus> in the case of torcontrol automatically using tor it's easy
210 2017-10-12T18:42:57  <wumpus> for an arbitrary socks5 proxy it's harder to say
211 2017-10-12T18:43:11  <mess110> the way I see it: no proxy icon not lit. other proxy proxy icon lit. tor proxy different icon
212 2017-10-12T18:43:56  <wumpus> maybe easier to do would be a proxy icon
213 2017-10-12T18:44:02  <wumpus> then later on worry about tor detection
214 2017-10-12T18:44:12  <wumpus> (say, in a followup PR)
215 2017-10-12T18:44:21  <sipa> there is -tor, but that's about configuring a proxy for tor connections
216 2017-10-12T18:44:24  <mess110> ok, but would checking the settings be enough?
217 2017-10-12T18:44:33  <sipa> mess110: no
218 2017-10-12T18:44:48  <wumpus> you should check the same thing getnetworkinfo checks
219 2017-10-12T18:44:49  <sipa> in normal circumstances you'd just use -proxy
220 2017-10-12T18:45:03  <wumpus> it has the information, per network, whether a proxy is used
221 2017-10-12T18:45:47  <luke-jr> our node needs to know if it has a Tor address to advertise..
222 2017-10-12T18:45:47  <wumpus> I'd say show the icon only if all networks use a proxy, becaues that's usually what the user wants to be informed of ("is everything I do proxied")
223 2017-10-12T18:46:11  <luke-jr> so there should never be a question whether Tor is setup or not
224 2017-10-12T18:46:18  <wumpus> luke-jr: yeah advertising the onion is what torcontrol does, let's focus on proxy first, tor later
225 2017-10-12T18:47:00  <luke-jr> "are we binding any non-localhost ports?"
226 2017-10-12T18:47:04  <wumpus> if a proxy is used for everything *and* that is the tor proxy, it could show a special tor icon, but that's easier to do
227 2017-10-12T18:47:16  <wumpus> eh harder
228 2017-10-12T18:47:24  <wumpus> this is not really about binding
229 2017-10-12T18:47:37  <wumpus> proxy is foremost about outgoing connections
230 2017-10-12T18:47:39  <mess110> sipa: I am using the GUI to set tor proxy and restarting the client. there is a chance I am not actually connected though a proxy because I am doing similar things like getnetworkinfo
231 2017-10-12T18:47:49  <wumpus> though you could check the listening too...
232 2017-10-12T18:48:14  <wumpus> if you set a proxy in the GUI, it will use a proxy next restart
233 2017-10-12T18:48:16  <luke-jr> wumpus: I'm not sure why users would care only about outgoing connections?
234 2017-10-12T18:48:27  <wumpus> luke-jr: because that's the only ones that go through a proxy
235 2017-10-12T18:48:39  <luke-jr> we broadcast transactions on incoming connections too
236 2017-10-12T18:48:54  <luke-jr> presumably the icon is desired to get a feel for privacy level
237 2017-10-12T18:48:55  <wumpus> sure, but if you provide -proxy at least it disables incoming connections
238 2017-10-12T18:50:24  <luke-jr> IMO, we should have 3 states: public, proxy (no non-local inbound connections accepted; outbound via proxy), and tor (no non-local inbound connections accepted; Tor hidden service address configured [and known to be working?])
239 2017-10-12T18:50:48  <wumpus> yeah that sounds ok
240 2017-10-12T18:51:43  <mess110> luke-jr: thats my long term plan now. will focus on detecting public/proxy in my first PR
241 2017-10-12T18:52:16  <mess110> and thx, I got confirmation that getnetworkinfo is what I should look at
242 2017-10-12T18:52:29  *** meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
243 2017-10-12T18:52:30  <luke-jr> yeah, that's probably a good example to go from
244 2017-10-12T18:55:36  *** clarkmoody has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
245 2017-10-12T19:00:04  <sipa> WOOSH
246 2017-10-12T19:00:13  <achow101> meeting?
247 2017-10-12T19:00:26  <Chris_Stewart_5> and HERE WE GO.
248 2017-10-12T19:00:55  <gmaxwell> wumpus
249 2017-10-12T19:01:06  <jonasschnelli> hi
250 2017-10-12T19:01:37  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
251 2017-10-12T19:02:11  <achow101> hi
252 2017-10-12T19:02:17  <wumpus> #startmeeting
253 2017-10-12T19:02:17  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Oct 12 19:02:17 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
254 2017-10-12T19:02:17  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
255 2017-10-12T19:02:22  <luke-jr> before we officially start, does anyone mind if I collapse the fixups in #11383 ?
256 2017-10-12T19:02:24  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11383 | Basic Multiwallet GUI support by luke-jr · Pull Request #11383 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
257 2017-10-12T19:02:40  <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 achow101
258 2017-10-12T19:02:47  <kanzure> hi.
259 2017-10-12T19:03:02  <cfields> hi
260 2017-10-12T19:03:26  <wumpus> luke-jr: probably best to do that just before merge
261 2017-10-12T19:03:34  <BlueMatt> suggested topics: backdating segwit/p2sh
262 2017-10-12T19:03:37  <BlueMatt> suggested topics: segwit wallet
263 2017-10-12T19:03:51  <BlueMatt> suggested topics: pre-2x release (possibly with no segwit wallet)?
264 2017-10-12T19:04:05  <wumpus> #topic Backdating segwit/p2sh (BlueMatt)
265 2017-10-12T19:04:15  * BlueMatt nominates sdaftuar/sipa/jl2012 to talk
266 2017-10-12T19:04:15  <sdaftuar> i guess matt wants me to talk about this one
267 2017-10-12T19:04:24  * sipa listens
268 2017-10-12T19:04:32  <jl2012> hi
269 2017-10-12T19:04:55  <meshcollider> Hello
270 2017-10-12T19:05:17  <gmaxwell> I am pro backdating but wasn't sure how we should handle the rollback and replay. Rolling back the whole chain would be unfortunate. :P
271 2017-10-12T19:05:20  <sdaftuar> in thinking about p2sh and segwit, they both have the property that it doesn't make sense to ever accept blocks that violate those rules
272 2017-10-12T19:05:41  <sdaftuar> in the case of p2sh, there was only one historical block that violated SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH
273 2017-10-12T19:05:47  <jl2012> I think backdating segwit is not trivial because the inclusion of witness commitment pre-fork
274 2017-10-12T19:05:56  <sdaftuar> in the case of segwit, no blocks have ever violated the segwit scritp flag SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS
275 2017-10-12T19:06:13  <gmaxwell> jl2012: I thought all the prefork ones were valid.
276 2017-10-12T19:06:15  <sdaftuar> but of course, the witness commitment validation rules don't really work for backdating
277 2017-10-12T19:06:27  <wumpus> backdating to when? to the beginning of the chain?
278 2017-10-12T19:06:27  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: i don't think that is true, though i didn't verify myself
279 2017-10-12T19:06:30  <sdaftuar> wumpus: yes
280 2017-10-12T19:06:42  <wumpus> interesting
281 2017-10-12T19:06:42  <cfields> jl2012: i checked the pre-activation commitments on mainnet and found them to all be valid
282 2017-10-12T19:06:48  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: somehow i thought many of them were invalid
283 2017-10-12T19:06:51  <BlueMatt> oh!
284 2017-10-12T19:06:52  <jl2012> gmaxwell: not exactly, because of lack of the 0000.....0000 coinbase witness
285 2017-10-12T19:06:53  <sdaftuar> cfields: oh!
286 2017-10-12T19:06:54  <achow101> isn't segwit only backdateable to p2sh activation at earliest?
287 2017-10-12T19:07:02  <gmaxwell> I think in general its cleanest when we can backdate softforks to the start.
288 2017-10-12T19:07:09  <BlueMatt> achow101: we're talking about backdating p2sh as well (with one exception)
289 2017-10-12T19:07:15  <sdaftuar> yes it would take some work to manufacture the witness nonces as jl2012 points out
290 2017-10-12T19:07:27  <sipa> what is the advantage over just hardcoding a height for segwit and p2sh start?
291 2017-10-12T19:07:30  <sdaftuar> but if it is really true that none were invalid, that might change the way i look at it
292 2017-10-12T19:07:45  <wumpus> sipa: no need to handle the non-segwit case for initial validation anymore ,I guess
293 2017-10-12T19:07:49  <BlueMatt> sipa: it is a very nice property (imo) that you will *never* accept any chain with invalid segwit/p2sh spends
294 2017-10-12T19:07:50  *** Emcy has quit IRC
295 2017-10-12T19:07:57  <BlueMatt> irrespective of reorgs
296 2017-10-12T19:08:03  <jl2012> sdaftuar: and for some blocks that was very close to 1MB, adding the coinbase witness will make it over 4M weight
297 2017-10-12T19:08:23  <sipa> BlueMatt: sure, but i'm not sure that weighs up against the complication of adding exceptions, make-pretending to have coinbase witnesses nonces, ...
298 2017-10-12T19:08:28  <gmaxwell> it also simplifies reasoning about further changes, e.g. what happens if someone forks early during IBD and feeds us a chain with things we assumed were impossible.
299 2017-10-12T19:08:43  <BlueMatt> in any case, I believe sdaftuar's suggestion was to backdate SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS/P2SH, but dissallow witnesses in blocks pre-activation, effectively disabling segwit
300 2017-10-12T19:08:47  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: yeah that's basically the reason i started thinking abotu this
301 2017-10-12T19:08:51  <sipa> BlueMatt: ugh
302 2017-10-12T19:08:52  <sdaftuar> but i don't feel strongly either way
303 2017-10-12T19:08:57  <BlueMatt> sipa: you can skip the witness nonce part
304 2017-10-12T19:09:15  <luke-jr> jl2012: are any of those blocks *also* with the commitment?
305 2017-10-12T19:09:21  <sipa> that's effectively splitting the segwit logic into 2 deployments, with one always active?
306 2017-10-12T19:09:23  <gmaxwell> I don't feel strongly about it except the general principle that it's better to backdate wheverever possible.
307 2017-10-12T19:09:35  <BlueMatt> sipa: well I would call that splitting it into one deployment and one consensus rule
308 2017-10-12T19:09:36  <BlueMatt> but ok
309 2017-10-12T19:09:40  <morcos> well an always active deployment is kind of not a deployment
310 2017-10-12T19:09:42  <morcos> right
311 2017-10-12T19:09:45  <sdaftuar> sipa: the branch i have splits the witness commitment rule from the script verification rule, basically
312 2017-10-12T19:09:46  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
313 2017-10-12T19:09:53  <sipa> BlueMatt: so you're not getting rid of the deployment overhead
314 2017-10-12T19:09:56  <sdaftuar> i was not sure it was an improvement
315 2017-10-12T19:10:15  <BlueMatt> sipa: indeed, it does not significantly simplify, it (mostly) just adds a very nice property
316 2017-10-12T19:10:28  <BlueMatt> (and, as gmaxwell points out, may simplify future fork logic)
317 2017-10-12T19:10:36  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
318 2017-10-12T19:10:36  <sipa> i understand the advantage of making a consensus rule always active, allowing you to get rid of some logic
319 2017-10-12T19:10:42  <jl2012> luke-jr: I guess so, especially from f2pool. They mine exactly 1MB block quite frequently
320 2017-10-12T19:10:43  <sdaftuar> jl2012: that weight issue is a good point
321 2017-10-12T19:10:47  <sipa> but it doesn't seem that's really possible here without further complication
322 2017-10-12T19:10:55  *** wxss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
323 2017-10-12T19:11:00  <BlueMatt> I dont think its adding significant new complication
324 2017-10-12T19:11:01  <gmaxwell> Not just simplfy but reduce the incidence where the community makes design errors due to reasoning from current rules without realizing they don't apply in IBD.
325 2017-10-12T19:11:28  <gmaxwell> but what sipa says, I don't think backdating is worth non-trivial extra complexity.
326 2017-10-12T19:11:32  <luke-jr> what's the downside to allowing witness in pre-activation blocks?
327 2017-10-12T19:11:47  <sipa> luke-jr: makes my head hurt
328 2017-10-12T19:11:59  *** Emcy has quit IRC
329 2017-10-12T19:12:07  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: that we'll make changes in the future based on an assumption that they're never there.
330 2017-10-12T19:12:27  <BlueMatt> sipa: I'm looking at https://github.com/sdaftuar/bitcoin/compare/2649d1690ce9458aa344a8ccfb1fa8548b2ac57c...2017-09-p2sh-segwit-from-genesis
331 2017-10-12T19:12:50  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
332 2017-10-12T19:12:52  <gmaxwell> We also don't have to decide this forever now, we could e.g. set it to activate at the real height now, and then later adjust it further back.
333 2017-10-12T19:12:53  <morcos> sipa: i just really hate the attack scenarios that involve feeding alternate chains that eventually get reorged out but possibly with poor consequences...  perhaps this is not a problem with segwit, but perhaps it is... say your wallet loses money in an unexpected way or something?
334 2017-10-12T19:13:14  <sipa> BlueMatt: that doesn't look too bad, i guess
335 2017-10-12T19:13:25  <sipa> but i need to think about it
336 2017-10-12T19:13:39  <BlueMatt> sipa: yes, sorry, should have shared the code since we're arguing based on different understandings...anyway, something to think about, I dont think I feel *that* strongly, but I am vaguely in favor
337 2017-10-12T19:13:40  <sdaftuar> if this is worth discussion, i can open a PR
338 2017-10-12T19:13:49  <sdaftuar> i wasn't sure whether to move this forward
339 2017-10-12T19:14:07  <sipa> but in regards to the next topic, do we want all that in 0.15.1?
340 2017-10-12T19:14:20  <morcos> no, i don't
341 2017-10-12T19:14:24  <sdaftuar> i don't think this so either
342 2017-10-12T19:14:25  <BlueMatt> i dont think so?
343 2017-10-12T19:14:29  <sipa> okay
344 2017-10-12T19:14:32  <wumpus> would be kind of hurried IMO
345 2017-10-12T19:14:37  <BlueMatt> very
346 2017-10-12T19:14:39  <gmaxwell> It would be really nice if 0.15.1 were out before the B2X split, but we're on the thin edge of that now I think.
347 2017-10-12T19:14:42  <wumpus> also let's not increase the scope of 0.15.1
348 2017-10-12T19:14:46  <BlueMatt> ok, so #action sdaftuar opens pr? next topic?
349 2017-10-12T19:14:46  <sipa> so this is unrelated to #11389
350 2017-10-12T19:14:48  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11389 | Support having SegWit always active in regtest by sipa · Pull Request #11389 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
351 2017-10-12T19:14:52  <wumpus> #topic segwit wallet
352 2017-10-12T19:15:20  <achow101> if we want 0.15.1 out before B2X, it probably needs to go into rc's within the next week
353 2017-10-12T19:15:27  <jonasschnelli> For the GUI, I'm working on a Bech32 error pointer (red underlines where errors appear)
354 2017-10-12T19:15:29  <sipa> achow101: seems unreasonable
355 2017-10-12T19:15:34  <sipa> i first want to get 11389 in, but there seems to be some discussion about the right approach
356 2017-10-12T19:15:35  <BlueMatt> (which probably means no segwit wallet)
357 2017-10-12T19:15:51  <wumpus> 0.15.0.2? :p
358 2017-10-12T19:15:55  <BlueMatt> yea, that
359 2017-10-12T19:16:03  <sipa> or 0.15.1 without segwit wallet, 0.15.2 with
360 2017-10-12T19:16:13  <wumpus> we'll just do minor-minor releases until we have the damn segwit wallet :)
361 2017-10-12T19:16:18  <BlueMatt> yea, numbers...isnt someone in charge of those so I dont have to think about them?
362 2017-10-12T19:16:18  <sipa> haha
363 2017-10-12T19:16:23  <jnewbery> I think #11389 is related to Suhas's suggested change, no?
364 2017-10-12T19:16:25  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11389 | Support having SegWit always active in regtest by sipa · Pull Request #11389 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
365 2017-10-12T19:16:38  <gmaxwell> well, RC by then at least would be good if not out...
366 2017-10-12T19:16:53  <BlueMatt> sipa: wait, so you want to have segwit always active in regtest for segwit wallet, or what am I misunderstanding about the need for segwit-regtest for 0.15.1?
367 2017-10-12T19:16:58  <sipa> BlueMatt: yes
368 2017-10-12T19:17:16  <sipa> adapting the tests to deal with segwit activation halfway through them is a giant pain
369 2017-10-12T19:17:23  <wumpus> so if we'd do 0.15.1 without segwit wallet, is there anything that still needs to go in? or can we tag rc1 after the meeting?
370 2017-10-12T19:17:27  <BlueMatt> test_framework().activate_segwit() ?
371 2017-10-12T19:17:31  <morcos> as much as i really want to concentrate on segwit wallet
372 2017-10-12T19:17:38  <sipa> jnewbery: i was starting to respond to you, but to the last point "We already have control to make a BIP9 deployment active at a certain height in regtest using -vbparams. What advantages do you see for making a deployment buried instead of just activated at a height?" -> -vbparams doesn't permit having segwit active before block 432
373 2017-10-12T19:17:50  <achow101> what's the point of doing 0.15.1 without segwit wallet?
374 2017-10-12T19:17:51  <morcos> i think practically speaking we should focus on what would be good to have before 2X
375 2017-10-12T19:17:56  <wumpus> I'm not sure what is the rationale for doing 0.15.1, are there important bugfixes that we need to get out?
376 2017-10-12T19:17:56  <morcos> and we should do that withotu segwit wallet
377 2017-10-12T19:18:13  <BlueMatt> wumpus: mostly I want https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11487/commits/09cf35122a219217f841e4e4f7847386eb0b0b8a pre-b2x
378 2017-10-12T19:18:18  <achow101> what needs to be done before 2X then?
379 2017-10-12T19:18:20  <BlueMatt> but dunno if thats a realistic goal (it probably isnt)
380 2017-10-12T19:18:20  <morcos> wumpus: there are a few edge cases with invalid chains that might cause for annoying behavior
381 2017-10-12T19:18:54  <wumpus> I mean MarcoFalke backported a lot of things, that's nice to have in #11447
382 2017-10-12T19:18:56  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11447 | 0.15.1: Backports by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #11447 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
383 2017-10-12T19:19:46  <wumpus> BlueMatt: so 11487 should get 0.15.1 tag?
384 2017-10-12T19:19:57  <BlueMatt> its not critical, but having edge cases that you may see if you're offline during the fork and suddenly you accept blocks that are on the 2x chain (if they're <4m weight and more work and within our pruning window) thats kinda annoying
385 2017-10-12T19:19:59  <wumpus> or really just that commit?
386 2017-10-12T19:20:02  <gmaxwell> Just for the record I think it is terrible that we're effectively being forced to delay segwit wallet due to this nonsense.
387 2017-10-12T19:20:11  <wumpus> if so, please open a separate PR for that
388 2017-10-12T19:20:14  <BlueMatt> wumpus: the rest of that pr is just test changes and other tiny things
389 2017-10-12T19:20:29  <wumpus> gmaxwell: yes, me to, I'd personally prefer not to change our plans for them
390 2017-10-12T19:20:30  <gmaxwell> (even if we don't bump around the versions for it, the fact that people are spending time on these other things creates delays)
391 2017-10-12T19:21:00  <wumpus> but if we need robustness changes now, better to do it
392 2017-10-12T19:21:04  <meshcollider> And add to high priority for review?
393 2017-10-12T19:21:13  <wumpus> yes, and remove the rest probably
394 2017-10-12T19:21:16  <gmaxwell> In any case, so far I haven't seen PRs that we need in advance merged yet, if there were some in, I would support doing a release with them.
395 2017-10-12T19:21:40  <gmaxwell> It's hard to anticipate what we'll need a month in advance...
396 2017-10-12T19:22:05  <BlueMatt> wumpus: again, I dont think its a "need", but its open for discussion
397 2017-10-12T19:22:07  <wumpus> if we want to do rc1 start of next week we'll really need to hurry
398 2017-10-12T19:22:10  <gmaxwell> esp because B2X has already changed their behavior to undermine our protections in the past... :-/
399 2017-10-12T19:22:18  <BlueMatt> its really gross that we may accept/store blocks on a chain we know is invalid
400 2017-10-12T19:22:25  <BlueMatt> but its not gonna do anything but use a bit more disk
401 2017-10-12T19:22:31  <gmaxwell> Yes, okay, that is a concern.
402 2017-10-12T19:22:54  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
403 2017-10-12T19:22:59  <meshcollider> #11446 probably won't make it either will it
404 2017-10-12T19:23:01  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11446 | [WIP] Bad block interrogation by achow101 · Pull Request #11446 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
405 2017-10-12T19:23:01  <wumpus> yes that's kind of gross
406 2017-10-12T19:23:28  <gmaxwell> meshcollider: well thats the sort of thing we're talking about right now.
407 2017-10-12T19:23:49  <achow101> I think 11446 would be necessary for a pre-B2X release so that we kick all peers that give us invalid blocks, not just the first
408 2017-10-12T19:23:57  <gmaxwell> basically to do these things we'll need to more or less drop working on SW wallet for a moment, get those things, and RC them. ASAP.
409 2017-10-12T19:24:17  <achow101> and/or maybe #10593
410 2017-10-12T19:24:19  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10593 | Relax punishment for peers relaying invalid blocks and headers by luke-jr · Pull Request #10593 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
411 2017-10-12T19:24:22  <meshcollider> Yeah a release including both of those would be worth it if they're ready for merge in time
412 2017-10-12T19:24:50  <gmaxwell> misleading PR title. :P
413 2017-10-12T19:25:03  <wumpus> ok tagged both of them for 0.15.1
414 2017-10-12T19:25:48  <wumpus> will move the rest that's tagged with 0.15.1 and unmerged to 0.15.2 when we actually decide to do the release
415 2017-10-12T19:25:50  <sdaftuar> fyi i have one more pr that is along these same lines that i will be opening shortly... basically trying to implement some of the outbound peer protection we talked abotu last week's meeting
416 2017-10-12T19:26:20  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: I'll put some time into helping review that. (though I'll be in the air much of the weekend...)
417 2017-10-12T19:26:26  <sdaftuar> awesome, thanks
418 2017-10-12T19:26:27  <cfields> sorry, i had to run out for a min.... Lots of people are expecting 0.15.1 as the release that enables more segwit wallet functionality. Releasing without that will be very confusing to lots of people. Is there any reason not to call it 0.15.0.2 ?
419 2017-10-12T19:26:52  <sipa> no opinion on versioning
420 2017-10-12T19:26:57  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: how is it misleading?
421 2017-10-12T19:26:58  <jonasschnelli> agree with cfields
422 2017-10-12T19:27:01  *** promag has quit IRC
423 2017-10-12T19:27:06  <jnewbery> +1 for 0.15.0.2
424 2017-10-12T19:27:07  <cfields> It's just that they've been told over and ove to wait for 0.15.1...
425 2017-10-12T19:27:08  <meshcollider> Agree with cfields as well
426 2017-10-12T19:27:08  <jl2012> ack 0.15.0.2
427 2017-10-12T19:27:19  <wumpus> no opinion on how to call it either, 0.15.0.2 was really a joke though, usually we do minor-mimor versions only for tiny changes
428 2017-10-12T19:27:31  <gmaxwell> I'd prefer to call 0.15.1 the one with segwit wallet just due to comms reasons.
429 2017-10-12T19:27:40  <luke-jr> personally, I'd prefer to move segwitwallet to 0.16, but it's numbers so who cares
430 2017-10-12T19:27:55  <wumpus> anyhow if everyone wants 0.15.0.2 , we'll have 0.15.0.2
431 2017-10-12T19:27:55  <luke-jr> comms reasons probably outweigh any reason to move it
432 2017-10-12T19:27:57  <meshcollider> Or look at #9653 now and throw everyone into confusion ;)
433 2017-10-12T19:27:58  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9653 | Versioning convention for Bitcoin Core · Issue #9653 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
434 2017-10-12T19:28:04  <wumpus> yes, agree with that
435 2017-10-12T19:28:07  <gmaxwell> (comms reasons is that there are a billionity messages on the internet saying 0.15.1 has segwit wallet)
436 2017-10-12T19:28:10  <wumpus> we've kind of promised segwit wallet in 0.15.1
437 2017-10-12T19:28:16  <cfields> right
438 2017-10-12T19:28:28  <achow101> what if we did segwit wallet this weekend? *ducks*
439 2017-10-12T19:28:35  <luke-jr> let's go with 0.15.½ :P
440 2017-10-12T19:28:44  <wumpus> achow101: if we did that, we'ld not get around to the ultra-high-priority ones that warrant releasing now
441 2017-10-12T19:28:45  <meshcollider> Lol
442 2017-10-12T19:28:49  <gmaxwell> so obviously we release 0.15.3  ... and then 0.15.1 after it...
443 2017-10-12T19:28:56  <wumpus> luke-jr: hehe floating point version numbers
444 2017-10-12T19:29:15  <wumpus> luke-jr: eh I mean fractions
445 2017-10-12T19:29:22  <meshcollider> 0.15.0.../.1
446 2017-10-12T19:29:36  <cfields> gmaxwell: starting to sound like gcc. Obviously gcc 8.0 is the beta :p
447 2017-10-12T19:30:02  <gmaxwell> 0.15.A
448 2017-10-12T19:30:18  <wumpus> ok, so 0.15.0.2 it is, will create a milestone and change the tags
449 2017-10-12T19:30:24  <gmaxwell> in any case, lets worry about that when we're actually ready to release; I think we understand the tradeoffs.
450 2017-10-12T19:30:34  <gmaxwell> sounds good to me
451 2017-10-12T19:30:41  <cfields> sorry for the late chime-in
452 2017-10-12T19:32:18  <wumpus> yeah no problem, I guess we covered both "segwit wallet" and "pre-2x release"  - any other topics?
453 2017-10-12T19:32:37  <morcos> So not clear to me if we've decided
454 2017-10-12T19:32:50  <morcos> Are we doing a pre-2X release or trying to at least
455 2017-10-12T19:33:10  <wumpus> my impression is that we're going to try
456 2017-10-12T19:33:14  <morcos> It would be helpful to note if we're clearly prioritizing that and putting them on high-priority-for-review
457 2017-10-12T19:33:20  <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/32
458 2017-10-12T19:33:39  <wumpus> yes, they should be (and anything else should go for nwo)
459 2017-10-12T19:33:49  <gmaxwell> it sounds like we're going to try...
460 2017-10-12T19:34:24  <gmaxwell> also keep in mind that there is value in having protections in master, even if they're not in a release... a small percentage of nodes in the network being protected can help improve stability for everyone.
461 2017-10-12T19:35:10  <morcos> achow101: can you please update title and description for #11446
462 2017-10-12T19:35:12  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11446 | [WIP] Bad block interrogation by achow101 · Pull Request #11446 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
463 2017-10-12T19:35:17  <achow101> morcos: hehe sure
464 2017-10-12T19:35:50  <morcos> And do you think we don't need #10593 if we have 11446?
465 2017-10-12T19:35:51  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10593 | Relax punishment for peers relaying invalid blocks and headers by luke-jr · Pull Request #10593 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
466 2017-10-12T19:35:56  <gmaxwell> in any case, based on CST prices, I think we should focus on protections that help in the case that we have disguised B2X peers and they're getting no blocks at all (Because they've rejected the bitcoin chain).
467 2017-10-12T19:36:19  <achow101> morcos: #10953 does something mostly different
468 2017-10-12T19:36:20  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10953 | [Refactor] Combine scriptPubKey and amount as CTxOut in CScriptCheck by jl2012 · Pull Request #10953 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
469 2017-10-12T19:36:34  <sipa> wrong pr number?
470 2017-10-12T19:36:44  <morcos> 593, see above
471 2017-10-12T19:36:45  <achow101> oops 10593
472 2017-10-12T19:36:52  <gmaxwell> #10593
473 2017-10-12T19:36:54  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10593 | Relax punishment for peers relaying invalid blocks and headers by luke-jr · Pull Request #10593 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
474 2017-10-12T19:36:59  <morcos> in 593 you say it does the same as 11446
475 2017-10-12T19:37:00  <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8 updated
476 2017-10-12T19:37:24  <achow101> I suggested it because luke-jr that it would do about the same thing plus some more, but I noticed that it doesn't really
477 2017-10-12T19:37:24  <morcos> basically i'm just trying to get concept acks here on what we're going for
478 2017-10-12T19:37:31  <morcos> ok
479 2017-10-12T19:37:44  <achow101> see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10593#issuecomment-334946691
480 2017-10-12T19:38:05  <achow101> I thought luke-jr might change it to include what 11446 does
481 2017-10-12T19:38:38  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yes, regarding b2x peers that have less hashpower and are disguised, I believe thats what sdaftuar is working on
482 2017-10-12T19:38:50  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: great, okay!
483 2017-10-12T19:38:59  <morcos> OK Can someone motivate 10593 for me
484 2017-10-12T19:39:19  <morcos> I mean not really motivate, but explain why it is important before 2X
485 2017-10-12T19:39:36  <luke-jr> It's more important before the next softfork, not so much before 2X, AFAIK
486 2017-10-12T19:39:48  <morcos> ok, that was my reading...
487 2017-10-12T19:39:56  <luke-jr> (if 2X would accept a reorg, it'd be useful, but 2X doesn't)
488 2017-10-12T19:40:16  <luke-jr> oh, if 2X users want to switch to Bitcoin, it might be useful for them
489 2017-10-12T19:40:16  <gmaxwell> I thought it also added disconnects on invalids that we currently don't have?
490 2017-10-12T19:40:33  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: because it turns some bans into disconnects?
491 2017-10-12T19:40:37  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: right
492 2017-10-12T19:40:37  <morcos> can we perhaps remove that from high priority and concentrate on the pre-2X things... (hmm, good point i suppose)
493 2017-10-12T19:40:46  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: IIRC, the disconnect-on-merely-invalid is achow101's PR
494 2017-10-12T19:41:38  <achow101> gmaxwell: it turns bans into disconnects, which includes the ban on the first time we see an invalid block
495 2017-10-12T19:43:26  <gmaxwell> I think that in and of itself is less critical.
496 2017-10-12T19:43:48  <luke-jr> so I guess 10593 is a nice-to-have before 2X, but not a must-have
497 2017-10-12T19:43:50  <luke-jr> ?
498 2017-10-12T19:43:57  <achow101> luke-jr: agreed
499 2017-10-12T19:44:24  <morcos> that sounds right to me
500 2017-10-12T19:44:37  <gmaxwell> sounds reasonable to me.
501 2017-10-12T19:45:09  <wumpus> so 10593 is less-than-higher-priority-for-review? :p
502 2017-10-12T19:45:22  <sdaftuar> slightly-higher-priority-for-review
503 2017-10-12T19:45:25  <sipa> elevated-priority
504 2017-10-12T19:45:48  <morcos> or as we used to do it in Core:  14275131000
505 2017-10-12T19:46:09  <sipa> $ date --date "@14275131000"
506 2017-10-12T19:46:09  <sipa> Thu May 12 03:10:00 PDT 2422
507 2017-10-12T19:46:14  * sdaftuar laughs after alex explained the joke
508 2017-10-12T19:46:31  <achow101> ???
509 2017-10-12T19:46:40  <morcos> heh, i made up the number b/c i was lazy, but there were number ranges.. one was for medium-high priority
510 2017-10-12T19:46:55  <BlueMatt> lol, ok, so did we ever discuss segwit wallet?
511 2017-10-12T19:47:01  <BlueMatt> sorry, I kinda derailed things :(
512 2017-10-12T19:47:07  <sipa> apparently we discussed it being less priority
513 2017-10-12T19:47:11  <sipa> or something
514 2017-10-12T19:47:12  <wumpus> TIL that date command line can convert unix timestamps, thanks sipa
515 2017-10-12T19:47:24  <BlueMatt> noooooo :(
516 2017-10-12T19:47:25  <sipa> wumpus: also, date "+%s"
517 2017-10-12T19:47:31  <morcos> how did you do that otherwise?
518 2017-10-12T19:47:33  <gmaxwell> 57599999
519 2017-10-12T19:47:46  <morcos> thanks gmax
520 2017-10-12T19:47:46  <BlueMatt> wumpus: oh, another hint, when reading git logs, it is useful to have a vim keybinding to call that command so you can see when it happened :p
521 2017-10-12T19:47:57  <wumpus> morcos: time.ctime(n) or time.localtime(n) in python
522 2017-10-12T19:48:01  <gmaxwell> morcos: python is pretty useful for date math.
523 2017-10-12T19:48:11  <sipa> BlueMatt: i will work on describing the alternatives for segwit wallet support, and some thoughts on wallet/ismine in 0.16
524 2017-10-12T19:48:19  <sipa> BlueMatt: but blocker is the always-segwit-active
525 2017-10-12T19:48:26  <gmaxwell> e.g. script I use for IBD benchmarking uses python to difference bitcoin log dates.
526 2017-10-12T19:48:26  <wumpus> gmaxwell: exactly
527 2017-10-12T19:48:31  <sipa> so review/discussion can focus on that for now, i think
528 2017-10-12T19:49:03  <BlueMatt> sipa: well, at least personally, I'm also fine with taking the always-active-segwit pr and then reverting it if we decide we want something more like jl2012's on master, isnt a big changeset either way
529 2017-10-12T19:49:10  <BlueMatt> so I'm not sure I'd call it a "blocker" in that sense.....
530 2017-10-12T19:49:16  <sipa> fair
531 2017-10-12T19:50:05  * luke-jr needs to move his bitcoin git to a SSD
532 2017-10-12T19:51:08  <wumpus> any other topics?
533 2017-10-12T19:51:44  <BlueMatt> #action activate segwit
534 2017-10-12T19:51:53  <wumpus> luke-jr: well at least your entire SSD won't be full with one git checkout, as with the linux kernel :-)
535 2017-10-12T19:52:01  * sipa fetches his DeLorean
536 2017-10-12T19:52:12  <wumpus> activate segwit in 1970
537 2017-10-12T19:52:13  <luke-jr> wumpus: git-show of a tag is taking me a full minute here :/
538 2017-10-12T19:52:27  <BlueMatt> luke-jr: is that on a 10-year-old sd card?!
539 2017-10-12T19:52:31  <gmaxwell> $ git grep -i delorean | wc -l
540 2017-10-12T19:52:31  <gmaxwell> 1
541 2017-10-12T19:52:36  <sipa> BlueMatt: it's on core memory
542 2017-10-12T19:52:38  <wumpus> luke-jr: git show? that just retrieves an object, that's slow even for a mechanical hd
543 2017-10-12T19:52:38  <cfields> BlueMatt: pretty sure we did that in a previous meeting. Though we could do it again and make it 2x activations...
544 2017-10-12T19:52:39  <luke-jr> BlueMatt: fairly newish 5400 RPM magnetic drive
545 2017-10-12T19:52:52  <luke-jr> wumpus: it does many many MB of reading for some reason
546 2017-10-12T19:53:01  <wumpus> git log can be kind of slow here, especially when showing branches (as I have about 800 local branches), but show is super quick
547 2017-10-12T19:53:03  <BlueMatt> 5400 RPM? eww
548 2017-10-12T19:53:07  <jonasschnelli> :-)
549 2017-10-12T19:53:19  <luke-jr> wumpus: I suspect part of the cause is that I never prune my git repo
550 2017-10-12T19:53:38  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
551 2017-10-12T19:53:42  <wumpus> luke-jr: can you prune a git repo?
552 2017-10-12T19:53:47  <wumpus> (or do you mean gc?)
553 2017-10-12T19:53:47  <sipa> git gc
554 2017-10-12T19:53:59  <wumpus> I interpreted that literally, like converting it to a shallow repo
555 2017-10-12T19:54:09  <sipa> git prune also exists, just removes unreachable objects
556 2017-10-12T19:54:19  <sipa> gc does that + compacting storage
557 2017-10-12T19:54:25  <luke-jr> wumpus: gc
558 2017-10-12T19:54:34  <sipa> shallow repo is something else
559 2017-10-12T19:54:38  <wumpus> git gc --aggresive  --force --prune=all
560 2017-10-12T19:54:41  <luke-jr> my gc is configured to only compress :P
561 2017-10-12T19:54:45  <sipa> why?
562 2017-10-12T19:55:01  <luke-jr> so I can git-show any object hash from any point in time, even if it's long-dead
563 2017-10-12T19:55:21  <CryptAxe> luke-jr I do 2 ssds in raid 0 + rsync backup to disk and it works great
564 2017-10-12T19:55:22  <luke-jr> .git is only 1.1 GB, surprisingly
565 2017-10-12T19:55:27  <sipa> perhaps you can split up your repo in an archive version + working version
566 2017-10-12T19:55:47  <luke-jr> sipa: well, I'm hoping simply moving it to SSD will be good enough XD
567 2017-10-12T19:55:51  <BlueMatt> #topic optimal git workflows for Core memory users
568 2017-10-12T19:55:51  <sipa> seems this meeting is out of topics?
569 2017-10-12T19:56:02  <sipa> #link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic-core_memory
570 2017-10-12T19:56:47  <luke-jr> wumpus: you suggested waiting to squash fixups into multiwallet until it's about to be merged; but jnewbery is asking for a rebase.. :x
571 2017-10-12T19:57:08  <wumpus> when I started using worktrees I've moved everything to work from a single .git tree (with seaprate checkouts for some branches), but a seperate archive and working copy sounds pretty good
572 2017-10-12T19:57:10  <sipa> if you need a rebase anyway, i generally don't care about squashing fixups
573 2017-10-12T19:57:27  <wumpus> mercury delay line memory ftw
574 2017-10-12T19:57:47  <wumpus> luke-jr: yes in that case feel free to squash
575 2017-10-12T19:58:10  <luke-jr> k, *done*
576 2017-10-12T19:58:39  <wumpus> #endmeeting
577 2017-10-12T19:58:39  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Oct 12 19:58:39 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
578 2017-10-12T19:58:39  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-10-12-19.02.html
579 2017-10-12T19:58:39  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-10-12-19.02.txt
580 2017-10-12T19:58:39  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-10-12-19.02.log.html
581 2017-10-12T20:01:43  <wumpus> btw the meetings hasn't been updated since june https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/, anyone know what happened to G1lius?
582 2017-10-12T20:03:11  <gmaxwell> I've seen him posting on reddit, I assume he's just been busy.
583 2017-10-12T20:03:13  <wumpus> he's had no github activity at all since :/
584 2017-10-12T20:03:15  <wumpus> okay
585 2017-10-12T20:04:05  <karelb> wumpus: yeah I wanted to ask this too, I wanted to read some recent summaries
586 2017-10-12T20:04:28  <wumpus> good to know he's alive and kicking on reddit at least :)
587 2017-10-12T20:04:46  <wumpus> if he's too busy we can try to find another volunteer
588 2017-10-12T20:05:03  *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
589 2017-10-12T20:05:16  <achow101> I can see if someone at my school's cryptocurrency club is interested in doing that
590 2017-10-12T20:05:30  <wumpus> achow101: cool, thanks
591 2017-10-12T20:05:40  <achow101> or we could ask harding :)
592 2017-10-12T20:05:52  <wumpus> it doesn't have to be as extensive as he did, but the basic info such as a link to the irc log and big bullet points would be nice
593 2017-10-12T20:06:13  <wumpus> what G1lius did was really great though
594 2017-10-12T20:06:40  <wumpus> harding is probably too busy too
595 2017-10-12T20:07:01  *** promag has quit IRC
596 2017-10-12T20:17:13  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
597 2017-10-12T20:29:53  *** owowo has quit IRC
598 2017-10-12T20:31:02  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
599 2017-10-12T20:34:52  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
600 2017-10-12T20:37:59  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
601 2017-10-12T20:43:44  *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
602 2017-10-12T20:44:56  *** Cogito_Ergo_Sum has quit IRC
603 2017-10-12T20:51:29  *** wvr- has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
604 2017-10-12T20:52:17  *** wvr has quit IRC
605 2017-10-12T20:54:57  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
606 2017-10-12T21:06:23  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #11490: Disconnect from outbound peers with bad headers chains (master...2017-10-outbound-peers-good-chain) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11490
607 2017-10-12T21:09:53  <sdaftuar> wumpus: ^ this is the PR i had in mind as a consideration for 0.15.0.2
608 2017-10-12T21:10:36  *** Emcy has quit IRC
609 2017-10-12T21:13:04  <wumpus> ok, will tag
610 2017-10-12T21:15:58  *** belcher has quit IRC
611 2017-10-12T21:23:56  *** mmgen has quit IRC
612 2017-10-12T21:24:39  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] mess110 opened pull request #11491: [gui] Add proxy icon in statusbar (master...add_proxy_icon) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11491
613 2017-10-12T21:26:18  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
614 2017-10-12T21:36:53  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
615 2017-10-12T21:39:38  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
616 2017-10-12T21:45:58  *** esotericnonsense has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
617 2017-10-12T21:50:21  *** DrOlmer has quit IRC
618 2017-10-12T21:50:53  *** DrOlmer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
619 2017-10-12T21:56:18  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 6 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f74459dba6de...470c730e3fa9
620 2017-10-12T21:56:19  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 55224af practicalswift: Remove redundant NULL checks after new
621 2017-10-12T21:56:19  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7466991 practicalswift: Remove redundant check (!ecc is always true)
622 2017-10-12T21:56:20  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b5fb339 practicalswift: Remove duplicate uriParts.size() > 0 check
623 2017-10-12T21:56:43  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10898: Fix invalid checks (NULL checks after dereference, redundant checks, etc.) (master...invalid-logic) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10898
624 2017-10-12T21:58:25  *** eck has quit IRC
625 2017-10-12T21:58:27  *** asoltys has quit IRC
626 2017-10-12T22:03:32  *** eck has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
627 2017-10-12T22:06:34  *** asoltys has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
628 2017-10-12T22:20:53  <promag> jnewbery: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11472#issuecomment-336280787 same PR or new?
629 2017-10-12T22:22:23  <harding> achow101, wumpus: I'll poke G1lius and see what's up with the meeting notes.
630 2017-10-12T22:22:44  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] promag opened pull request #11492: Fix leak in CDB constructor (master...2017-10-cdb-constructor-leak) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11492
631 2017-10-12T22:22:53  *** dermoth has quit IRC
632 2017-10-12T22:23:24  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
633 2017-10-12T22:30:01  *** wraithm has quit IRC
634 2017-10-12T22:32:57  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
635 2017-10-12T22:35:17  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/470c730e3fa9...424be0330514
636 2017-10-12T22:35:17  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8c2f4b8 Jeremy Rubin: Expose more parallelism with relaxed atomics (suggested in #9938). Fix a test to check the exclusive or of two properties rather than just or.
637 2017-10-12T22:35:18  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 424be03 Pieter Wuille: Merge #10099: Slightly Improve Unit Tests for Checkqueue...
638 2017-10-12T22:35:27  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #10099: Slightly Improve Unit Tests for Checkqueue (master...speedup-checkqueue-tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10099
639 2017-10-12T22:36:10  <promag> Is ryanofsky around?
640 2017-10-12T22:36:24  <ryanofsky> hi
641 2017-10-12T22:36:41  <promag> see my comment in 11492
642 2017-10-12T22:36:51  <promag> do you think I should squash?
643 2017-10-12T22:36:58  <promag> ty
644 2017-10-12T22:37:46  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
645 2017-10-12T22:38:41  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
646 2017-10-12T22:39:32  <ryanofsky> slight preference for keeping two commits, and updating message on second commit so it is more clearly a bugfix not just a refactoring
647 2017-10-12T22:39:56  <promag> ok, thanks
648 2017-10-12T22:43:14  *** timothy has quit IRC
649 2017-10-12T22:52:08  *** promag has quit IRC
650 2017-10-12T22:58:40  *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
651 2017-10-12T23:02:49  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
652 2017-10-12T23:05:39  *** mess110 has quit IRC
653 2017-10-12T23:07:43  *** DrOlmer has quit IRC
654 2017-10-12T23:18:28  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
655 2017-10-12T23:20:07  *** DrOlmer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
656 2017-10-12T23:24:26  *** timothy has quit IRC
657 2017-10-12T23:34:51  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
658 2017-10-12T23:35:07  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
659 2017-10-12T23:36:45  *** promag has quit IRC
660 2017-10-12T23:41:47  *** gbr_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
661 2017-10-12T23:56:13  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev