1 2019-03-25T00:05:12  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  2 2019-03-25T00:21:53  *** fanquake_ has quit IRC
  3 2019-03-25T00:25:03  *** Guest80974 has quit IRC
  4 2019-03-25T00:29:54  *** Zenton has quit IRC
  5 2019-03-25T00:45:04  *** belcher has quit IRC
  6 2019-03-25T00:52:19  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  7 2019-03-25T00:52:59  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  8 2019-03-25T00:56:28  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
  9 2019-03-25T00:58:13  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 10 2019-03-25T01:05:06  *** _Sam-- is now known as tonto27
 11 2019-03-25T01:11:00  *** tonto27 is now known as _Sam--
 12 2019-03-25T01:18:31  *** zhangzf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 13 2019-03-25T01:24:08  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2019-03-25T01:31:26  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 15 2019-03-25T01:43:07  *** _Sam-- has quit IRC
 16 2019-03-25T01:55:35  *** Aaronvan_ is now known as AaronvanW
 17 2019-03-25T02:12:52  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
 18 2019-03-25T02:12:52  *** BGL has quit IRC
 19 2019-03-25T02:38:40  *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2019-03-25T02:40:56  *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 21 2019-03-25T02:50:48  *** spinza has quit IRC
 22 2019-03-25T02:52:59  *** kj_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 23 2019-03-25T02:56:50  *** fanquake has quit IRC
 24 2019-03-25T02:57:44  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 25 2019-03-25T03:12:43  *** BGL has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 26 2019-03-25T03:15:58  *** fanquake has quit IRC
 27 2019-03-25T03:20:18  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 28 2019-03-25T03:22:18  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 29 2019-03-25T03:25:08  *** kj_ has quit IRC
 30 2019-03-25T03:26:24  *** promag has quit IRC
 31 2019-03-25T03:48:38  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 32 2019-03-25T03:54:58  *** fanquake has quit IRC
 33 2019-03-25T04:07:48  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 34 2019-03-25T04:16:02  *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
 35 2019-03-25T04:34:35  *** dviola has quit IRC
 36 2019-03-25T04:35:05  *** diego1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 37 2019-03-25T04:35:31  *** diego1 has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 38 2019-03-25T04:44:06  *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 39 2019-03-25T05:14:41  *** fanquake has quit IRC
 40 2019-03-25T05:16:31  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 41 2019-03-25T05:18:46  *** fanquake has quit IRC
 42 2019-03-25T05:24:15  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 43 2019-03-25T05:31:58  <fanquake> dongcarl Sorry for the delay, getting to Guix capabilities today. Was sidetracked with other depends stuff.
 44 2019-03-25T05:56:58  *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 45 2019-03-25T06:06:43  *** dviola has quit IRC
 46 2019-03-25T06:21:12  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
 47 2019-03-25T06:36:23  *** fanquake has quit IRC
 48 2019-03-25T06:59:08  *** lnostdal has quit IRC
 49 2019-03-25T07:03:45  *** lnostdal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 50 2019-03-25T07:04:50  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 51 2019-03-25T07:22:18  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 52 2019-03-25T07:26:42  *** promag has quit IRC
 53 2019-03-25T07:52:34  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 54 2019-03-25T07:54:48  *** promag has quit IRC
 55 2019-03-25T07:55:36  *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
 56 2019-03-25T07:59:58  *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 57 2019-03-25T08:41:20  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 58 2019-03-25T08:45:46  *** promag has quit IRC
 59 2019-03-25T08:50:49  *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
 60 2019-03-25T09:31:34  *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 61 2019-03-25T09:34:50  *** Zenton has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 62 2019-03-25T09:35:05  *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 63 2019-03-25T09:45:42  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 64 2019-03-25T09:50:58  <jonasschnelli> I was waiting for Voskuils mailing list reply... *sigh*
 65 2019-03-25T09:56:01  *** oneark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 66 2019-03-25T10:09:36  <nothingmuch> while his points are valid, i never quite understood the actual objection is
 67 2019-03-25T10:26:13  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 68 2019-03-25T10:28:36  <jonasschnelli> his points are valid... but he fails to see the current state as well as the potential of v2 for its future
 69 2019-03-25T10:29:27  *** spinza has quit IRC
 70 2019-03-25T10:33:43  <nothingmuch> i'm not sure if that's a charitable interpretation, i just think he interprets the current situation & potential differently, if i'm not mistaken his main objections are to the accompanying peer authentication? maybe more precisely, i don't understand why he predicts censorship as the most likely outcome
 71 2019-03-25T10:46:07  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 72 2019-03-25T10:47:11  *** zhangzf has quit IRC
 73 2019-03-25T11:01:13  <jonasschnelli> peer authentication is happening and going to happen in future. We currently authenticate with the IP (-connect=IP)... there are many users doing this.
 74 2019-03-25T11:02:20  <jonasschnelli> Also, the opportunistic encryption sets a much higher burden for a MITM... a) active interception rather then just manipulating/listening packages, b) risk of being detected
 75 2019-03-25T11:02:54  <jonasschnelli> Right now, an ISP can spy on your and even tamper and you would have almost zero chance to detect this. The possibility of detection alone is a feature
 76 2019-03-25T11:05:53  <echeveria> you're not wrong.
 77 2019-03-25T11:07:25  <echeveria> in a lot of situations they could just connect back to you on 8333 if they wanted to though.
 78 2019-03-25T11:11:20  <nothingmuch> unauthenticated opportunistic encryption i think can also be argued for empirically, e.g. bittorrent throttling in the past
 79 2019-03-25T11:13:32  <nothingmuch> i guess what i'd better like to understand is why he thinks censorship is any more likely with these features than without, the way i see it there is about as much potential right now
 80 2019-03-25T11:16:02  <nothingmuch> the way i see it, if anything, improving privacy at the p2p level would make censorship harder, but at any rate it's not a 1 dimensional spectrum
 81 2019-03-25T11:16:18  <echeveria> I couldn't work that out. its pretty clear what is running bitcoin, from the traffic or the port number.
 82 2019-03-25T12:04:12  <harding> echeveria: encryption by itself, if we assume no mitm and no eclipse, improves own-transaction relay privacy in combination with Bitcoin Core's existing tx trickling code.  Right now when you send your own transaction, spy nodes can't be sure whether you originated a transaction or just relayed it.  However, your ISP can see that you never received the tx over clearnet before sending it, so unless your node is also on Tor or
 83 2019-03-25T12:04:12  <harding> otherwise multihomed, the ISP can determine what txes you originated.
 84 2019-03-25T12:05:41  *** oneark has quit IRC
 85 2019-03-25T12:08:44  *** zhangzf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 86 2019-03-25T12:09:37  *** elichai2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 87 2019-03-25T12:10:31  <echeveria> harding: so, they just connect to you directly if you're listening.
 88 2019-03-25T12:12:49  <echeveria> all of this is really difficult to reason about. encryption in networks with anonymous peers.
 89 2019-03-25T12:15:02  <harding> echeveria: yes, but (as I mentioned) Bitcoin Core trickles txes.  That is, it doesn't send to each of its peers immediately but separates all of its peers into buckets of peers and maintains a queue of transactions for each bucket, sending to all the peers in the bucket on some schedule.  This means a transaction may be propagated to a non-spy node, relayed through the network, and then heard about by the spy node from some other
 90 2019-03-25T12:15:02  <harding> peer before the spy node hears about thet transaction from your peer.
 91 2019-03-25T12:25:20  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 92 2019-03-25T12:26:52  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 93 2019-03-25T12:49:11  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 94 2019-03-25T12:52:15  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 95 2019-03-25T12:58:32  *** Aaronvan_ is now known as AaronvanW
 96 2019-03-25T13:12:47  *** aitorjs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 97 2019-03-25T13:15:00  *** zhangzf has quit IRC
 98 2019-03-25T13:15:39  *** zhangzf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2019-03-25T13:21:49  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
100 2019-03-25T13:22:23  *** ExtraCrispy has quit IRC
101 2019-03-25T13:22:50  *** ExtraCrispy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
102 2019-03-25T13:26:12  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
103 2019-03-25T13:27:27  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
104 2019-03-25T13:28:09  <emilr> any reason against using ssl Electrum style? Each peer has its own self generated certificate, download the cerfiticate at first connect and then use that certificate to authenticate the peer
105 2019-03-25T13:28:48  *** cubancorona has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
106 2019-03-25T13:30:47  *** lc2g has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
107 2019-03-25T13:32:07  <nothingmuch> emilr: from a trust/security POV, that's essentially what the proposal enables, but with lower complexity than TLS (no crypto agility, no PKI, ...)
108 2019-03-25T13:32:10  <wumpus> main reason for not using ssl is that it adds too much attack surface, and its complexity makes it hard to be confident in its security
109 2019-03-25T13:38:17  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2019-03-25T13:41:42  *** spaced0ut has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
111 2019-03-25T13:42:24  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
112 2019-03-25T13:46:56  *** mildly_risky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
113 2019-03-25T13:48:00  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
114 2019-03-25T13:51:56  *** mildly_risky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
115 2019-03-25T13:55:04  *** mildly_risky has quit IRC
116 2019-03-25T13:56:22  *** spaced0ut_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
117 2019-03-25T13:58:46  *** spaced0ut has quit IRC
118 2019-03-25T14:00:26  *** spaced0ut has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
119 2019-03-25T14:12:17  *** asdasdasd has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2019-03-25T14:13:06  *** spaced0ut has quit IRC
121 2019-03-25T14:13:23  *** asdasdasd has quit IRC
122 2019-03-25T14:14:41  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
123 2019-03-25T14:14:41  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #15663: Remove unused AES-128 code (master...aes-128) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15663
124 2019-03-25T14:14:53  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
125 2019-03-25T14:19:52  *** spaced0ut has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
126 2019-03-25T14:20:27  *** aitorjs has quit IRC
127 2019-03-25T14:28:47  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
128 2019-03-25T14:30:46  *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
129 2019-03-25T14:34:11  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
130 2019-03-25T14:43:10  *** aitorjs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
131 2019-03-25T14:49:36  *** jonatack has quit IRC
132 2019-03-25T15:15:46  *** spaced0ut has quit IRC
133 2019-03-25T15:21:11  *** hebasto has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
134 2019-03-25T15:36:41  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
135 2019-03-25T15:45:17  *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
136 2019-03-25T15:47:36  *** morcos_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
137 2019-03-25T15:50:13  *** morcos has quit IRC
138 2019-03-25T15:50:14  *** morcos_ is now known as morcos
139 2019-03-25T15:52:32  *** esotericnonsense has quit IRC
140 2019-03-25T16:07:15  *** promag has quit IRC
141 2019-03-25T16:16:43  *** hebasto has quit IRC
142 2019-03-25T16:17:15  *** hebasto has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
143 2019-03-25T16:18:39  *** hebasto has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
144 2019-03-25T16:25:26  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
145 2019-03-25T16:27:07  *** davec has quit IRC
146 2019-03-25T16:28:32  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
147 2019-03-25T16:33:32  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
148 2019-03-25T16:42:10  *** dviola has quit IRC
149 2019-03-25T16:44:53  *** zhangzf has quit IRC
150 2019-03-25T16:45:15  *** esotericnonsense has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
151 2019-03-25T16:47:20  *** Emcy has quit IRC
152 2019-03-25T16:48:34  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
153 2019-03-25T16:50:14  *** esotericnonsense has quit IRC
154 2019-03-25T17:10:07  *** aitorjs has quit IRC
155 2019-03-25T17:11:11  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
156 2019-03-25T17:11:57  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
157 2019-03-25T17:15:36  *** wzhroho has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
158 2019-03-25T17:33:43  *** esotericnonsense has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
159 2019-03-25T17:35:17  *** wzhroho has quit IRC
160 2019-03-25T17:39:08  *** setpill has quit IRC
161 2019-03-25T18:08:24  *** elichai2 has quit IRC
162 2019-03-25T18:11:19  *** kmels has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
163 2019-03-25T18:14:24  *** hebasto has quit IRC
164 2019-03-25T18:14:44  *** spinza has quit IRC
165 2019-03-25T18:15:34  *** hebasto has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
166 2019-03-25T18:16:36  *** hebasto has quit IRC
167 2019-03-25T18:16:54  *** hebasto has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
168 2019-03-25T18:22:48  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
169 2019-03-25T18:25:16  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
170 2019-03-25T18:58:12  *** Zenton has quit IRC
171 2019-03-25T19:04:59  <achow101> sipa: any ideas on how addmultisig and multisig in general will work with thew plan for the new ismine logic? I've started working on replacing the ismine logic but I ran into some problems with multisig and the current ismine weirdness surrounding that.
172 2019-03-25T19:06:07  <sipa> achow101: so i think you'd have the "old world state" and "new world state", which are independent, and if either of them says an output is yours, it's yours
173 2019-03-25T19:06:12  <achow101> my plan was to make it so that what is currently considered ismine wouldn't actually change, but that seems to not be possible
174 2019-03-25T19:06:15  <sipa> and addmultisig would keep interacting with just the old state
175 2019-03-25T19:06:29  <achow101> bleh
176 2019-03-25T19:06:47  <sipa> i don't think there is any other way
177 2019-03-25T19:07:00  <sipa> in the old mechanism, things interact in stupid and unpredictable ways
178 2019-03-25T19:07:14  <sipa> that just don't fit in the descriptor based view
179 2019-03-25T19:07:48  <sipa> at some point it may be useful to try to convert the old state into a new state, and then disable RPCs that interact with the old state
180 2019-03-25T19:07:59  *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
181 2019-03-25T19:08:08  <sipa> but i think that's better done as a separate thing from actually supporting both
182 2019-03-25T19:08:38  <achow101> what about getting rid of addmultisig and just make people use createmultisig and importmulti if they want that script and watch it?
183 2019-03-25T19:08:55  <achow101> the import stuff actually makes sense under the new ismine
184 2019-03-25T19:09:36  <sipa> in a descriptor based wallet you have no need for either RPC
185 2019-03-25T19:09:45  <sipa> you can just import a descriptor with the multisig key in it directly
186 2019-03-25T19:10:06  <sipa> maybe a utility function that has input compatible with createmultisig that spits out a descriptor is useful
187 2019-03-25T19:10:15  *** StopAndDecrypt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
188 2019-03-25T19:10:45  <achow101> i wanted to avoid having two separate ismine logics
189 2019-03-25T19:11:01  <sipa> i fear that's going to be very hard
190 2019-03-25T19:11:37  <gmaxwell> I wonder if anyone is actually using addmultisig.
191 2019-03-25T19:12:53  <sipa> achow101: to be clear, i think it's just hard for compatibility reasons - if you don't, you need to do something like convert an old wallet to the new design on first use with new code... and that will inevitably change the semantics of some existing RPCs
192 2019-03-25T19:13:05  <sipa> plus that conversion is nontrivial
193 2019-03-25T19:13:25  <sipa> and presumably that conversion will effectively need a copy of the old ismine logic anyway
194 2019-03-25T19:14:07  <achow101> From what i've done so far, converting a wallet that doesn't have multisig is pretty straightforward
195 2019-03-25T19:14:21  <achow101> and afaict it doesn't require the old ismine logic
196 2019-03-25T19:15:07  <sipa> possibly
197 2019-03-25T19:15:51  <sipa> though there are weird edge cases around single-key things as well (like requiring a p2sh version imported before native segwit outputs are treated as ismine)
198 2019-03-25T19:16:14  *** hebasto has quit IRC
199 2019-03-25T19:17:41  <gmaxwell> Keeping around the old thing and bolting something new on the side is a fairly simple thing that has some pretty good guarentees for compatibility.
200 2019-03-25T19:17:55  <gmaxwell> Anything else will take more work and not guarentee compatibility as strongly.
201 2019-03-25T19:18:30  <sipa> newly created wallets can lack the old state altogether, and just not support addmultisig (and possibly other RPCs)
202 2019-03-25T19:19:11  <gmaxwell> We could also depricate addmultisig, so you have to set a config option to get access to it, in order to stop people from using it.
203 2019-03-25T19:19:17  <gmaxwell> (... if any are...)
204 2019-03-25T19:19:27  <achow101> gmaxwell: I'm tempted to do that
205 2019-03-25T19:19:48  <gmaxwell> I earnestly doubt anyone is using.
206 2019-03-25T19:19:55  <sipa> that seems reasonable now we have a more usable importmulti and descriptors... but it doesn't solve the problem of what to do with wallets that have it
207 2019-03-25T19:20:02  <sipa> i certainly have used it!
208 2019-03-25T19:21:13  <sipa> https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/83102/how-to-import-p2wsh-in-p2sh-multisig-as-watch-only
209 2019-03-25T19:22:01  <gmaxwell> sipa: yes, you and I have but we don't count.
210 2019-03-25T19:22:21  <gmaxwell> (as you and I would just use importmulti...)
211 2019-03-25T19:22:33  <sipa> importmulti has the same problem
212 2019-03-25T19:23:09  <achow101> does it?
213 2019-03-25T19:23:21  <sipa> you can emulate whatever addmultisig does using importmulti
214 2019-03-25T19:24:17  <gwillen> can someone help me remember / grok the difference between addmultisig and createmultisig+import
215 2019-03-25T19:25:13  <sipa> gwillen: createmultisig just computed the address/redeemscript you'd import if you would have used addmultisigaddress
216 2019-03-25T19:25:23  <sipa> but it's a utility rpc instead of a wallet rpc
217 2019-03-25T19:26:34  <gwillen> interesting
218 2019-03-25T19:27:08  <sipa> achow101: so there is an open question around importmulti in the new state, i think
219 2019-03-25T19:27:37  <sipa> importmulti lets you specify exactly which outputs you're talking about... but then effectively imports things in a way that quite possibly affect other outputs as well
220 2019-03-25T19:27:44  <achow101> sipa: importmulti will explicitly add the script as watchonly if you don't have the keys. I don't think addmultisig does that so spends to the multisig wouldn't be considered ismine or watchonly
221 2019-03-25T19:28:12  <sipa> achow101: good point; you need addmultisig+importaddress to emulate importmulti
222 2019-03-25T19:28:46  <sipa> the question is whether in a post-native-descriptor design, importmulti can have its semantics changed to only affect the outputs you're actually talking about
223 2019-03-25T19:29:46  <sipa> (because i've seen people talk about calling importmulti multiple times taking advantage of the interaction to accomplish missing things... )
224 2019-03-25T19:30:27  <achow101> imo with the native descriptor design, all existing import rpcs should just not work on those wallets
225 2019-03-25T19:30:33  <sipa> agree
226 2019-03-25T19:30:43  <sipa> there should just be importdescriptor or importrecord or something
227 2019-03-25T19:31:08  <sipa> but then i do think the cleanest design is to just keep the old state around, and as long as you have old state... the old RPC work on that
228 2019-03-25T19:31:12  <sipa> and new RPCs work on the new state
229 2019-03-25T19:31:59  <sipa> as otherwise you'd force people to adopt a new set of RPCs whenever their wallet gets upgraded
230 2019-03-25T19:32:06  <gwillen> let me bang the drum as usual for doing the split at the wallet level
231 2019-03-25T19:32:16  <achow101> .. right. I see how that is the safest and most compatible way to go about this
232 2019-03-25T19:32:27  <gwillen> your old wallet has old RPCs, your new wallet has new descriptor-native RPCs
233 2019-03-25T19:32:30  <gwillen> the two never to mix
234 2019-03-25T19:33:12  <sipa> gwillen: i think that's fair from a user perspective... but it doesn't really simplify the code (beyond have a restriction that you can't have both states at the same time)
235 2019-03-25T19:33:19  <achow101> well somethings of the old design might leak into the new design due to use in a lot of places. e.g. isminetypes
236 2019-03-25T19:34:10  <sipa> those are fine
237 2019-03-25T19:37:51  <gmaxwell> creating a sharp line between old wallets and new wallets sticks users with old functionality until they create a new wallet (and probably make a privacy destroying sweep-- since we can't spend across wallets).. it also splits up the user/testing base.
238 2019-03-25T19:38:46  <gmaxwell> it might be justifyable if the new thing were just done, but its constantly advancing, we can't really use 'make a new wallet' as the general upgrade mechenism for each new version.
239 2019-03-25T19:39:01  <achow101> gmaxwell: there should be someway to upgrade from old to new with some caveats regarding ismine
240 2019-03-25T19:39:16  <sipa> achow101: i think we want to generalize what "watchonly" means, so it becomes independent from the question whether you happen to have the private key exactly in your wallet.dat file (so for example a HW wallet doesn't need to be marked as watchonly...),
241 2019-03-25T19:39:57  <achow101> sipa: in my current design, i have watchonly be defined as existing in setWatchonly and mine as existing in a newly introduced setScriptPubKeys
242 2019-03-25T19:39:58  <sipa> gmaxwell, achow101: i think a correct conversion from old to new is possible, but it will (a) involve the old IsMine logic and (b) preferably something that isn't forced upon you when you upgrade software
243 2019-03-25T19:40:52  <sipa> achow101: have you read https://gist.github.com/sipa/125cfa1615946d0c3f3eec2ad7f250a2 ?
244 2019-03-25T19:40:55  <achow101> yeah
245 2019-03-25T19:41:13  <sipa> i really think watchonly should just be a boolean in the descriptor record
246 2019-03-25T19:41:32  <sipa> saying "do i want to treat things that match this as really mine, or just something i'm watching"
247 2019-03-25T19:41:50  <gmaxwell> Why shouldn't the concept of watch only be eliminated and replaced with signing sources, with null a potential signing source.
248 2019-03-25T19:42:03  <gmaxwell> ?
249 2019-03-25T19:42:12  <achow101> the way I imagined it was that descriptors would be expanded to sets of scriptPubKeys and, depending on that bool, the scriptPubkeys would go into the appropriate set
250 2019-03-25T19:42:28  <gmaxwell> sipa: that boolean split alone isn't the most useful... esp because it is just a single category.
251 2019-03-25T19:42:43  <sipa> gmaxwell: for example a multisig you're participanting is may be something you want to watch, but not count as your balance
252 2019-03-25T19:43:02  <sipa> i expect gwillen to now say "just use a separate wallet for that", and he's probably right
253 2019-03-25T19:43:03  <gmaxwell> sipa: make a seperate wallet?
254 2019-03-25T19:43:25  <gmaxwell> The fact that watching has only a single category "watching" makes it much less useful...
255 2019-03-25T19:43:48  <sipa> true
256 2019-03-25T19:43:55  <achow101> gmaxwell: that would be ideal, but breaks upgrading I think
257 2019-03-25T19:44:06  * sipa lunch
258 2019-03-25T19:44:11  <gmaxwell> well let me revise, there is a seperate "non-balance" functionality that is useful: collecting txouts for filling a PSBT.
259 2019-03-25T19:44:34  <gmaxwell> I agree _that_ kind of watching actually is useful, doesn't need special categories, doesn't interact with balances, etc.
260 2019-03-25T19:45:02  <midnightmagic> +1 filling txouts for PSBT
261 2019-03-25T19:45:19  <gmaxwell> achow101: breaking upgrading for more obscure features isn't something we should reject out of hand.
262 2019-03-25T19:45:54  <gmaxwell> achow101: we could allow an upgrade that stripped out all watching (or converted it into something else)
263 2019-03-25T19:46:07  <achow101> well I suppose an upgrade could just make two wallets
264 2019-03-25T19:46:28  <gmaxwell> right.
265 2019-03-25T19:47:51  <gwillen> yeah, I do maintain "keep separate wallets for separate sorts of funds" is the right call
266 2019-03-25T19:48:52  <gmaxwell> gwillen: I agree, but I expect that virutally no watchonly use is 'seperate funds' (esp because the user interface for watching is mostly unusable), it does however get used to provide inputs e.g. for multisigs.
267 2019-03-25T19:49:30  <gwillen> well my thinking is like, if you have your own funds in a wallet, and you also have keys that represent part of a multisig that holds funds
268 2019-03-25T19:49:36  <gwillen> it's better for those to be two separate wallets
269 2019-03-25T19:49:49  <gwillen> rather than try to puzzle how how we should define 'watchonly' and 'ismine' to make that scenario work smoothly
270 2019-03-25T19:49:56  <gmaxwell> another way of looking at this is that provide general random access indexes scriptpubkeys isn't particularly viable, we don't do it, and don't plan to do it...  our answer to needing to find inputs for random scriptpubkeys is "add them to a wallet before use so the wallet will track them"
271 2019-03-25T19:50:15  <gwillen> e.g. you will probably not want to spend "some funds from my wallet and also some funds from the multisig" in the same tx
272 2019-03-25T19:50:25  <gwillen> although I guess if you did ever want that, it's an argument against separate wallets
273 2019-03-25T19:50:30  <gmaxwell> I think you're talking past me.
274 2019-03-25T19:50:36  <gwillen> probably
275 2019-03-25T19:52:18  <gmaxwell> "some funds from my wallet and also some funds from the multisig" isn't something that is usable with watchonly now.
276 2019-03-25T19:52:27  <gwillen> mmm, heh, that's a good point
277 2019-03-25T19:53:03  <gmaxwell> It is one of the problems with the "use lots of wallets for all the things" line of thinking however, but I think that isn't a concern in this discussion.
278 2019-03-25T19:53:59  <gmaxwell> I think right now the thing watchonly actually gets used for is simply telling the wallet to collect data for providing inputs to transactions, without getting in the way of normal wallet use.
279 2019-03-25T19:54:07  *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
280 2019-03-25T19:54:41  <midnightmagic> +1 that use; also informational tracking of known addresses.
281 2019-03-25T19:54:55  <gmaxwell> now, this could be done by just making another wallet, throwing everything you want to collect data on in it and then ignoring it otherwise.
282 2019-03-25T19:55:38  <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: I don't believe it's used like that right now, there isn't for example, a usable way to get balances, and presumably you want to watch more than one such thing.
283 2019-03-25T19:56:37  <gmaxwell> It gets used by things like custom wallet software to make bitcoin core track data needed for spending. I assume electrum personal server uses it. Joinmarket uses it.
284 2019-03-25T19:56:41  <achow101> gmaxwell: instead of a watchonly wallet, use scantxout set :p
285 2019-03-25T19:56:44  <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: I'm currently using: b -rpcwallet=weirdwallet.dat listunspent|grep -A 2 -i weird|grep amount|awk '{ print $2 }'|sed -e 's/,//g' | paste -sd+ | bc -l
286 2019-03-25T19:57:04  <gmaxwell> achow101: doesn't work if you need to see past spends, and alsoscantxoutset is pretty slow!
287 2019-03-25T19:58:06  <gmaxwell> but perhaps the concept should be dropped and replaced with something that better fits how its mostly being used.
288 2019-03-25T19:58:26  <achow101> if you're just filling psbts, you don't need past spends
289 2019-03-25T19:58:29  <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: okay, well if you actually want to follow some other wallet I think thats a case where running a seperate wallet file makes sense to me.
290 2019-03-25T19:59:09  <midnightmagic> Just a hackish informational thing that means I don't have to use bitcoin-iterate
291 2019-03-25T19:59:12  <midnightmagic> +1 laziness
292 2019-03-25T19:59:46  <gmaxwell> achow101: yes, but examples I listed do more than just fill out psbts.
293 2019-03-25T20:00:06  <gmaxwell> But they don't need balances, coinselections, etc.
294 2019-03-25T20:08:15  *** promag has quit IRC
295 2019-03-25T20:21:42  *** timothy has quit IRC
296 2019-03-25T21:06:12  *** Zenton has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
297 2019-03-25T21:14:22  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
298 2019-03-25T21:14:22  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #15664: change default Python block serialization to witness, test round-trip (master...default_wit_block) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15664
299 2019-03-25T21:14:23  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
300 2019-03-25T21:15:51  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
301 2019-03-25T21:20:20  *** promag has quit IRC
302 2019-03-25T21:25:03  *** omonk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
303 2019-03-25T21:28:25  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
304 2019-03-25T21:46:38  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
305 2019-03-25T21:50:52  *** promag has quit IRC
306 2019-03-25T21:55:50  *** dviola has quit IRC
307 2019-03-25T21:57:27  *** BostX has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
308 2019-03-25T21:59:18  <BostX> Hi, do you know why signrawtransactionwithwallet returns the same hex as entered?
309 2019-03-25T22:00:12  <sipa> presumably because it couldn't sign anything
310 2019-03-25T22:01:16  <BostX> sipa: but it was completed with "true"
311 2019-03-25T22:01:33  <sipa> then it's already fully signed!
312 2019-03-25T22:01:51  <BostX> sipa: that's impossible
313 2019-03-25T22:01:59  *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
314 2019-03-25T22:03:36  <sipa> BostX: what's the input?
315 2019-03-25T22:03:40  <sipa> (you can pm me)
316 2019-03-25T22:03:58  *** esotericnonsense has quit IRC
317 2019-03-25T22:06:28  <BostX> sipa: I created: bitcoin-cli createrawtransaction '[]' '{"unused-new-address": <number>}'
318 2019-03-25T22:06:48  <BostX> sipa: then I was returned the hex
319 2019-03-25T22:06:55  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
320 2019-03-25T22:06:59  <sipa> BostX: you have no inputs, so all inputs are by definition signed
321 2019-03-25T22:07:18  <sipa> you probably want to call fundrawtransaction first to add inputs and change
322 2019-03-25T22:10:12  <BostX> sipa: aaaah... that's possible. BTW I was following the https://stackoverflow.com/a/46637033
323 2019-03-25T22:11:17  <BostX> sipa: I thought the createrawtransaction '[]' knows automatically how to add an input.
324 2019-03-25T22:11:31  <BostX> sipa: what is a `change`?
325 2019-03-25T22:11:42  <sipa> BostX: perhaps you should head to bitcoin.stackexchange.com
326 2019-03-25T22:11:56  <sipa> you shouldn't be using these RPC functions if you don't know what change outputs are
327 2019-03-25T22:15:13  <BostX> sipa: Uhm... I'd like to sign my TX on an offline computer where I don't want to install anything other than bitcoin-core.
328 2019-03-25T22:15:36  <sipa> BostX: yes, this is the wrong place to ask such questions
329 2019-03-25T22:17:27  <BostX> sipa: not really - I wasn't asking "how" I was asking "why it doesn't work", since I got no(!) errors. I consider this to be a legitimate question for this place.
330 2019-03-25T22:18:54  <sipa> BostX: well, the answer is that your transaction has no inputs, so signrawtransactions responds by saying all your inputs are signed
331 2019-03-25T22:18:58  <BostX> sipa: yes yes I was also asking "what is a change" but I'm able to figure it now by myself... don't worry.
332 2019-03-25T22:18:59  <sipa> which is expected
333 2019-03-25T22:19:24  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
334 2019-03-25T22:20:20  *** spinza has quit IRC
335 2019-03-25T22:22:45  <BostX> sipa: maybe some warnings would be helpful. Like "You're signing a TX w/ no inputs". Or maybe a better message in the `bitcoin-cli help signrawtransactionwithwallet`
336 2019-03-25T22:23:07  *** dviola has quit IRC
337 2019-03-25T22:24:14  <achow101> BostX: If you are planning on using an offline computer, I recommend using the psbt RPCs
338 2019-03-25T22:25:00  <achow101> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/psbt.md has some info on how to use them
339 2019-03-25T22:28:38  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
340 2019-03-25T22:28:39  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7b13c6464579...8a8b03ecd221
341 2019-03-25T22:28:40  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5801dd6 gwillen: docs: Add more tips to productivity.md
342 2019-03-25T22:28:41  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8a8b03e MarcoFalke: Merge #15603: docs: Add more tips to productivity.md
343 2019-03-25T22:28:50  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
344 2019-03-25T22:29:29  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
345 2019-03-25T22:29:29  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #15603: docs: Add more tips to productivity.md (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15603
346 2019-03-25T22:29:35  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
347 2019-03-25T22:30:16  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
348 2019-03-25T22:30:21  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
349 2019-03-25T22:32:16  *** Cory has quit IRC
350 2019-03-25T22:35:06  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
351 2019-03-25T22:35:16  <gwillen> BostX: I'm going to send you a PM
352 2019-03-25T22:38:36  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
353 2019-03-25T22:51:37  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
354 2019-03-25T23:01:24  *** omonk has quit IRC
355 2019-03-25T23:01:55  *** omonk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
356 2019-03-25T23:03:47  *** IGHOR has quit IRC
357 2019-03-25T23:03:56  *** IGHOR has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
358 2019-03-25T23:22:56  *** gribble has quit IRC
359 2019-03-25T23:24:02  *** dqx_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
360 2019-03-25T23:26:53  *** jarthur has quit IRC
361 2019-03-25T23:29:06  *** fanquake has quit IRC
362 2019-03-25T23:29:22  *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
363 2019-03-25T23:35:33  *** andytoshi has quit IRC
364 2019-03-25T23:35:43  *** andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
365 2019-03-25T23:35:43  *** andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
366 2019-03-25T23:45:57  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
367 2019-03-25T23:46:05  *** shesek has quit IRC
368 2019-03-25T23:46:05  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
369 2019-03-25T23:46:38  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
370 2019-03-25T23:50:07  *** andytoshi has quit IRC
371 2019-03-25T23:50:15  *** andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
372 2019-03-25T23:51:53  *** Skirmant has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
373 2019-03-25T23:54:48  *** trillhc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev