1 2019-10-17T00:00:01  *** glyph1 has quit IRC
  2 2019-10-17T00:03:21  *** Ox207fffff has quit IRC
  3 2019-10-17T00:05:28  *** jarthur_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2019-10-17T00:07:51  *** Ox207fffff has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  5 2019-10-17T00:08:37  *** jarthur has quit IRC
  6 2019-10-17T00:09:39  *** jarthur_ has quit IRC
  7 2019-10-17T00:17:24  *** sunweaver1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  8 2019-10-17T00:18:57  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
  9 2019-10-17T00:19:11  *** fox2p has quit IRC
 10 2019-10-17T00:21:43  *** fox2p has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 11 2019-10-17T00:26:32  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 12 2019-10-17T00:28:15  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 13 2019-10-17T00:32:51  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 14 2019-10-17T00:36:17  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
 15 2019-10-17T00:36:41  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 16 2019-10-17T00:36:41  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #17169: doc: correct function name in ReportHardwareRand() (master...random_doc_inithardwarerand) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17169
 17 2019-10-17T00:36:42  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 18 2019-10-17T00:49:25  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 19 2019-10-17T00:54:05  *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2019-10-17T01:07:35  *** arik_ has quit IRC
 21 2019-10-17T01:08:59  *** arik_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 22 2019-10-17T01:15:01  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 23 2019-10-17T01:25:36  *** arik_ has quit IRC
 24 2019-10-17T01:31:29  *** jarthur has quit IRC
 25 2019-10-17T02:01:56  *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
 26 2019-10-17T02:02:27  *** millerti has quit IRC
 27 2019-10-17T02:05:42  *** emilengler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 28 2019-10-17T02:08:25  *** felixfoertsch23 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 29 2019-10-17T02:09:23  *** felixfoertsch has quit IRC
 30 2019-10-17T02:33:44  *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 31 2019-10-17T02:43:55  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
 32 2019-10-17T02:45:25  *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 33 2019-10-17T02:51:11  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 34 2019-10-17T02:51:52  *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
 35 2019-10-17T02:57:30  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 36 2019-10-17T03:00:01  *** sunweaver1 has quit IRC
 37 2019-10-17T03:02:12  *** promag has quit IRC
 38 2019-10-17T03:12:48  *** andytoshi has quit IRC
 39 2019-10-17T03:17:14  *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 40 2019-10-17T03:17:35  *** angvp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 41 2019-10-17T03:26:24  *** mycomputer has quit IRC
 42 2019-10-17T03:50:21  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 43 2019-10-17T03:55:18  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 44 2019-10-17T03:57:26  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 45 2019-10-17T04:00:33  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 46 2019-10-17T04:07:56  *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
 47 2019-10-17T04:16:38  *** felixfoertsch23 has quit IRC
 48 2019-10-17T04:16:47  *** felixfoertsch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 49 2019-10-17T04:39:57  *** jkczyz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 50 2019-10-17T04:56:54  *** shesek` has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 51 2019-10-17T04:56:54  *** shesek has quit IRC
 52 2019-10-17T04:58:20  *** kergjo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 53 2019-10-17T05:00:45  *** kergjo has quit IRC
 54 2019-10-17T05:01:31  *** pinheadmz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 55 2019-10-17T05:03:31  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
 56 2019-10-17T05:03:31  *** pinheadmz_ is now known as pinheadmz
 57 2019-10-17T05:15:57  <meshcollider> Ok so regarding #16341, who is currently reviewing or intending to review? promag mentioned that he was going to yesterday. Just to get a rough idea. jnewbery / sipa are either of you planning to?
 58 2019-10-17T05:15:59  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16341 | Introduce ScriptPubKeyMan interface and use it for key and script management (aka wallet boxes) by achow101 · Pull Request #16341 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 59 2019-10-17T05:23:07  <sipa> definitely plannimg to
 60 2019-10-17T05:24:04  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 61 2019-10-17T05:25:28  *** Skirmant has quit IRC
 62 2019-10-17T05:25:49  *** Skirmant has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 63 2019-10-17T05:58:04  *** shesek` has quit IRC
 64 2019-10-17T05:58:06  *** shesek`` has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 65 2019-10-17T06:00:01  *** angvp has quit IRC
 66 2019-10-17T06:07:49  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
 67 2019-10-17T06:12:12  *** shesek` has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 68 2019-10-17T06:13:23  *** shesek`` has quit IRC
 69 2019-10-17T06:17:38  *** WhereIsMySpoon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 70 2019-10-17T06:17:49  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
 71 2019-10-17T06:18:37  *** bsm1175321 has quit IRC
 72 2019-10-17T06:18:57  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 73 2019-10-17T06:51:17  *** jkczyz has quit IRC
 74 2019-10-17T07:03:42  *** Francisco_ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 75 2019-10-17T07:05:38  *** _Francisco_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 76 2019-10-17T07:06:40  *** Emcy has quit IRC
 77 2019-10-17T07:11:05  *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 78 2019-10-17T07:19:37  *** jkczyz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 79 2019-10-17T07:22:11  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 80 2019-10-17T07:24:40  *** jkczyz has quit IRC
 81 2019-10-17T07:32:51  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 82 2019-10-17T07:36:12  <jeremyrubin> There aren't RPCs which support raw scripts are there?
 83 2019-10-17T07:36:37  <sipa> what does that mean?
 84 2019-10-17T07:37:20  <jeremyrubin> e.g., in sendmany you pass a associative list of addresses and values
 85 2019-10-17T07:37:22  <sipa> decodescript certainly does, in a way
 86 2019-10-17T07:39:03  <jeremyrubin> but I guess there's not a decent way to make a transaction to a raw piece of ASM
 87 2019-10-17T07:39:30  <sipa> no, asm is ambiguous even
 88 2019-10-17T07:39:39  <sipa> you can't convert it back to script
 89 2019-10-17T07:39:55  <jeremyrubin> err hexstr
 90 2019-10-17T07:41:02  <sipa> with a lot of imagination, sendrawtransaction/fundrawtransacrion/... support that
 91 2019-10-17T07:41:10  <sipa> but that's it
 92 2019-10-17T07:41:13  <jeremyrubin> hence 'decent'
 93 2019-10-17T07:47:53  *** kljasdfvv has quit IRC
 94 2019-10-17T07:49:31  *** kljasdfvv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 95 2019-10-17T08:27:08  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 96 2019-10-17T08:28:10  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 97 2019-10-17T08:30:54  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 98 2019-10-17T08:34:37  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2019-10-17T08:35:08  *** promag_ has quit IRC
100 2019-10-17T08:38:36  *** jarthur has quit IRC
101 2019-10-17T08:44:01  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
102 2019-10-17T08:44:30  *** designwish has quit IRC
103 2019-10-17T08:48:50  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
104 2019-10-17T08:49:36  *** tsujp has quit IRC
105 2019-10-17T08:49:55  *** tsujp_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
106 2019-10-17T09:00:01  *** WhereIsMySpoon has quit IRC
107 2019-10-17T09:06:15  *** designwish has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
108 2019-10-17T09:09:01  *** gwillen has quit IRC
109 2019-10-17T09:09:39  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
110 2019-10-17T09:11:47  *** sipa has quit IRC
111 2019-10-17T09:15:34  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112 2019-10-17T09:17:04  *** votesmith has quit IRC
113 2019-10-17T09:17:17  *** mota has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
114 2019-10-17T09:18:13  *** profmac has quit IRC
115 2019-10-17T09:20:30  *** jkczyz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
116 2019-10-17T09:22:22  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
117 2019-10-17T09:23:44  *** votesmith has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
118 2019-10-17T09:24:57  *** jkczyz has quit IRC
119 2019-10-17T09:30:28  *** profmac has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2019-10-17T09:30:49  *** jonatack has quit IRC
121 2019-10-17T09:31:18  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122 2019-10-17T09:44:38  *** oyvkva has quit IRC
123 2019-10-17T09:44:53  *** oyvkva_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
124 2019-10-17T09:45:29  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
125 2019-10-17T09:50:55  <promag> meshcollider: yes, I'm reviewing that one.
126 2019-10-17T09:53:31  <meshcollider> 👍
127 2019-10-17T09:56:03  *** rex4539 has quit IRC
128 2019-10-17T10:08:51  *** spinza has quit IRC
129 2019-10-17T10:18:50  *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
130 2019-10-17T10:29:43  *** Mael-Rolland has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
131 2019-10-17T11:12:24  *** waxwing_ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
132 2019-10-17T11:13:09  *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
133 2019-10-17T11:18:40  *** morcos has quit IRC
134 2019-10-17T11:19:09  *** jb551 has quit IRC
135 2019-10-17T11:19:09  *** kristapsk has quit IRC
136 2019-10-17T11:19:09  *** SiAnDoG has quit IRC
137 2019-10-17T11:19:09  *** braydonf has quit IRC
138 2019-10-17T11:19:09  *** mryandao has quit IRC
139 2019-10-17T11:19:09  *** afk11 has quit IRC
140 2019-10-17T11:19:36  *** sipa has quit IRC
141 2019-10-17T11:19:36  *** lowentropy has quit IRC
142 2019-10-17T11:19:36  *** astro has quit IRC
143 2019-10-17T11:19:36  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
144 2019-10-17T11:19:36  *** sdaftuar has quit IRC
145 2019-10-17T11:19:36  *** arubi has quit IRC
146 2019-10-17T11:21:21  *** jkczyz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
147 2019-10-17T11:26:14  *** jkczyz has quit IRC
148 2019-10-17T11:28:32  *** m1rror8955363887 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2019-10-17T11:32:31  *** braydonf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
150 2019-10-17T11:32:39  *** lowentropy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
151 2019-10-17T11:33:23  *** mryandao has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152 2019-10-17T11:33:25  *** jb551 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
153 2019-10-17T11:33:26  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
154 2019-10-17T11:36:39  *** sdaftuar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
155 2019-10-17T11:38:21  *** astro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
156 2019-10-17T11:39:32  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
157 2019-10-17T11:40:31  *** Mael-Rolland has quit IRC
158 2019-10-17T11:44:15  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
159 2019-10-17T12:00:02  *** mota has quit IRC
160 2019-10-17T12:17:22  *** pdurbin1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
161 2019-10-17T12:23:18  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
162 2019-10-17T12:24:43  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
163 2019-10-17T12:24:44  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/46d6930f8c7b...4f42284fc0c5
164 2019-10-17T12:24:44  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f59bbb6 Jim Posen: test: Fix bug in blockfilter_index_tests.
165 2019-10-17T12:24:45  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4f42284 MarcoFalke: Merge #17140: test: Fix bug in blockfilter_index_tests.
166 2019-10-17T12:24:47  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
167 2019-10-17T12:25:04  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
168 2019-10-17T12:25:04  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #17140: test: Fix bug in blockfilter_index_tests. (master...fix-index-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17140
169 2019-10-17T12:25:05  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
170 2019-10-17T12:26:15  *** Mael-Rolland has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
171 2019-10-17T12:26:20  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172 2019-10-17T12:28:32  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
173 2019-10-17T12:28:32  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4f42284fc0c5...fcf1ebde3db9
174 2019-10-17T12:28:33  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5013171 fanquake: doc: correct function name in ReportHardwareRand()
175 2019-10-17T12:28:33  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fcf1ebd MarcoFalke: Merge #17169: doc: correct function name in ReportHardwareRand()
176 2019-10-17T12:28:44  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
177 2019-10-17T12:29:02  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
178 2019-10-17T12:29:02  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #17169: doc: correct function name in ReportHardwareRand() (master...random_doc_inithardwarerand) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17169
179 2019-10-17T12:29:03  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
180 2019-10-17T12:38:05  *** timothy has quit IRC
181 2019-10-17T12:38:47  *** davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182 2019-10-17T12:40:17  *** Emcy has quit IRC
183 2019-10-17T12:40:58  *** Mael-Rolland has quit IRC
184 2019-10-17T12:42:36  *** tsujp_ has quit IRC
185 2019-10-17T12:48:03  *** tsujp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
186 2019-10-17T12:49:35  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
187 2019-10-17T12:52:31  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
188 2019-10-17T12:52:31  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ch4ot1c opened pull request #17172: doc: Update list of valid PR areas (master...doc/pr-areas) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17172
189 2019-10-17T12:52:32  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
190 2019-10-17T12:57:30  *** Sentineo has quit IRC
191 2019-10-17T13:01:33  *** Sentineo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192 2019-10-17T13:16:18  *** jonatack has quit IRC
193 2019-10-17T13:16:37  *** jonatack_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
194 2019-10-17T13:22:19  *** jkczyz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
195 2019-10-17T13:26:58  *** jkczyz has quit IRC
196 2019-10-17T13:27:59  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
197 2019-10-17T13:41:23  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
198 2019-10-17T13:41:23  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/fcf1ebde3db9...048e456fc408
199 2019-10-17T13:41:24  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 85016e5 Andrew Toth: [rpc] Fix broken bitcoin-cli examples
200 2019-10-17T13:41:24  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 048e456 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #17119: doc: Fix broken bitcoin-cli examples
201 2019-10-17T13:41:26  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
202 2019-10-17T13:41:53  *** jonatack_ has quit IRC
203 2019-10-17T13:41:54  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
204 2019-10-17T13:41:54  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #17119: doc: Fix broken bitcoin-cli examples (master...example-fixes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17119
205 2019-10-17T13:41:57  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
206 2019-10-17T13:42:55  *** jonatack_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
207 2019-10-17T13:45:48  *** ddustin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
208 2019-10-17T13:50:28  *** ddustin has quit IRC
209 2019-10-17T13:52:52  *** rex4539 has quit IRC
210 2019-10-17T13:53:15  *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
211 2019-10-17T13:53:58  *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212 2019-10-17T13:54:38  *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
213 2019-10-17T13:55:28  *** rex4539 has quit IRC
214 2019-10-17T14:17:44  *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
215 2019-10-17T14:26:24  *** lightlike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
216 2019-10-17T14:28:20  *** ensign has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
217 2019-10-17T14:37:20  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
218 2019-10-17T14:38:18  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
219 2019-10-17T14:39:31  *** tsujp has quit IRC
220 2019-10-17T14:39:37  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
221 2019-10-17T14:39:39  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/048e456fc408...ec3ed5a44878
222 2019-10-17T14:39:40  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1f6c650 Sjors Provoost: travis: run tests on macOS native
223 2019-10-17T14:39:41  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ec3ed5a MarcoFalke: Merge #16597: Travis: run full test suite on native macOS
224 2019-10-17T14:39:43  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
225 2019-10-17T14:40:07  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
226 2019-10-17T14:40:08  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #16597: Travis: run full test suite on native macOS  (master...2019/08/travis-macos) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16597
227 2019-10-17T14:40:09  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
228 2019-10-17T14:41:31  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
229 2019-10-17T14:42:15  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
230 2019-10-17T14:53:12  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
231 2019-10-17T14:53:13  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #17176: ci: Cleanup macOS runs (master...1910-ciMac) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17176
232 2019-10-17T14:53:15  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
233 2019-10-17T14:55:34  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
234 2019-10-17T14:55:34  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fjahr opened pull request #17177: doc: Describe log files + consistent paths in test READMEs (master...pr15830) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17177
235 2019-10-17T14:55:46  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
236 2019-10-17T14:58:58  *** davterra has quit IRC
237 2019-10-17T15:00:02  *** pdurbin1 has quit IRC
238 2019-10-17T15:02:18  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
239 2019-10-17T15:03:09  *** jonatack_ has quit IRC
240 2019-10-17T15:09:34  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
241 2019-10-17T15:16:39  *** gwillen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
242 2019-10-17T15:16:59  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
243 2019-10-17T15:17:26  *** Darki1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
244 2019-10-17T15:21:03  *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
245 2019-10-17T15:23:11  *** jkczyz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
246 2019-10-17T15:27:47  *** hebasto has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
247 2019-10-17T15:27:58  *** jkczyz has quit IRC
248 2019-10-17T15:33:10  *** afk11 has quit IRC
249 2019-10-17T15:33:34  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
250 2019-10-17T15:35:58  *** davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
251 2019-10-17T15:58:47  *** captjakk has quit IRC
252 2019-10-17T15:59:57  *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
253 2019-10-17T16:00:05  *** kljasdfvv has quit IRC
254 2019-10-17T16:16:52  *** astro has quit IRC
255 2019-10-17T16:19:38  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
256 2019-10-17T16:22:21  *** astro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
257 2019-10-17T16:23:21  *** jungly has quit IRC
258 2019-10-17T16:25:13  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
259 2019-10-17T16:26:27  *** rabidus has quit IRC
260 2019-10-17T16:28:25  *** rabidus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
261 2019-10-17T16:29:34  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
262 2019-10-17T16:31:34  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
263 2019-10-17T16:35:20  *** jkczyz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
264 2019-10-17T16:35:41  *** afk11` has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
265 2019-10-17T16:37:52  *** afk11 has quit IRC
266 2019-10-17T16:40:05  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
267 2019-10-17T16:42:00  *** angins has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
268 2019-10-17T16:44:50  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
269 2019-10-17T16:46:08  *** BlueMatt has quit IRC
270 2019-10-17T16:48:29  *** BlueMatt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
271 2019-10-17T16:48:47  *** ddustin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272 2019-10-17T16:49:56  *** ddustin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
273 2019-10-17T16:50:16  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
274 2019-10-17T16:54:55  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
275 2019-10-17T16:58:20  *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
276 2019-10-17T17:00:31  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
277 2019-10-17T17:05:05  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
278 2019-10-17T17:10:41  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
279 2019-10-17T17:14:53  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
280 2019-10-17T17:16:06  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
281 2019-10-17T17:18:58  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
282 2019-10-17T17:19:06  *** jonatack_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
283 2019-10-17T17:20:32  *** timothy has quit IRC
284 2019-10-17T17:20:53  *** mmgen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
285 2019-10-17T17:36:57  <sipa> jonasschnelli: where is your latest v2 p2p protocol draft?
286 2019-10-17T17:37:46  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
287 2019-10-17T17:39:54  <sipa> gleb: re #17163... are you sure that no lightweight clients do their own IP address management? maybe they don't currently, but that sounds like a bug
288 2019-10-17T17:39:56  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17163 | p2p: Avoid relaying ADDR messages to SPV clients by naumenkogs · Pull Request #17163 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
289 2019-10-17T17:43:01  <jonasschnelli> sipa: https://gist.github.com/jonasschnelli/c530ea8421b8d0e80c51486325587c52
290 2019-10-17T17:44:29  *** arik_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
291 2019-10-17T17:47:39  <wumpus> sipa: I also wasn't sure the tight coupling between lightweight validation and no IP address management, but apparently it's an accepted thing
292 2019-10-17T17:48:10  <wumpus> tbh, I think everyone that cares about decent address management gave up on SPV nodes long ago
293 2019-10-17T17:48:42  <wumpus> so it's not wrong, but it wouldn't have to be a necessary correlation
294 2019-10-17T17:49:05  <gleb> sipa: This was my intuition. Maybe, we should allow them to ask (we can discuss that), but we certainly don't want to rely on them when we choose 1/2 peers to forward a <10 addr message.
295 2019-10-17T17:50:07  <sipa> gleb: agree there; i commented on your PR
296 2019-10-17T17:54:54  <gleb> Let's ask others at the meeting in an hour :) Should be pretty quick.
297 2019-10-17T17:58:27  *** jkczyz has quit IRC
298 2019-10-17T18:00:02  *** Darki1 has quit IRC
299 2019-10-17T18:01:27  <gleb> Another idea would be to add a service flag? Sounds reasonable to me protocol-wise, but I'm not sure I have the right intuition.
300 2019-10-17T18:03:50  <wumpus> you want a way to be able to signify that nodes don't want to receive addr messages at all?
301 2019-10-17T18:03:54  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302 2019-10-17T18:03:54  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #17172: doc: Update list of valid PR areas (master...doc/pr-areas) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17172
303 2019-10-17T18:04:06  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
304 2019-10-17T18:06:01  <wumpus> might be able to smuggle that into addrv2 somehow; it has a proposed message for a peer to signify support for v2 addrsses, maybe it could signify 'no addr support' as well
305 2019-10-17T18:06:16  *** jkczyz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
306 2019-10-17T18:06:24  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
307 2019-10-17T18:08:28  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
308 2019-10-17T18:08:34  <luke-jr> maybe there should be a node mode that *only* relays addr messages, and sipa could only return those with his DNS seed :P
309 2019-10-17T18:08:37  <fanquake> rex4539 This might be the error message you were talking about the other day #17179
310 2019-10-17T18:08:38  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17179 | macos: shutdown on first run due to -psn_ parameter · Issue #17179 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
311 2019-10-17T18:09:43  <rex4539> Yes, this was it :)
312 2019-10-17T18:10:36  <fanquake> Good to know at least 1 other person has been (clean) testing rc1 on macOS
313 2019-10-17T18:10:59  <wumpus> why does this happen with rc1 though?
314 2019-10-17T18:11:09  <wumpus> and not with other versions
315 2019-10-17T18:11:55  <luke-jr> another Qt thing?
316 2019-10-17T18:12:01  <luke-jr> like the duplicate URIs
317 2019-10-17T18:12:05  <fanquake> It might be because we are doing more strict argument passing now? It's also only happens when you run Bitcoin Core for the very first time
318 2019-10-17T18:12:09  <wumpus> oh, maybe Qt filtered it out before
319 2019-10-17T18:12:19  <wumpus> right
320 2019-10-17T18:12:42  <luke-jr> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10242115/os-x-strange-psn-command-line-parameter-when-launched-from-finder
321 2019-10-17T18:12:49  <wumpus> Qt's argument handling probebly kind of shielded us from platform specific craziness like this
322 2019-10-17T18:12:49  <fanquake> heh, so qt does filter it out yes
323 2019-10-17T18:13:02  <fanquake> from qtbase: "// eat "-psn_xxxx" on Mac, which is passed when starting an app from Finder."
324 2019-10-17T18:13:03  <wumpus> like the files handling
325 2019-10-17T18:13:21  <luke-jr> fanquake: is it near the duplicate URI filtering code? maybe someone should go through all that
326 2019-10-17T18:14:02  <fanquake> Will link to the tree in a sec
327 2019-10-17T18:14:32  <wumpus> everyone on every OS now has to suffer basically because of a buggy browser issue on windows :-)
328 2019-10-17T18:14:34  <fanquake> https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtbase.git/tree/src/gui/kernel/qguiapplication.cpp?h=5.9.8#n1377
329 2019-10-17T18:17:21  *** chrissie1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
330 2019-10-17T18:17:57  <luke-jr> so we should chdir too..?
331 2019-10-17T18:18:12  <luke-jr> or do we even care
332 2019-10-17T18:20:13  *** watchtower has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
333 2019-10-17T18:20:17  *** jonatack_ has quit IRC
334 2019-10-17T18:23:26  *** watchtower has quit IRC
335 2019-10-17T18:24:35  <fanquake> I don't think we care. I'm not sure why they are changing directory code was added. The commit is from 7 years ago, and doesn't have much detail. However they were doing the psn filtering before that was added.
336 2019-10-17T18:26:17  <gleb> luke-jr: jokes aside, I was considering separating addr-relay from tx-relay and block-relay. Because I think topology leakage is cumulative, haha. But that requires a lot of analysis.
337 2019-10-17T18:30:09  *** arik_ has quit IRC
338 2019-10-17T18:30:46  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
339 2019-10-17T18:30:47  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] JeremyCrookshank opened pull request #17180: gui: Improved wording/explanation of Bitcoin sends amount box (master...sendamounttooltip) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17180
340 2019-10-17T18:30:48  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
341 2019-10-17T18:32:37  *** Skirmant has quit IRC
342 2019-10-17T18:35:43  *** Skirmant has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
343 2019-10-17T18:37:34  *** drbrule has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
344 2019-10-17T18:37:59  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
345 2019-10-17T18:37:59  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ec3ed5a44878...88eff969c201
346 2019-10-17T18:37:59  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9576614 Martin Erlandsson: doc: Describe log files + consistent paths in test READMEs
347 2019-10-17T18:38:00  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 88eff96 MarcoFalke: Merge #17177: doc: Describe log files + consistent paths in test READMEs
348 2019-10-17T18:38:12  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
349 2019-10-17T18:38:29  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
350 2019-10-17T18:38:29  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #17177: doc: Describe log files + consistent paths in test READMEs (master...pr15830) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17177
351 2019-10-17T18:38:41  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
352 2019-10-17T18:39:39  <warren> I'm here for the weekly meeting, that's in 20 minutes?
353 2019-10-17T18:40:01  <wumpus> yes
354 2019-10-17T18:49:08  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
355 2019-10-17T18:49:31  <dongcarl> gleb: Not 100% sure what you mean in your latest comment on #17163
356 2019-10-17T18:49:33  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17163 | p2p: Avoid relaying ADDR messages to SPV clients by naumenkogs · Pull Request #17163 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
357 2019-10-17T18:49:58  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
358 2019-10-17T18:50:20  <dongcarl> "Older nodes are very likely to forward their <10 addr messages in the blackhole" because they might forward to newer nodes that will ignore addr messages from incoming connections like sipa described?
359 2019-10-17T18:52:41  <gleb> Yes
360 2019-10-17T18:53:59  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
361 2019-10-17T18:53:59  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/88eff969c201...4daadce36cfe
362 2019-10-17T18:54:00  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa04673 MarcoFalke: chain: Set all CBlockIndex members to null, remove SetNull helper
363 2019-10-17T18:54:00  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4daadce fanquake: Merge #17162: chain: Remove CBlockIndex::SetNull helper
364 2019-10-17T18:54:12  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
365 2019-10-17T18:54:29  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
366 2019-10-17T18:54:29  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #17162: chain: Remove CBlockIndex::SetNull helper (master...1910-docChainLocks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17162
367 2019-10-17T18:54:41  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
368 2019-10-17T18:57:04  <dongcarl> gleb: "it's very likely that this "stem" will end up at a private node very fast (just graph-wise), and it will drop it on the floor" private node being a node with only outgoing connections?
369 2019-10-17T18:58:45  <gleb> dongcarl: also yes.
370 2019-10-17T18:59:11  <dongcarl> gleb: if this private node only has outgoing connections, why would it drop anything on the floor?
371 2019-10-17T19:00:02  *** jb551 has quit IRC
372 2019-10-17T19:00:03  *** mryandao has quit IRC
373 2019-10-17T19:00:04  <gleb> Because I assume that if we enforce a rule "don't accept addr from inbounds", then this private node won't even try to relay it further (as the receiver will discard it)
374 2019-10-17T19:00:10  <gleb> .
375 2019-10-17T19:00:22  <dongcarl> gleb: oh I see...
376 2019-10-17T19:00:31  <wumpus> #startmeeting
377 2019-10-17T19:00:31  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Oct 17 19:00:31 2019 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
378 2019-10-17T19:00:31  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
379 2019-10-17T19:00:32  <jnewbery> hi
380 2019-10-17T19:00:34  *** jb551 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
381 2019-10-17T19:00:34  <warren> hi
382 2019-10-17T19:00:34  <kanzure> hi
383 2019-10-17T19:00:38  <gleb> hi
384 2019-10-17T19:00:41  <moneyball> hi
385 2019-10-17T19:00:44  <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator aj Chris_Stewart_5 dongcarl gwillen jamesob ken281221 ryanofsky gleb moneyball kvaciral
386 2019-10-17T19:00:48  <jonasschnelli> hi
387 2019-10-17T19:00:49  <fanquake> hi
388 2019-10-17T19:01:05  <dongcarl> hi
389 2019-10-17T19:01:10  <jeremyrubin> hi
390 2019-10-17T19:01:13  <wumpus> one proposed topic for today: taproot proposal next steps; possible review sessions (moneyball)
391 2019-10-17T19:01:22  *** mryandao has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
392 2019-10-17T19:01:37  <sipa> hi
393 2019-10-17T19:01:49  <moneyball> wumpus: i assume we'll do high priority list first?
394 2019-10-17T19:01:50  <aj> hola
395 2019-10-17T19:02:13  <promag> hi
396 2019-10-17T19:02:19  <wumpus> moneyball: yes, let's start with that (I wait a bit in case people have additional last minute topics to propose)
397 2019-10-17T19:02:55  <wumpus> #topic High priority for review
398 2019-10-17T19:03:02  <achow101> hi
399 2019-10-17T19:03:12  <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
400 2019-10-17T19:03:18  <promag> please add 17135
401 2019-10-17T19:03:30  <wumpus> #17135
402 2019-10-17T19:03:32  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17135 | gui: Make polling in ClientModel asynchronous by promag · Pull Request #17135 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
403 2019-10-17T19:04:06  <fanquake> promag: can you fill out the description in that PR? Why is it high-prio?
404 2019-10-17T19:04:30  <wumpus> promag: ok done
405 2019-10-17T19:04:58  <promag> fanquake: IMO they are necessary for 0.19, also #16963 #17120
406 2019-10-17T19:05:01  <promag> ty
407 2019-10-17T19:05:01  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16963 | wallet: Fix unique_ptr usage in boost::signals2 by promag · Pull Request #16963 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
408 2019-10-17T19:05:03  <wumpus> yes, would be nice if you also say what it is blocking
409 2019-10-17T19:05:04  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17120 | gui: Fix start timer from non QThread by promag · Pull Request #17120 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
410 2019-10-17T19:05:19  <wumpus> seems to big a change for 0.19.0 at least
411 2019-10-17T19:05:24  <wumpus> 0.19.1 maybe
412 2019-10-17T19:06:38  <promag> I'll update description sure
413 2019-10-17T19:06:46  <fanquake> I'll re-review 16963
414 2019-10-17T19:07:16  <fanquake> I'm not sure there's too much else to discuss high-prio wise other than hopefully people are doing some rc1 testing
415 2019-10-17T19:07:18  <promag> but it's meant to fix #17112
416 2019-10-17T19:07:20  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17112 | v0.19.0rc1 GUI repeatedly not responding · Issue #17112 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
417 2019-10-17T19:07:34  <fanquake> Maybe jump into the taproot discussion?
418 2019-10-17T19:07:49  <wumpus> promag: that's just too deep a rabbit hole to fix before the release, is it really a reversion in 0.19?
419 2019-10-17T19:08:09  <promag> yes
420 2019-10-17T19:08:16  <wumpus> where did it happen then?
421 2019-10-17T19:08:32  <promag> see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17112#issuecomment-541659632
422 2019-10-17T19:09:18  <wumpus> ok
423 2019-10-17T19:09:35  <wumpus> I still think adding the GUI async stuff last minute is risky
424 2019-10-17T19:09:59  <sipa> is there a simpler way to fix the issue itself?
425 2019-10-17T19:10:00  <promag> well it's still a HP decision
426 2019-10-17T19:10:16  <sipa> harry potter? health points? hewlett-packard?
427 2019-10-17T19:10:17  <wumpus> I mean it's the obvious thing to do long term but between rcs?
428 2019-10-17T19:10:31  <promag> heh, high prio
429 2019-10-17T19:10:42  <sipa> oh lol, sorry, that should have been obvious :)
430 2019-10-17T19:11:18  <promag> wumpus: it's fine if we postpone the that change, but let's decide that then :p
431 2019-10-17T19:11:36  <aj> gui hangs would cause a lot of user complaints though?
432 2019-10-17T19:11:55  <wumpus> yes, but we've always have lots of GUI hangs during initial sync
433 2019-10-17T19:12:07  <jonasschnelli> Yes. This has been there for a long time
434 2019-10-17T19:12:16  <wumpus> this lock just makes it slightly worse I guess
435 2019-10-17T19:12:25  <jonasschnelli> No need for risky fixes in rc-timeframe
436 2019-10-17T19:12:28  <sipa> if it's a visible regression it seems reasonable to fix it, but is it possible to just say undo the change that caused it rather than fixing the root issue?
437 2019-10-17T19:12:36  <jonasschnelli> Better do proper fixes in 0.20
438 2019-10-17T19:12:36  <wumpus> but this is always been a problem and I don't think we're going to solve it for 0.19.0
439 2019-10-17T19:12:45  <wumpus> can we fix it by reverting something instead?
440 2019-10-17T19:12:46  <promag> Jackielove4u: tested that PR in win/linux/macos and compared to 0.18
441 2019-10-17T19:12:51  <wumpus> (on the 0.19 branch I mean)
442 2019-10-17T19:12:54  <promag> 0.19rc is really bad in that regards
443 2019-10-17T19:12:54  <wumpus> instead of adding more code
444 2019-10-17T19:12:59  <jonasschnelli> Its not an easy fix
445 2019-10-17T19:13:02  <jonasschnelli> It requires conceptual changes
446 2019-10-17T19:13:17  <wumpus> no, it's not an easy fix, it's changing things in a very differnt place than where the problem was introduced
447 2019-10-17T19:13:18  <sipa> jonasschnelli: well there was a specific PR that caused it, or at least worsened it
448 2019-10-17T19:13:24  *** captjakk has quit IRC
449 2019-10-17T19:13:30  <promag> yeah revert is another option I guess, MarcoFalke_?
450 2019-10-17T19:13:35  <sipa> i'd like to know if we can revert that PR instead
451 2019-10-17T19:13:38  <wumpus> so this basically means we're delaying 0.19.0 indefnintely
452 2019-10-17T19:13:40  <jonasschnelli> sipa: maybe a part of it. But GUI unresponsivenes was always an issue
453 2019-10-17T19:13:41  <wumpus> until the GUI is async
454 2019-10-17T19:13:51  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
455 2019-10-17T19:13:54  <jonasschnelli> The GUI was not created to be async
456 2019-10-17T19:13:56  <sipa> jonasschnelli: i'm very much aware; but i'm not talking about fixing the root issue, only the regression
457 2019-10-17T19:13:57  <wumpus> which is not soemthing I can get behind, sorry
458 2019-10-17T19:14:08  <promag> BTW, the same approach is already used in WalletController
459 2019-10-17T19:14:56  <jonasschnelli> sipa: sure. If we can fix the regression in a sane way we may want it in 0.19. But unclear of 17120 fixes that
460 2019-10-17T19:15:01  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
461 2019-10-17T19:15:11  <jonasschnelli> s/of/if
462 2019-10-17T19:15:50  <sipa> jonasschnelli: i'm literally suggesting reverting the PR that caused it, nothing more
463 2019-10-17T19:16:03  <fanquake> so revert #14193 ?
464 2019-10-17T19:16:07  <wumpus> that would be ok with me
465 2019-10-17T19:16:07  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14193 | validation: Add missing mempool locks by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #14193 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
466 2019-10-17T19:16:14  *** rockhouse has quit IRC
467 2019-10-17T19:16:14  *** victorSN has quit IRC
468 2019-10-17T19:16:28  <valwal> hi
469 2019-10-17T19:16:35  <promag> ok, I'll revert it in 0.19 and see how it goes
470 2019-10-17T19:16:37  *** rockhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
471 2019-10-17T19:16:46  <fanquake> Does that not mean we are back with whatever problems that was meant to fix?
472 2019-10-17T19:16:51  <wumpus> what we're arguing against is making changes to GUI asynchronicity before the 0.19.0 release, I think if it's possible to revert the locking change that caused it in the first place that's a more direct and safer option
473 2019-10-17T19:17:01  <jonasschnelli> Yes
474 2019-10-17T19:17:13  *** victorSN has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
475 2019-10-17T19:17:26  <wumpus> but  #17135 adds an extra thread, that's not a trivial fix
476 2019-10-17T19:17:28  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
477 2019-10-17T19:17:28  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17135 | gui: Make polling in ClientModel asynchronous by promag · Pull Request #17135 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
478 2019-10-17T19:17:40  <wumpus> all we know it might make locking issues worse somewhere
479 2019-10-17T19:17:41  <jonasschnelli> Reverting #14193 (merged in july, invasive) may be not super easy
480 2019-10-17T19:17:44  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14193 | validation: Add missing mempool locks by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #14193 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
481 2019-10-17T19:17:47  <fanquake> MarcoFalke: Had you seen inconsistent mempool reads prior to 14193?
482 2019-10-17T19:18:22  *** ajonas has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
483 2019-10-17T19:18:52  <wumpus> which is okay for a release schedule for 0.20.0 where there's a long time to go before the actual release, but not something to do last minute
484 2019-10-17T19:19:15  <promag> I'll just submit the revert commit to 0.19, ask for gitian build and let's see how testing goes
485 2019-10-17T19:19:23  <wumpus> promag: thanks!
486 2019-10-17T19:19:40  <jonasschnelli> promag: nice!
487 2019-10-17T19:19:45  <achow101> could just add a known issue to the release notes and tell people to not mess around in the gui during IBD?
488 2019-10-17T19:20:04  <wumpus> achow101: that would be the fallback then, yes
489 2019-10-17T19:20:18  <promag> achow101: I think it's not just ibd - not sure
490 2019-10-17T19:20:30  <achow101> i would be somewhat surprised if people were actually doing things in the gui during ibd
491 2019-10-17T19:21:01  <jonasschnelli> achow101: I guess the UX stopper is, if someone wants to get an address or so while he is syncing the last 2-3 days
492 2019-10-17T19:21:11  <wumpus> not only IBD but also when you catch up after having not run it for a while
493 2019-10-17T19:21:13  <jonasschnelli> (laptop users, etc.)
494 2019-10-17T19:21:21  <wumpus> that's usually the most annoying time for it to happen
495 2019-10-17T19:21:26  <jonasschnelli> indeed
496 2019-10-17T19:21:29  <wumpus> espeiclaly when you want to send a transaction quickly
497 2019-10-17T19:21:31  <promag> the problem is more evident in windows because windows show that app is not responding that can cause some frustration
498 2019-10-17T19:21:36  <sipa> #17135 does not look crazy, and may be worth considered... but my preference is reverting
499 2019-10-17T19:21:38  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17135 | gui: Make polling in ClientModel asynchronous by promag · Pull Request #17135 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
500 2019-10-17T19:21:44  <wumpus> but anyhow this is not new, and can't be solved before 0.19.0
501 2019-10-17T19:22:07  <wumpus> sipa: it's not crazy but it does add a new thread
502 2019-10-17T19:22:14  <jonasschnelli> I tested 17135 a bit and I still had freezes. It's better but not solved.
503 2019-10-17T19:22:23  <wumpus> I think that's a big change between rcs
504 2019-10-17T19:22:28  <sipa> wumpus: agree it's a big change to do at this stage
505 2019-10-17T19:22:47  <jonasschnelli> Lets aim for the mempool locks revert and add more fixes in 0.20
506 2019-10-17T19:22:54  <promag> jonasschnelli: I'd love to know more about that :D
507 2019-10-17T19:22:56  <wumpus> and... it's annoying but not a crash issue
508 2019-10-17T19:23:20  <achow101> would reverting the locks cause other problems?
509 2019-10-17T19:23:21  <promag> wumpus: yeah but people can force kill upon these hangs
510 2019-10-17T19:23:23  <jonasschnelli> promag: yeah. Currently setting up a test env to better reproduce those locks
511 2019-10-17T19:23:25  <achow101> I guess it wouldn't really be a regression..
512 2019-10-17T19:23:59  * jonasschnelli wishes the GUI would just work via RPC
513 2019-10-17T19:24:06  <warren> deadlock can happen in headless bitcoind?
514 2019-10-17T19:24:11  *** real_or_random has quit IRC
515 2019-10-17T19:24:24  <sipa> warren: this discussion is about Qt GUI only
516 2019-10-17T19:24:28  <warren> ok thx
517 2019-10-17T19:24:30  <promag> next topic?
518 2019-10-17T19:24:50  <fanquake> cc moneyball
519 2019-10-17T19:24:55  <moneyball> Hi
520 2019-10-17T19:24:56  *** mryandao has quit IRC
521 2019-10-17T19:24:59  *** mryandao_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
522 2019-10-17T19:25:14  <jnewbery> MarcoFalke has been responding but his messages aren't getting through
523 2019-10-17T19:25:16  <wumpus> #topic Taproot proposal (moneyball)
524 2019-10-17T19:25:36  <moneyball> aj, harding, and i have been discussing organizing a review of the schnorr/taproot/tapscript proposals
525 2019-10-17T19:25:37  <wumpus> jnewbery: oh no :( is he logged in to nickserv
526 2019-10-17T19:25:42  <moneyball> our thinking is here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G48-yhZMLLMZW68Bq59h_FBi__pwFKoWKF1D385I38Y/edit#
527 2019-10-17T19:26:00  <moneyball> it would be a 7 week series ending by end of year
528 2019-10-17T19:26:07  <promag> jnewbery: MarcoFalke_ been there too :(
529 2019-10-17T19:26:46  <wumpus> it looks like he isn't logged in-- you can't post here in that case, and worse, you don't really get feedback--I had the same problem some meetings ago
530 2019-10-17T19:26:47  <moneyball> i raise it here because (a) create awareness (b) solicit feedback on the idea (c) solicit ideas for how to invite high quality broad reviewers
531 2019-10-17T19:27:13  <moneyball> i'm thinking we will communicate this on bitcoin-dev, lightning-dev, optech newsletters + slack to member companies
532 2019-10-17T19:27:35  *** davterra has quit IRC
533 2019-10-17T19:28:26  <sipa> sounds like a great idea to get feedback
534 2019-10-17T19:28:30  <moneyball> the goal of this is to generate high quality feedback, give us further confidence in the proposal, give the Core project confidence to proceed with code review and QA of the existing PR, and to improve the decentralization / broader participation of review of the proposal
535 2019-10-17T19:28:43  <sipa> there is no PR
536 2019-10-17T19:28:48  *** MarcoFalke_ has quit IRC
537 2019-10-17T19:28:50  *** davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
538 2019-10-17T19:28:52  <moneyball> sorry, branch
539 2019-10-17T19:29:02  <aj> to proceed with getting an implementation that we can PR :)
540 2019-10-17T19:29:04  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
541 2019-10-17T19:29:18  <sipa> yeah
542 2019-10-17T19:29:40  <MarcoFalke> test
543 2019-10-17T19:29:42  <jnewbery> (b) I think it's a good idea
544 2019-10-17T19:29:47  <sipa> MarcoFalke: reading you loud and clear
545 2019-10-17T19:29:47  <aj> MarcoFalke: success
546 2019-10-17T19:29:53  <MarcoFalke> I was wondering why no one responeded to me for days
547 2019-10-17T19:29:57  <jonasschnelli> heh
548 2019-10-17T19:29:59  <sipa> oww
549 2019-10-17T19:30:19  <fanquake> moneyball sounds good. I see some australian friendly time slots as well
550 2019-10-17T19:30:19  <jnewbery> welcome back, MarcoFalke
551 2019-10-17T19:30:21  <wumpus> oh crap
552 2019-10-17T19:30:36  <promag> lol
553 2019-10-17T19:30:57  <achow101> moneyball: is the idea to kind of do it in the style of the pr review club?
554 2019-10-17T19:31:02  <wumpus> kafkaIRC
555 2019-10-17T19:31:28  <sipa> wumpus: IRC where only some people see what certain others are saying... sounds like twitter to me
556 2019-10-17T19:31:38  <moneyball> achow101: aj has proposed a small group study structure then come together as a larger group once a week via IRC for Q&A (see the doc for details)
557 2019-10-17T19:31:49  <MarcoFalke> I think the issue was the znc put an underscore behind my name and bitcoin-core-dev only allows logged in users to post?
558 2019-10-17T19:31:54  <MarcoFalke> (sorry ot)
559 2019-10-17T19:31:56  <moneyball> it will definitely require diligence and commitment, but i think it is necessary for a high quality review of the proposal
560 2019-10-17T19:31:59  <wumpus> sipa: yes it seems the same kind of shadowban idea
561 2019-10-17T19:33:08  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: yes, it allows only logged in users to post, though you can log in while having an alternative nick (by using /msg nickserv login <registered_user> <pass> AFAIK instead of just /... login <PASS>)
562 2019-10-17T19:33:15  <moneyball> "once a week" = twice a week at different times to provide good global coverage
563 2019-10-17T19:33:39  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: the crazy thing is that freenode doesn't seem to send an error message anymore in that case
564 2019-10-17T19:33:57  <sipa> 7 weeks seems like a lot, but i also agree it's not something that can be done in 1-2 hours
565 2019-10-17T19:33:59  <jeremyrubin> i think it would make sense to talk about deployment/acceptance criteria
566 2019-10-17T19:34:47  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: the reason for "only registered users can post" is for some spam avoidance, it used to be really bad at some point, maybe it's no longer necessary I don't know
567 2019-10-17T19:34:48  <sipa> jeremyrubin: imho that's an entirely different discussion; we first need to know if the ecosystem is on board including all the details it entails (to the extent they care), then we can talk about activation
568 2019-10-17T19:35:06  <warren> MarcoFalke: strongly recommend figuring out the nickserv SASL or TLS cert authentication, then you'll never connect without login
569 2019-10-17T19:35:32  <wumpus> warren: somehow it did happen to me once
570 2019-10-17T19:35:44  <achow101> moneyball: who are the participants? open to public?
571 2019-10-17T19:35:47  <warren> wumpus: yeah server splits or other weird conditions
572 2019-10-17T19:35:57  <jeremyrubin> sipa: thats what i said kinda
573 2019-10-17T19:36:34  <jeremyrubin> "we first need to know if the ecosystem is on board" == acceptance criteria
574 2019-10-17T19:37:09  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
575 2019-10-17T19:37:17  <jeremyrubin> knowing what that means, i agree, is a separate discussion
576 2019-10-17T19:37:31  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
577 2019-10-17T19:37:50  <moneyball> achow101: open to public. some level of moderation may be needed just to keep folks on track and avoid trolls. i mention above the proposed method of outreach. if others have ideas let me know.
578 2019-10-17T19:37:53  *** real_or_random has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
579 2019-10-17T19:38:08  <jeremyrubin> but an impt one for taproot and other stuff too, separate from the actual instance
580 2019-10-17T19:38:25  <aj> sipa: i don't think shrinking it below 5 "sessions" works, and multiple sessions a week seems a bit intense, 7 weeks seems the max before hitting xmas/new year, and 5 + 2 weeks padding seems okayish
581 2019-10-17T19:38:42  <sipa> jeremyrubin: i have no idea what you're trying to say
582 2019-10-17T19:38:50  <sipa> aj: ok
583 2019-10-17T19:39:01  <jeremyrubin> ok
584 2019-10-17T19:39:11  <jeremyrubin> can chat out of band later
585 2019-10-17T19:39:17  <sipa> ok
586 2019-10-17T19:40:19  <moneyball> also feel free to comment directly in the doc if you have ideas or concerns
587 2019-10-17T19:40:51  <moneyball> thanks everyone! hope to see many of you participate. it is a fairly large commitment but as aj points out in the doc:
588 2019-10-17T19:40:55  <moneyball> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/igNUbnnf/
589 2019-10-17T19:41:02  <wumpus> thanks!
590 2019-10-17T19:41:15  <sipa> sgtm
591 2019-10-17T19:43:28  <MarcoFalke> #proposedmeetingtopic address relay and spv clients
592 2019-10-17T19:43:35  <gleb> I wanted to mention that in #17163 we're discussion whether we should stop relaying addresses to light clients or just limit relay to the cases where it does not hurt addr propagation.
593 2019-10-17T19:43:35  <gleb> It's not clear for us whether SPV should sync their addr database with random peers from the network. Input welcome!
594 2019-10-17T19:43:37  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17163 | p2p: Avoid relaying ADDR messages to SPV clients by naumenkogs · Pull Request #17163 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
595 2019-10-17T19:44:45  <gleb> I guess we tend to "allowing SPV to ask for addresses does not hurt", so the latter, but I'd like to hear more opinions.
596 2019-10-17T19:45:00  <MarcoFalke> I guess we switched topics?
597 2019-10-17T19:45:05  <MarcoFalke> #topic address relay and spv clients
598 2019-10-17T19:46:23  <gleb> To be clear: currently when we get a short ADDR message (less than 10), we choose 1 or 2 peers to relay forward. That's the primary way to announce new nodes in the network. Currently it's possible that we choose SPV which will throw it on the floor, which is unfortunate.
599 2019-10-17T19:47:26  <aj> how about just biassing against picking peers for the 1 or 2 to relay for if those peers haven't sent us ADDR messages already, if that makes sense?
600 2019-10-17T19:47:36  <achow101> I think it would hurt SPV clients to not receive addr messages
601 2019-10-17T19:47:46  <achow101> *for them to not receive addr messages
602 2019-10-17T19:48:55  <gleb> I also mentioned above that an explicit service flag is maybe a good idea, to decouple addr-relay from SPV/non-SPV reasoning.
603 2019-10-17T19:49:41  <gleb> Or whatever other explicit way you can imagine. aj: Biasing is sort of that, but implicit.
604 2019-10-17T19:50:36  <gleb> Anyway, just wanted to mention that this discussion is taking place in #17163. Let's continue there. Thanks.
605 2019-10-17T19:50:38  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17163 | p2p: Avoid relaying ADDR messages to SPV clients by naumenkogs · Pull Request #17163 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
606 2019-10-17T19:50:45  <achow101> gleb: are you certain that spv clients discard addr messages?
607 2019-10-17T19:51:22  <MarcoFalke> as mentioned on the pull request, SPV clients should not deal with addr messages. I can only see ways in which they shoot themselves in the foot
608 2019-10-17T19:51:30  <wumpus> maybe most current ones do, but it's not a necessary coupling
609 2019-10-17T19:51:40  <sipa> MarcoFalke: i don't understand that comment
610 2019-10-17T19:51:54  <sipa> and i don't understand what SPV has to do with it
611 2019-10-17T19:52:12  <MarcoFalke> Though, there might be a node without NODE_NETWORK set that wants addr messages
612 2019-10-17T19:52:13  <wumpus> I don't get why SPV clients couldn't implement full address management instead of blindly trusting DNS seeders
613 2019-10-17T19:52:18  <MarcoFalke> So that coupling doesn't make sense
614 2019-10-17T19:52:46  <achow101> i don't understand what about spv makes it such that they don't need addrs
615 2019-10-17T19:52:49  <wumpus> right
616 2019-10-17T19:52:58  <MarcoFalke> wumpus: I doubt implementing address management is trivial
617 2019-10-17T19:53:07  <MarcoFalke> See for example feeler connections
618 2019-10-17T19:53:08  <wumpus> no one is talking about 'trivial'
619 2019-10-17T19:53:17  <sipa> MarcoFalke: i'm sure it's nontrivial, but it's nontrivial for everyone
620 2019-10-17T19:53:28  <wumpus> but why couldn't they if they wanted?
621 2019-10-17T19:54:02  <wumpus> so the reasoning is 'SPV implementations tend to be trivial, so they won't implement something as complex as addr handling'
622 2019-10-17T19:54:04  <sipa> i agree partially with luke-jr that it's reasonable for lightweight clients to instead rely on a trusted server... but not all light clients do that; and within those that do, i think doing actual ip address management is far more reasonable that blindly using dns seeds
623 2019-10-17T19:54:14  <wumpus> which more or less makes sense but it's very indirect
624 2019-10-17T19:55:00  <warren> The "throwing to the floor" part is concerning but I'm thinking address relay is best effort. It is reasonable to need to connect to multiple/many peers before you get any quality addresses. There is no guaratee that a peer you try first is honest.
625 2019-10-17T19:55:12  <BlueMatt> what does wasting a service bit cost? we've got a bunch of 'em :p
626 2019-10-17T19:55:28  *** rex4539 has quit IRC
627 2019-10-17T19:55:51  <achow101> wumpus: but at the same time, they are probably using some library like bitcoinj that already handles it for them (at least I think bitcoinj uses addrs)
628 2019-10-17T19:55:54  <MarcoFalke> would the service bit be for "i want addr messages" or "i send addr messages"
629 2019-10-17T19:56:10  <wumpus> achow101: that's another assumption though, based on current software
630 2019-10-17T19:56:18  <wumpus> achow101: I"m not sure that should determine the protocol
631 2019-10-17T19:56:34  <sipa> i think a service bit makes sense (e.g. explicitly opting out of address relay), but i think that's an independent question of whether we want to bias our own relay away from nodes we assume won't participate in relaying further
632 2019-10-17T19:56:47  <gleb> MarcoFalke: Your peer shouldn't care whether you promise to send them something or not
633 2019-10-17T19:56:56  <MarcoFalke> I also think it makes sense to make this more explicit with service bits or a new message type
634 2019-10-17T19:57:02  <MarcoFalke> Would addrv2 help with that?
635 2019-10-17T19:57:22  <wumpus> it could be added to that
636 2019-10-17T19:57:31  <dongcarl> addrv2 has a message to indicate that I want addrv2 messages
637 2019-10-17T19:57:57  <dongcarl> I'm hearing we want some kind of more complex negotiation?
638 2019-10-17T19:58:02  <wumpus> the same mechanism (say, a new message) for requesting addrv2 messages could be used to request *NO* addr messages
639 2019-10-17T19:58:22  <MarcoFalke> gleb: It is useful to know whether a peer might not relay addr messages, but still wants them
640 2019-10-17T19:58:26  <wumpus> dongcarl: I don't think it would be more complex
641 2019-10-17T19:58:38  <wumpus> just a third option (besides addr and addrv2)
642 2019-10-17T19:58:50  <gleb> MarcoFalke: yeah, if they want, they should signalize. But whether they send us or not — we don't care.
643 2019-10-17T19:58:59  <gleb> Okay, it seems like I change a PR to avoid forwarding ADDR to SPV, but still allow SPV to ask for addresses.
644 2019-10-17T19:59:26  <warren> +1
645 2019-10-17T19:59:31  <gleb> And then we should expand addrv2 spec for this further change separately.
646 2019-10-17T19:59:33  <sipa> that sounds reasonable
647 2019-10-17T19:59:38  <achow101> how are you determining a node is spv? no node_network?
648 2019-10-17T19:59:51  <gleb> and no node_network_limited.
649 2019-10-17T19:59:58  <aj> (we also drop ADDRs on the floor if they're from a node we've set as block-relay-only per #15759)
650 2019-10-17T20:00:01  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15759 | p2p: Add 2 outbound block-relay-only connections by sdaftuar · Pull Request #15759 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
651 2019-10-17T20:00:07  <achow101> that'd affect old pruned nodes tho
652 2019-10-17T20:00:24  <wumpus> aj: oh? block relay only also means no addr relay?
653 2019-10-17T20:00:27  <gleb> Yeah, but we already don't forward short addr to "block_relay_only" :)
654 2019-10-17T20:00:30  <wumpus> aj: I kind of wondered that
655 2019-10-17T20:00:40  <BlueMatt> time
656 2019-10-17T20:00:49  <aj> wumpus: only for the 2 of 10 outbounds when we do tx's but have a couple of block-relay-only nodes
657 2019-10-17T20:01:13  <wumpus> #endmeeting
658 2019-10-17T20:01:13  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Oct 17 20:01:13 2019 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
659 2019-10-17T20:01:13  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2019/bitcoin-core-dev.2019-10-17-19.00.html
660 2019-10-17T20:01:13  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2019/bitcoin-core-dev.2019-10-17-19.00.txt
661 2019-10-17T20:01:13  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2019/bitcoin-core-dev.2019-10-17-19.00.log.html
662 2019-10-17T20:01:22  <aj> gleb: but we might pick a node who's chosen us as block_relay_only to forward addresses to
663 2019-10-17T20:01:39  <MarcoFalke> gleb: this ^ for example
664 2019-10-17T20:01:46  <achow101> filter by fRelay
665 2019-10-17T20:02:26  <gleb> aj: In current implementation we won't pick a node which is set to be block_relay_only.
666 2019-10-17T20:02:30  <MarcoFalke> I think we should guess whether a node relays (sends) addr messages based on other (unrelated) service bits or version flags
667 2019-10-17T20:02:51  <aj> gleb: block_relay_only reflects our choice, not our peer's choice
668 2019-10-17T20:03:14  <aj> or fRelay reflects that, i think; bit long since i've looked at it now
669 2019-10-17T20:03:19  <MarcoFalke> gleb: That doesn't mean that in the future there might be a blocks-only-relay-and-addr-relay node
670 2019-10-17T20:03:25  <gleb> It should be per-link, non per-direction, otherwise doesn't make sense.
671 2019-10-17T20:03:51  <MarcoFalke> s/might/won't/
672 2019-10-17T20:03:53  <gleb> Because then transactions will flow through that link, just in one direction :)
673 2019-10-17T20:05:00  <aj> gleb: right, but for -blocksonly you want ADDR but not txs to flow, and you don't know if the other guy's selected you as block_relay_only or is doing -blocksonly in general
674 2019-10-17T20:05:32  <aj> (i think)
675 2019-10-17T20:06:10  <achow101> imo we should do the service bit thing to explicitly ask for or opt out of addr messages. all of the things mentioned don't necessarily exclude needing addrs
676 2019-10-17T20:09:43  <gleb> achow101: Before service bit thing happens, I am suggesting to still allow everybody to learn, but just not forward them <10 addr messages.
677 2019-10-17T20:15:51  <MarcoFalke> Sure, old Bitcoin Core nodes won't set that service bit, so they should be accomodated for and provided with addr messages
678 2019-10-17T20:27:59  <luke-jr> [19:55:54] <MarcoFalke> would the service bit be for "i want addr messages" or "i send addr messages" <-- it doesn't make sense to use service bits for "i want"
679 2019-10-17T20:28:18  <luke-jr> that can very easily be done at connection negotiation
680 2019-10-17T20:30:39  <meshcollider> Oops forgot the meeting
681 2019-10-17T20:35:16  <meshcollider> The taproot thing sounds good to me too
682 2019-10-17T20:38:34  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
683 2019-10-17T20:42:10  *** mmgen has quit IRC
684 2019-10-17T20:47:21  *** drbrule has quit IRC
685 2019-10-17T20:47:41  <luke-jr> moneyball: ACK/HOLD isn't clear. If there's minor changes desired, does that need a HOLD⁇ :/
686 2019-10-17T21:00:01  *** chrissie1 has quit IRC
687 2019-10-17T21:03:02  *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
688 2019-10-17T21:10:44  <aj> luke-jr: some minor changes shouldn't need a HOLD (like "maybe add a reference to https://..." or "might be clearer if X was described before Y") ; and still want to go through github issues/PRs to actually get changes made. i'm thinking of ACK/HOLD as more like the summaries on the Segwit_support wiki page
689 2019-10-17T21:12:05  <aj> luke-jr: (also, a double question-mark character? fancy)
690 2019-10-17T21:17:44  *** ski1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
691 2019-10-17T21:18:05  *** nullptr| has quit IRC
692 2019-10-17T21:18:11  <luke-jr> I haven't checked if my review comments were addressed yet; I wonder if I should do that in advance, or wait for the meetings
693 2019-10-17T21:20:04  *** nullptr| has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
694 2019-10-17T21:20:31  <sipa> luke-jr: i never understood your comment about avoiding space savings
695 2019-10-17T21:21:22  <sipa> do you just mean to clarify whether it's about bandwidth or other kinds of savings?
696 2019-10-17T21:21:46  <luke-jr> sipa: I mean weight shouldn't be gamed.
697 2019-10-17T21:22:16  <luke-jr> if a different weight is desirable, the algorithm for weight can be proposed adjusted, but just omitting bytes to manipulate weight isn't a good way
698 2019-10-17T21:22:45  <aj> s/omitting/adding/ ?
699 2019-10-17T21:23:02  <luke-jr> aj: IIRC it was omissions in the earlier draft
700 2019-10-17T21:23:13  <sipa> ?
701 2019-10-17T21:23:32  <sipa> weight = base_size + 3 * witness_size; nothing in taproot ever did anything else
702 2019-10-17T21:23:36  <luke-jr> I'll need to go re-read, sec
703 2019-10-17T21:24:54  <aj> there's "Instead, the taproot annex can be used to add weight to the witness ..." in bip-tapscript; otherwise i've no idea
704 2019-10-17T21:25:13  <sipa> one idea for the "annex" (but not currently proposed) is that it could be used to add a "extra weight" marker, which would then translate to an additional allowance for example for hypothetical future opcodes that have a much higher cpu cost per byte than existing things
705 2019-10-17T21:25:49  <sipa> fwiw, it seems that right now, blocks full of sha256, blocks full of stack operations, or blocks full of signature checks remarkably are all very similar in their cpu cost per byte for verifiers
706 2019-10-17T21:26:40  <luke-jr> sipa: basically, my point is that p2pkh, p2wpkh, and the new taproot equivalent with the same CPU/IO/etc costs should have the same weight, not be tweaked in special-casing ways to reduce it
707 2019-10-17T21:27:23  <sipa> i don't understand
708 2019-10-17T21:27:33  <sipa> we're trying to use block space as efficiently as possible
709 2019-10-17T21:27:48  <sipa> without increasing cpu cost per byte
710 2019-10-17T21:28:31  <sipa> (i'd argue that if it becomes possible to do the same thing with less bytes, but significantly increase how burdensome it is to validation, that would be a bad thing, but i don't think that's the case)
711 2019-10-17T21:29:37  <luke-jr> I don't see how that isn't self-contradicting
712 2019-10-17T21:29:37  <aj> iirc it costs slightly more to send to a taproot address than p2wpkh (because it's a 32B point not a 20B hash) and corresponding less to spend via taproot key path (64B sig, versus 33B key reveal and 72B DER signature), but they average out almost the same in weight
713 2019-10-17T21:29:57  <luke-jr> what does it mean to "increase efficiency" of block space use, without increasing CPU cost per byte?
714 2019-10-17T21:30:47  <sipa> luke-jr: if i can perform a payment on chain with fewer bytes, but also reduce the CPU cost needed to verify it, is it justified that the weight also goes down?
715 2019-10-17T21:30:49  <aj> batch verification decreases the cpu cost per signature, so if that were the only factor more sigs per byte could keep cpu cost stable
716 2019-10-17T21:30:59  <luke-jr> I seem to recall special-casing where something is omitted if it's a particular value.. but I'm having trouble finding it now
717 2019-10-17T21:31:19  <luke-jr> sipa: so Taproot in fact uses less CPU time?
718 2019-10-17T21:31:23  <luke-jr> I would think it uses more
719 2019-10-17T21:31:32  <sipa> luke-jr: if batch validation is implemented, significantly less
720 2019-10-17T21:31:54  <luke-jr> isn't that just per transaction, though? so 1 input wouldn't benefit?
721 2019-10-17T21:32:06  <sipa> you can batch all signatures in a block
722 2019-10-17T21:32:10  <sipa> or even more
723 2019-10-17T21:32:44  <luke-jr> hmm
724 2019-10-17T21:33:33  <sipa> note that batch validation is not the same as aggregation; there is still a signature on chain per logical signature to check; you just have a faster algorithm that can tell you whether all of them are valid or not (which won't tell you which ones are invalid if it fails, but in block validation that's not relevant)
725 2019-10-17T21:33:41  <aj> luke-jr: SIGHASH_ALL signatures are 64 bytes, versus others being 65 bytes; that's the only case like that that comes to mind
726 2019-10-17T21:33:50  <luke-jr> can we fix it so segwit/taproot are on the same weight scale as pre-segwit? or would that need to be another BIP? because right now, the weights are too low
727 2019-10-17T21:34:11  <luke-jr> (this is admittedly a different issue beyond merely not making it worse)
728 2019-10-17T21:34:29  <luke-jr> aj: that sounds like what I remember; why shouldn't they all be 65?
729 2019-10-17T21:34:33  <sipa> i don't believe that belongs in the same bip
730 2019-10-17T21:35:03  <luke-jr> the code would likely be simpler to have 65 bytes for everything
731 2019-10-17T21:36:13  <luke-jr> and unless I'm mistaken, SIGHASH_ALL vs other SIGHASH don't change actual resource costs
732 2019-10-17T21:36:17  <aj> sighash_all is slightly easier to calculate (hash is the same for all sighash_all sigs in a tx)
733 2019-10-17T21:36:53  <aj> err, in an input, except for codesep use
734 2019-10-17T21:36:54  <sipa> i think it would save maybe 2 lines of code here: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/blob/taproot/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L1527L1533
735 2019-10-17T21:37:34  <sipa> i think there is a fungibility benefit to encouraging a default sighash
736 2019-10-17T21:38:41  <luke-jr> 4 lines
737 2019-10-17T21:38:45  <luke-jr>     if (sig.size() != 65) return false;
738 2019-10-17T21:38:46  <sipa> ok!
739 2019-10-17T21:38:47  <luke-jr>     uint8_t hashtype = sig.back();
740 2019-10-17T21:38:48  <luke-jr>     sig.pop_back();
741 2019-10-17T21:40:27  <luke-jr> I think the fungibility thing is stretching it, but aj may have a point
742 2019-10-17T21:40:39  *** arik_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
743 2019-10-17T21:40:49  <luke-jr> sipa: did you understand/address my other comments?
744 2019-10-17T21:43:45  <sipa> the non-overridable branches thing was answered i think in the thread, and is also in the document; you can use a point without known DL as internal key, and the result is something that can provably only be spent using scripts
745 2019-10-17T21:45:05  <sipa> salting branches shouldn't be needed if you don't reuse pubkeys
746 2019-10-17T21:46:00  <luke-jr> what if a branch doesn't have any keys?
747 2019-10-17T21:46:26  <aj> you can pair it with a branch that's "OP_RETURN <salt>"
748 2019-10-17T21:46:30  <luke-jr> anyone-can-spend is apparently useful to troll the IRS :P
749 2019-10-17T21:46:41  <luke-jr> aj: ah, nice idea
750 2019-10-17T21:48:45  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
751 2019-10-17T21:48:45  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ch4ot1c closed pull request #16797: scripts: Add convenience script for committing scripted-diffs from a file (master...scripts/commit-script) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16797
752 2019-10-17T21:48:46  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
753 2019-10-17T21:58:53  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
754 2019-10-17T22:18:40  *** Zenton has quit IRC
755 2019-10-17T22:22:09  *** arik_ has quit IRC
756 2019-10-17T22:24:44  *** arik_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
757 2019-10-17T22:47:36  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
758 2019-10-17T22:48:59  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
759 2019-10-17T22:50:12  *** shesek` has quit IRC
760 2019-10-17T22:53:49  *** jkczyz has quit IRC
761 2019-10-17T22:55:43  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
762 2019-10-17T22:57:45  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
763 2019-10-17T23:07:59  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
764 2019-10-17T23:07:59  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] promag opened pull request #17182: 0.19: Revert 14193 to fix 17112 (0.19...2019-10-revert-14193-fix-17112) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17182
765 2019-10-17T23:08:00  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
766 2019-10-17T23:08:17  *** willcl_ark has quit IRC
767 2019-10-17T23:13:51  *** jkczyz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
768 2019-10-17T23:14:04  *** astro has quit IRC
769 2019-10-17T23:15:40  *** astro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
770 2019-10-17T23:24:02  *** belcher has quit IRC
771 2019-10-17T23:33:45  <promag> ^ 14963, #16443 and probably others are making the revert hard
772 2019-10-17T23:33:48  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16443 | refactor: have CCoins* data managed under CChainState by jamesob · Pull Request #16443 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
773 2019-10-17T23:34:22  <promag> lots of annotations were merged
774 2019-10-17T23:34:40  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
775 2019-10-17T23:35:38  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
776 2019-10-17T23:37:02  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
777 2019-10-17T23:47:44  *** ajonas has quit IRC
778 2019-10-17T23:51:17  *** Highway61 has quit IRC