12020-09-22T00:00:01  *** FredC has quit IRC
  22020-09-22T00:09:40  *** promag has quit IRC
  32020-09-22T00:10:50  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  42020-09-22T00:13:09  *** tsdgeos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  52020-09-22T00:17:40  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  62020-09-22T00:35:31  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  72020-09-22T00:35:31  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ariard closed pull request #19871: doc: Clarify scope of eviction protection of outbound block-relay peers (master...2020-09-clarify-eviction-block-relay) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19871
  82020-09-22T00:35:32  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
  92020-09-22T00:35:46  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 102020-09-22T00:35:46  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ariard reopened pull request #19871: doc: Clarify scope of eviction protection of outbound block-relay peers (master...2020-09-clarify-eviction-block-relay) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19871
 112020-09-22T00:35:47  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 122020-09-22T00:38:05  *** arowser has quit IRC
 132020-09-22T00:39:30  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142020-09-22T00:43:42  *** promag has quit IRC
 152020-09-22T00:49:47  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 162020-09-22T00:54:03  *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 172020-09-22T00:57:19  *** molz_ has quit IRC
 182020-09-22T01:06:38  *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
 192020-09-22T01:42:05  *** arowser has quit IRC
 202020-09-22T01:42:25  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 212020-09-22T01:45:06  *** Eagle[TM] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 222020-09-22T01:47:26  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
 232020-09-22T01:57:05  *** arowser has quit IRC
 242020-09-22T01:57:24  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 252020-09-22T02:02:05  *** arowser has quit IRC
 262020-09-22T02:02:24  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 272020-09-22T02:02:30  *** tsdgeos has quit IRC
 282020-09-22T02:03:05  *** arowser has quit IRC
 292020-09-22T02:03:23  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 302020-09-22T02:11:23  *** arowser has quit IRC
 312020-09-22T02:20:49  *** Livestradamus has quit IRC
 322020-09-22T02:21:53  *** IPGlider has quit IRC
 332020-09-22T02:23:27  *** IPGlider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 342020-09-22T02:24:34  *** Livestradamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 352020-09-22T02:27:46  *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 362020-09-22T02:28:44  *** grawity1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 372020-09-22T02:30:35  *** mol_ has quit IRC
 382020-09-22T02:51:59  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 392020-09-22T02:56:18  *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 402020-09-22T03:00:02  *** grawity1 has quit IRC
 412020-09-22T03:01:38  *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
 422020-09-22T03:02:33  *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 432020-09-22T03:20:31  *** alxgnon1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 442020-09-22T03:20:46  *** molz_ has quit IRC
 452020-09-22T03:50:06  <aj> signet merged, taproot in high-priority for review
 462020-09-22T03:57:13  *** tryphe has quit IRC
 472020-09-22T03:57:20  *** tryphe_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 482020-09-22T04:07:59  *** takinbo_ has quit IRC
 492020-09-22T04:08:58  <sipa> #addtoajsqueue #19988
 502020-09-22T04:09:00  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19988 | Overhaul transaction request logic by sipa · Pull Request #19988 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 512020-09-22T04:09:15  *** takinbo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 522020-09-22T04:09:15  *** takinbo has quit IRC
 532020-09-22T04:09:15  *** takinbo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 542020-09-22T04:10:55  <aj> sipa: yeahyeah, it's on the top of a list
 552020-09-22T04:45:49  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 562020-09-22T05:00:44  <kallewoof> i'm surprised taproot PR is not in conflict with signet merge. I recall it not being trivial to merge the two when I did it myself.
 572020-09-22T05:04:30  <aj> kallewoof: some of it might have been the CheckSig changes that we got rid of?
 582020-09-22T05:04:48  <kallewoof> that's probably it yeah!
 592020-09-22T05:07:56  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 602020-09-22T05:16:30  *** mol has quit IRC
 612020-09-22T05:17:27  *** alxgnon1 has quit IRC
 622020-09-22T05:23:38  * sipa tries
 632020-09-22T05:30:29  *** maxfragg1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 642020-09-22T05:32:36  <sipa> works fine
 652020-09-22T05:33:38  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 662020-09-22T05:36:37  <aj> aggh, gmaxwell is commenting in the factorio subreddit
 672020-09-22T06:00:01  *** maxfragg1 has quit IRC
 682020-09-22T06:03:32  *** kljasdfvv has quit IRC
 692020-09-22T06:03:41  *** kljasdfvv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 702020-09-22T06:04:12  <kallewoof> sipa: yeah i tried it too and it worked without conflicts.
 712020-09-22T06:21:31  *** leolein1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 722020-09-22T06:22:22  *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 732020-09-22T06:22:46  *** tryphe_ has quit IRC
 742020-09-22T06:33:03  *** yanmaani has quit IRC
 752020-09-22T06:37:23  *** mol has quit IRC
 762020-09-22T06:40:00  *** reallll has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 772020-09-22T06:43:25  *** belcher_ has quit IRC
 782020-09-22T06:46:45  *** yanmaani has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 792020-09-22T06:53:21  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 802020-09-22T06:54:23  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
 812020-09-22T06:59:23  *** reallll is now known as belcher
 822020-09-22T07:18:11  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 832020-09-22T07:18:36  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 842020-09-22T07:21:39  *** yanmaani has quit IRC
 852020-09-22T07:22:29  *** yanmaani has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 862020-09-22T07:26:26  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 872020-09-22T07:29:13  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 882020-09-22T07:29:39  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 892020-09-22T07:33:47  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 902020-09-22T07:56:44  *** kljasdfvv has quit IRC
 912020-09-22T07:56:45  *** sr_gi has quit IRC
 922020-09-22T07:57:15  *** sr_gi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 932020-09-22T07:57:43  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 942020-09-22T07:58:22  *** kljasdfvv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 952020-09-22T08:03:17  *** dermoth_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 962020-09-22T08:03:35  *** dermoth has quit IRC
 972020-09-22T08:03:37  *** dermoth_ is now known as dermoth
 982020-09-22T08:04:19  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
 992020-09-22T08:22:16  *** Kiminuo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1002020-09-22T08:26:47  *** gribble has quit IRC
1012020-09-22T08:29:11  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1022020-09-22T08:29:40  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1032020-09-22T08:33:47  *** jonatack has quit IRC
1042020-09-22T08:34:03  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1052020-09-22T08:35:46  *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1062020-09-22T09:00:02  *** leolein1 has quit IRC
1072020-09-22T09:04:20  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1082020-09-22T09:04:59  *** kexkey has quit IRC
1092020-09-22T09:06:22  *** andreaca_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102020-09-22T09:07:43  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1112020-09-22T09:11:40  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1122020-09-22T09:13:42  *** shesek has quit IRC
1132020-09-22T09:21:04  *** Cros1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142020-09-22T09:44:12  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152020-09-22T09:48:12  *** promag has quit IRC
1162020-09-22T09:48:45  *** jonatack has quit IRC
1172020-09-22T09:49:11  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182020-09-22T09:50:23  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1192020-09-22T09:51:00  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202020-09-22T10:00:53  *** andreaca_ has quit IRC
1212020-09-22T10:01:20  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222020-09-22T10:05:57  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1232020-09-22T10:10:03  *** vasild has quit IRC
1242020-09-22T10:19:19  *** dr-orlovsky has quit IRC
1252020-09-22T10:20:28  *** Terry81Kohler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1262020-09-22T10:21:02  *** provoostenator has quit IRC
1272020-09-22T10:21:46  *** provoostenator has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1282020-09-22T10:28:06  *** Terry81Kohler has quit IRC
1292020-09-22T10:29:29  *** promag has quit IRC
1302020-09-22T10:31:55  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312020-09-22T10:34:55  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1322020-09-22T10:45:58  *** vasild has quit IRC
1332020-09-22T10:49:22  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1342020-09-22T11:17:10  *** promag has quit IRC
1352020-09-22T11:44:43  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362020-09-22T11:44:43  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #19991: net: Use alternative port for incoming Tor connections (master...200922-tor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19991
1372020-09-22T11:44:44  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1382020-09-22T11:51:53  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1392020-09-22T12:00:02  *** Cros1 has quit IRC
1402020-09-22T12:24:59  *** mol has quit IRC
1412020-09-22T12:33:45  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1422020-09-22T12:52:59  *** jonatack has quit IRC
1432020-09-22T12:55:28  *** nhandler1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1442020-09-22T13:12:10  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1452020-09-22T13:21:02  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1462020-09-22T13:27:20  *** mol has quit IRC
1472020-09-22T13:28:03  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
1482020-09-22T13:31:38  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492020-09-22T13:38:45  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502020-09-22T13:57:06  *** mol has quit IRC
1512020-09-22T14:00:01  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1522020-09-22T14:00:01  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #19993: refactor: Signet fixups (master...2009-signetFixups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19993
1532020-09-22T14:00:01  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1542020-09-22T14:01:25  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
1552020-09-22T14:01:50  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1562020-09-22T14:03:57  <jnewbery> Hi folks. There's a P2P meeting today in an hour. We have one proposed topic: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/P2P-IRC-meetings#22-sept-2020. Feel free to propose more in the next hour.
1572020-09-22T14:04:00  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22 | Update the list of hard-coded node IP addresses · Issue #22 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1582020-09-22T14:04:11  <jnewbery> bad bot
1592020-09-22T14:05:38  <jnewbery> sipa: perhaps a brief overview of #19988 would be of interest to the meeting attendees (motivation/design philosphy rather than technical details that can be found in the PR)
1602020-09-22T14:05:40  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19988 | Overhaul transaction request logic by sipa · Pull Request #19988 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1612020-09-22T14:08:10  *** promag has quit IRC
1622020-09-22T14:23:21  *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1632020-09-22T14:30:29  *** Kiminuo has quit IRC
1642020-09-22T14:41:04  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1652020-09-22T14:58:17  <gleb> jnewbery: I have this PR #19958. I would just make a little announcement during the meeting, not planning to actually discuss it, because I think the trade-off is simple and already known.
1662020-09-22T14:58:20  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19958 | Rename feelers to probes by naumenkogs · Pull Request #19958 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1672020-09-22T14:58:56  <sipa> jnewbery: happy to do that
1682020-09-22T14:59:28  *** ajonas_ has quit IRC
1692020-09-22T14:59:59  *** ajonas has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1702020-09-22T15:00:02  *** nhandler1 has quit IRC
1712020-09-22T15:00:27  <sdaftuar> hello
1722020-09-22T15:00:35  <jnewbery> #startmeeting
1732020-09-22T15:00:35  <lightningbot> Meeting started Tue Sep 22 15:00:35 2020 UTC.  The chair is jnewbery. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
1742020-09-22T15:00:35  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
1752020-09-22T15:00:41  <hebasto> hi
1762020-09-22T15:00:44  <gzhao408> hi
1772020-09-22T15:00:44  <jnewbery> #bitcoin-core-dev P2P 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 ariard digi_james
1782020-09-22T15:00:50  <jnewbery> amiti fjahr jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55 elichai2
1792020-09-22T15:00:57  <ajonas> hi
1802020-09-22T15:01:00  <ariard> hi
1812020-09-22T15:01:00  <aj> holla
1822020-09-22T15:01:06  <amiti> hi
1832020-09-22T15:01:09  <gleb> hi
1842020-09-22T15:01:22  <jnewbery> Hi folks. Two proposed topics today: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/P2P-IRC-meetings#22-sept-2020
1852020-09-22T15:01:24  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22 | Update the list of hard-coded node IP addresses · Issue #22 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1862020-09-22T15:01:29  <fanquake>  hi
1872020-09-22T15:01:39  <jnewbery> - Follow-up on "What would a good transaction propagation framework look like? See a first draw Transactions propagation design goals #19820 (ariard)
1882020-09-22T15:01:40  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19820 | Transactions propagation design goals · Issue #19820 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1892020-09-22T15:01:45  <jnewbery> - Overview of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19988 (motivation/design philosphy rather than technical details that can be found in the PR)
1902020-09-22T15:02:13  <jnewbery> Before we get to those, are there any other proposed topics, or does anyone have any short announcements to make?
1912020-09-22T15:02:19  <gleb> Yeah, I have one.
1922020-09-22T15:02:41  <vasild> hi
1932020-09-22T15:02:49  <gleb> I suggested to rename "feeler" connection to "probe" all along the codebase, because feelers currently capture two distinct features: feelers and test-before-evict.
1942020-09-22T15:02:50  <jnewbery> gleb: feelers -> probes ?
1952020-09-22T15:03:06  <jnewbery> ok. Let's do that first (and not spend 50 minutes on it :)
1962020-09-22T15:03:17  <jnewbery> #topic feelers -> probes (gleb)
1972020-09-22T15:03:25  <gleb> There's some support of renaming, but also couple hesitations and wladimir said we would rather not, because of rebase conflicts etc
1982020-09-22T15:03:37  <gleb> So I'm planning to drop this idea for now, and just improve the documentation.
1992020-09-22T15:04:12  <gleb> If someone is strongly in favor of renaming feelers to probes, please comment in the PR sometime soon :)
2002020-09-22T15:04:17  <sipa> fixing documentation is always good
2012020-09-22T15:04:19  <gleb> #19958
2022020-09-22T15:04:22  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19958 | Rename feelers to probes by naumenkogs · Pull Request #19958 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2032020-09-22T15:04:27  <sipa> or at least, making it less confusing
2042020-09-22T15:05:03  <gleb> That's it, we now can discuss other topics, unless someone have something to say right now :)
2052020-09-22T15:05:17  <amiti> thanks for the doc fix :)
2062020-09-22T15:05:51  <jnewbery> I'm generally in favour of making names more meaningful. If we're going to make this name change, I think it's preferable to do it before connection types are exposed in the RPC
2072020-09-22T15:06:07  <jnewbery> But I haven't looked at the specifics here, and don't have an opinion on this change
2082020-09-22T15:06:43  <jnewbery> ok, next topic?
2092020-09-22T15:06:50  <gleb> Good point wrt RPC
2102020-09-22T15:06:57  <gleb> yeah, we can move on i guess
2112020-09-22T15:07:00  <jnewbery> #topic Follow-up on "What would a good transaction propagation framework look like? See a first draw Transactions propagation design goals #19820 (ariard)
2122020-09-22T15:07:01  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19820 | Transactions propagation design goals · Issue #19820 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2132020-09-22T15:07:29  <ariard> I think we have a problem ecosystem-wise as we have protocols being designed and deployed
2142020-09-22T15:07:57  <ariard> which are completely insecure because of implicit assumptions on the tx-relay network and mempools behavior which are false
2152020-09-22T15:08:19  <sipa> anything that relies on specific properies of tx relay being guaranteed is broken
2162020-09-22T15:09:04  <gleb> how should we approach this problem? :)
2172020-09-22T15:09:14  <ariard> yes and I was aiming to synchronize people's model to suggest some kind of join IRC meeting
2182020-09-22T15:09:25  <ariard> with the LN devs, rusty, cdecker & all were down
2192020-09-22T15:09:27  <sipa> i think it's a good idea to work towards better analysing and documenting the design goals for transactions, but that's not going to result in any guarantees
2202020-09-22T15:09:35  <sdaftuar> i think tx relay works pretty well for transactions whose inputs are all confirmed?
2212020-09-22T15:10:35  <aj> sdaftuar: not if the transaction is RBF'ing something else that was previously relayed?
2222020-09-22T15:10:52  <ariard> sipa: I agree it's more how do we establish a common mental model ecosystem-wise ?
2232020-09-22T15:10:52  <sdaftuar> aj: agreed that we can continue to make improvements there!
2242020-09-22T15:11:05  <sdaftuar> aj: but i think we have something that is pretty reliable right now
2252020-09-22T15:11:07  <ariard> like either modifiyng second-layer protocols or tx-relay but not staying in-between
2262020-09-22T15:12:11  <gleb> The problem can be at least split into several
2272020-09-22T15:12:17  <vasild> Some LN protocol or implementation relies on a transaction propagating to every node?
2282020-09-22T15:12:17  <sipa> ariard: to me, the only solution if you need things that must confirm within a fixed amount of time is loudly yelling at the user if the timeout runs close
2292020-09-22T15:12:29  <gleb> For example, "assuming I can pay whatever fee, can I guarantee that my transaction will reach miners"?
2302020-09-22T15:12:51  <sdaftuar> guarantee is a very hard word to use
2312020-09-22T15:13:11  <ariard> sipa: I think we should dissociate propagation guarantee from confirmation guarantee, ofc you can't promise confirmation
2322020-09-22T15:13:13  <sipa> ariard: that's independent of potential improvements to tx relay that can make it more reliable in more varied scenarios - but if your security assumption is that relay (and confirmation!) are guaranteed, nothing can provide that
2332020-09-22T15:13:55  <ariard> sipa: yes I think we agree on the confirmation part, it's more the relay one which can be exploited by a malicious counterparty
2342020-09-22T15:13:59  <sipa> ariard: and i feel that framing this as "we need better tx relay because higher level protocols rely on some of its assumptions" is kind of missing the point
2352020-09-22T15:14:05  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2362020-09-22T15:14:06  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/77376034d4ab...d692d192cda3
2372020-09-22T15:14:06  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa80c81 MarcoFalke: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (blockchain)
2382020-09-22T15:14:06  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa6bb0c MarcoFalke: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (rawtransaction)
2392020-09-22T15:14:07  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d692d19 MarcoFalke: Merge #19849: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (bloc...
2402020-09-22T15:14:08  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2412020-09-22T15:14:30  <gleb> sipa: so you're suggestion it should be users' responsibility?
2422020-09-22T15:14:30  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2432020-09-22T15:14:31  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19849: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (blockchain,rawtransaction) (master...2008-rpcAssertNames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19849
2442020-09-22T15:14:31  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2452020-09-22T15:14:45  <gleb> To act when the timeout is too close. Go to a miner, or use other software, or whatelse
2462020-09-22T15:15:26  <sipa> i don't see what else you can do
2472020-09-22T15:15:44  <ariard> sipa: if I understand your point correctly we can deterministically guarantee propagation it's more a probabilistic issue
2482020-09-22T15:15:52  <ariard> *we can't
2492020-09-22T15:16:26  <gleb> I'm not even sure about probabilistic, facing an incentivised attacker.
2502020-09-22T15:16:30  <instagibbs> of course you can't, otherwise we wouldn't need PoW
2512020-09-22T15:16:31  <sipa> indeed
2522020-09-22T15:17:19  <sipa> so we should look at what features are useful for common cases in higher-level protocols, and to what extent those can be improved upon
2532020-09-22T15:17:23  <gleb> Random idea: a node could probe random nodes in the network to see how many of them knows about a tx.
2542020-09-22T15:17:42  <sipa> but if you frame this as "otherwise higher-level protocols are insecure", that's besides the point - if they were before, they'll still be insecure after
2552020-09-22T15:18:57  <vasild> if improved from 90% to 95% that is better but still not guaranteed (100%)
2562020-09-22T15:19:11  <ariard> I think the changes I'm proposing are more feature-wise than "making better tx relay"
2572020-09-22T15:20:05  <aj> sipa: i think it's more "spam prevention should be hard to use as an attack vector to prevent relay" when currently it's fairly easy to use it as an attack vector? (i consider rbf rules as spam prevention, adjust the wording if you disagree i guess)
2582020-09-22T15:20:07  <sdaftuar> is there a concrete set of proposed changes to consider?
2592020-09-22T15:20:23  <ariard> sipa: what do you understood by "we need better tx relay" ?
2602020-09-22T15:20:38  <gleb> I would propose to be more clear that "tx relay is not reliable no matter how much fees you pay"?
2612020-09-22T15:20:55  *** tomatopotato has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2622020-09-22T15:21:09  <ariard> sdaftuar: a) better documentation of policy to avoid someone hitting them for lack of testing b) something like package relay or consorts
2632020-09-22T15:21:36  <aj> gleb: there's reliable as in works 99% of the time, and reliable as in it's secure even in the face of a state-level attacker
2642020-09-22T15:22:06  <sdaftuar> ariard: i don't know what consorts means, but i don't think "package relay" is sufficiently fleshed out yet, unless there's a proposal i've missed?
2652020-09-22T15:22:12  <gleb> aj: "not guaranteed" perhaps. I'm not pushing the exact wording right now :)_
2662020-09-22T15:22:26  <ariard> sdaftuar: but there is a more philosophical question, "what if we tighten a policy rule and someone has built on it being liberal"
2672020-09-22T15:22:33  <ariard> lik increasing the mininal transaction size
2682020-09-22T15:23:01  <sipa> ariard: basically, my problem is with the word "need" - i don't know that we need anything, but that doesn't mean there can't be improvements
2692020-09-22T15:23:33  <sdaftuar> ariard: i agree that is a good question
2702020-09-22T15:24:17  <ariard> sipa: right, my wording is bad, it's more how we define clear rules a la BIP 125, and that's it don't make assumptions outside
2712020-09-22T15:25:21  <ariard> AFAIK, BIP 125 is the only standard on a mempool policy aiming to offer an interface usable by wallets/applications?
2722020-09-22T15:25:51  <sdaftuar> i think it's reasonable to ask whether policy changes to Bitcoin Core should always be documented in a BIP so that wallet authors can take those changes into account
2732020-09-22T15:26:17  <ariard> sdaftuar: voila, that's what I've in mind :)
2742020-09-22T15:26:20  <ariard> or protocol authors
2752020-09-22T15:26:21  <sdaftuar> that was exactly why i had asked for BIP 125 to be drafted in the first place, fwiw
2762020-09-22T15:26:37  <sipa> ariard: documenting the relay policy more accurate definitely sounds like a good idea
2772020-09-22T15:26:55  <sdaftuar> unfortunately we're starting from a place where none of it (except for bip 125) is documented
2782020-09-22T15:27:27  <ariard> sdaftuar: yes like we didn't have a bip for carve-out and some folks are trying to reuse it beyond LN
2792020-09-22T15:27:30  <ariard> sadly insecurely
2802020-09-22T15:28:38  <jnewbery> I don't think p2p policy belongs in BIPs. https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki seems like a more appropriate place for it
2812020-09-22T15:28:53  <sdaftuar> jnewbery: thanks i was just going to say that it's not clear to me that BIPs are the right place either
2822020-09-22T15:29:08  <sdaftuar> on one hand, policy changes may have effects on other software, so a BIP might seem the right place
2832020-09-22T15:29:17  <ariard> I agree not necessarily a BIP as far it's documented somewhere
2842020-09-22T15:29:25  <luke-jr> strict policy, no, but things that coordinate yes
2852020-09-22T15:29:27  <ariard> though we have the example of BIP 125
2862020-09-22T15:29:41  <luke-jr> BIP 125 gives meaning to particular sequence values
2872020-09-22T15:29:52  <sdaftuar> however there is also a sense that we make implementation-specific changes frequently enough that it woulnd't make sense to always publish things in the BIP repo to reflect them
2882020-09-22T15:30:18  <ariard> sdaftuar: I agree that's too heavy to update anytime we change the rejection filter
2892020-09-22T15:30:23  <luke-jr> ariard: it's a bug for software to rely on node policies
2902020-09-22T15:30:57  <ariard> luke-jr: how do you frame BIP 125, it's a node policy ?
2912020-09-22T15:31:39  <luke-jr> ariard: it's not a node policy, it's a definition of sequence values; implementations can honour or ignore the request
2922020-09-22T15:31:49  <luke-jr> the latter decision is the policy
2932020-09-22T15:31:58  <jnewbery> I feel like we're getting into the semantic weeds here. The important thing is that policy is documented somewhere, not what you call it.
2942020-09-22T15:32:01  <luke-jr> (text aside)
2952020-09-22T15:32:30  <sdaftuar> jnewbery: i don't think that's exactly true. i think the point luke is making (or at least making me consider harder) is whether there are some aspects of node policy that are different from others
2962020-09-22T15:32:32  <jnewbery> and to me, the wiki feels like the obvious place. This is information about Bitcoin Core's policy that is being communicated to external developers
2972020-09-22T15:33:54  <luke-jr> stuff external developers should design around, makes sense to have in a BIP; but generally, that should not include most node policy
2982020-09-22T15:34:06  <luke-jr> (we can still document policy of course)
2992020-09-22T15:34:09  <ariard> luke-jr: okay if I follow your semantic BIP 125 define a request mechanism ; choosing to implement this mechanism is a policy decision
3002020-09-22T15:34:37  <luke-jr> ariard: yes, basically
3012020-09-22T15:34:50  *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
3022020-09-22T15:34:59  <ariard> luke-jr: and I agree with you we can't enforce that node operators are effectively deploying this policy
3032020-09-22T15:35:12  <sdaftuar> luke-jr: in general, though, external developers are desiging around the policy already
3042020-09-22T15:35:22  <luke-jr> sdaftuar: that's a bug in their design IMO
3052020-09-22T15:35:23  <ariard> luke-jr: no more we can guarantee that everyone isn't running with blocksonly
3062020-09-22T15:35:24  <sdaftuar> and in fact that is the source of this whole discussion
3072020-09-22T15:35:34  <luke-jr> and not something we should encourage
3082020-09-22T15:35:47  *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3092020-09-22T15:36:52  <ariard> what was the thinking when bloom filters where turn off by default ?
3102020-09-22T15:37:11  <ariard> it's this kind of software setting default which encourage/discourage network-wise behaviors?
3112020-09-22T15:37:18  <ariard> *were
3122020-09-22T15:38:13  <jnewbery> we have one more topic, so I suggest we move on to that soon
3132020-09-22T15:38:30  <sipa> ariard: it was turned off because there is an obvious resource usage attack enabled by them (high disk I/O and CPU usage, barely any bandwidth for the attacker), and discussed quite widely before done so
3142020-09-22T15:38:34  <sdaftuar> luke-jr: perhaps the right way to think about this is that wallet authors should use their best understanding of what policy rules are deployed on the network to generate transactions that will propagate well, but the bug is in relying on that for security?
3152020-09-22T15:39:41  <ariard> security isn't binary, it's more how do you diminish the risk of transactions not propagating well
3162020-09-22T15:40:12  <vasild> rely on relay is bad :)
3172020-09-22T15:40:14  <sdaftuar> security is also not probabilistic
3182020-09-22T15:41:13  <aj> (20min left)
3192020-09-22T15:41:23  <jnewbery> thanks aj, let's move on to the next topic
3202020-09-22T15:41:27  <ariard> sdaftuar: I think we're going to switch off-topic but it sounds like second layers have somehow to have this probabilistic model
3212020-09-22T15:41:37  <jnewbery> #topic Overview of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19988 (motivation/design philosphy rather than technical details that can be found in the PR)
3222020-09-22T15:41:49  <jnewbery> over to you, sipa
3232020-09-22T15:41:53  <sipa> hi!
3242020-09-22T15:41:53  <ariard> jnewbery: wait before to switch do people would like to coordinate an IRC meeting with LN devs to talk about those issues ?
3252020-09-22T15:42:20  <ariard> or anyone else interested by those propagation issues
3262020-09-22T15:42:54  <gleb> ariard: The only common understanding we currently have here seem to be "need more docs". I don't see how talking to LN devs helps here?
3272020-09-22T15:42:57  <luke-jr> sdaftuar: wallets should use standards, and node policies ideally will allow standard transactions
3282020-09-22T15:43:40  <ariard> gleb: because they have implemented most of the content which could be in those "need more docs" :)
3292020-09-22T15:44:15  <jnewbery> ariard: can you co-ordinate your next meeting after this meeting? Let's move on to 19988!
3302020-09-22T15:44:32  <gzhao408> woo 19988!
3312020-09-22T15:44:33  <ariard> jnewbery: sure let's move on
3322020-09-22T15:44:38  <jnewbery> thanks!
3332020-09-22T15:44:41  <sipa> hi!
3342020-09-22T15:45:18  <sipa> so i recently PR'ed #19988, which is a rebase of 19184
3352020-09-22T15:45:20  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19988 | Overhaul transaction request logic by sipa · Pull Request #19988 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3362020-09-22T15:45:52  <sipa> the idea is that our tx fetching logic has really grown over time
3372020-09-22T15:46:17  <sipa> with various data structures needed for coordination, and unclear specification of what they actually implement
3382020-09-22T15:46:50  <sipa> there are biases in favor/against fetching from certain nodes, but they're all implemented indirectly through random delays and insertions/lookups in maps, that are hard to reason about
3392020-09-22T15:47:40  <sipa> so instead, my idea was to create a clear specification of what should be fetched from what, or at least something that can be defined in function of a simple data structure
3402020-09-22T15:47:58  <sipa> and then have one class that encapsulates a very efficient implementation of that
3412020-09-22T15:48:51  <sipa> 19988 does that
3422020-09-22T15:49:34  <sipa> to test that, i wrote a fuzz tester which contains a naive reimplementation with the exact same behavior, and which tries to find sequences of operations that makes them diverge
3432020-09-22T15:50:33  <sipa> (which, it turns out, found a lot of them... but all within ~minutes - it has now run for several weeks altogether...)
3442020-09-22T15:51:09  <vasild> what does it mean if the naive implementation differs from the real one?
3452020-09-22T15:51:29  <instagibbs> sorry naive version of what?
3462020-09-22T15:51:38  <jnewbery> vasild: probably that there's a bug in the real one :)
3472020-09-22T15:51:48  <instagibbs> like, legacy logic, vs, your encapsulation, vs another implementation?
3482020-09-22T15:51:51  <vasild> jnewbery: or in the naive one :)
3492020-09-22T15:52:10  <sipa> instagibbs: difference between the efficient boost::multi_index based implementation, and the naive one in the fuzzer
3502020-09-22T15:52:21  <instagibbs> ah!
3512020-09-22T15:52:29  <sdaftuar> concept ACK from me... feature freeze is oct 15, do people have thoughts on getting this in for 0.21?
3522020-09-22T15:52:29  <instagibbs> naive efficiency-wise
3532020-09-22T15:52:53  <instagibbs> sdaftuar, don't mean to touch the third rail, but taproot implementation?
3542020-09-22T15:53:07  <instagibbs> I guess that doesn't intersect aside from PR author
3552020-09-22T15:53:30  <jnewbery> instagibbs: taproot wouldn't be merged before 0.21, so I think this is the priority
3562020-09-22T15:53:38  <jnewbery> (in terms of sequencing)
3572020-09-22T15:53:39  <sdaftuar> yeah i don't know what one has to do with the other, i'd just like to make our review time be efficient
3582020-09-22T15:53:58  <instagibbs> jnewbery, mmmm ok I guess I hadn't heard that decision
3592020-09-22T15:54:15  <instagibbs> sdaftuar, same author means limited reaction bandwidth, just noting
3602020-09-22T15:54:16  <sipa> i was hoping for both :)
3612020-09-22T15:54:37  <jnewbery> This is +2000/-450 LOC, so reviewing and being comfortable to merge in three weeks seems ... ambitious
3622020-09-22T15:54:44  <instagibbs> it's not new code.
3632020-09-22T15:55:06  <sipa> jnewbery: most is in tests
3642020-09-22T15:55:14  <sipa> (but the non-test code is quite hairy, i admit)
3652020-09-22T15:55:51  <instagibbs> vast majority of changes were test changes recnetly
3662020-09-22T15:55:58  <sipa> i'd encourage reviewers to really look at the fuzz test first - even ignoring the fuzzing aspect, the naive reimplementation probably gives a pretty good idea of what the thing *should* do
3672020-09-22T15:56:07  <instagibbs> (sorry, stopping)
3682020-09-22T15:56:30  <ajonas> I'd be happy to try some organized nagging if people want to give it a shot to get this in
3692020-09-22T15:56:52  <instagibbs> concept ACK the actual topic
3702020-09-22T15:57:15  <jnewbery> it might be better to wait until after 0.21 to merge, so that it has more soak time before being in a release?
3712020-09-22T15:57:41  <jnewbery> it's not like ADDRv2, where we have some external dependency driving deadlines (torv2 deprecation)
3722020-09-22T15:58:42  <ajonas> with two min to go can we check in on those 0.21 priorities?
3732020-09-22T15:58:43  <sipa> well, it depends on reviewer time of coursew
3742020-09-22T15:58:43  <aj> seems like putting it in early in a cycle would make backporting other p2p things (ie from 0.22pre to 0.21) harder, and there's some reasonable soak time between feature freeze and rc?
3752020-09-22T15:59:01  <sipa> aj: yeah
3762020-09-22T15:59:09  <sdaftuar> release date is december 3 right now
3772020-09-22T15:59:12  <sdaftuar> so that is a fair point
3782020-09-22T15:59:21  <sdaftuar> (estimated i guess)
3792020-09-22T15:59:22  <jnewbery> one minute left!
3802020-09-22T15:59:38  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3812020-09-22T15:59:38  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #19994: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (net, rpcwallet) (master...2009-rpcAssertNames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19994
3822020-09-22T15:59:39  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3832020-09-22T16:00:11  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3842020-09-22T16:00:19  <ajonas> The other two priorities mentioned were:
3852020-09-22T16:00:19  <ajonas> - ADDRv2 - #19031 (next in sequence is 19845, which is close)
3862020-09-22T16:00:19  <ajonas> - outbound & block-relay-only connections in functional tests (#19315)
3872020-09-22T16:00:22  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19031 | Implement ADDRv2 support (part of BIP155) by vasild · Pull Request #19031 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3882020-09-22T16:00:25  <jnewbery> #endmeeting
3892020-09-22T16:00:25  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Tue Sep 22 16:00:25 2020 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
3902020-09-22T16:00:25  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-09-22-15.00.html
3912020-09-22T16:00:25  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-09-22-15.00.txt
3922020-09-22T16:00:25  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-09-22-15.00.log.html
3932020-09-22T16:00:26  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19315 | [tests] Allow outbound & block-relay-only connections in functional tests. by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #19315 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3942020-09-22T16:00:51  <instagibbs> sdaftuar, which is a good point? there was a flurry of convo there
3952020-09-22T16:01:14  <sdaftuar> oh i meant that feature freeze -> release was a good bit more time than i had initially realized at least
3962020-09-22T16:01:29  <instagibbs> ah, +1
3972020-09-22T16:01:43  <sdaftuar> i guess you'd think i'd remember these things by now, oops
3982020-09-22T16:02:06  <aj> sdaftuar: why remember anything you can lookup? bandwidth is cheap
3992020-09-22T16:02:33  <sipa> aj: latency hit, though
4002020-09-22T16:06:06  <aj> sipa: just do it while configure is running and it's fine
4012020-09-22T16:08:58  *** IGHOR has quit IRC
4022020-09-22T16:11:06  *** IGHOR has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4032020-09-22T16:25:24  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
4042020-09-22T16:25:47  *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4052020-09-22T16:38:58  <sipa> bizarre discovery: memcmp in some GCC9 and GCC10 versions are broken, if passed a constant array input that starts with a 0 byte
4062020-09-22T16:39:26  <sipa> discovered here https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/822, bug is https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
4072020-09-22T16:39:31  <sipa> which is fixed in GCC 10.2
4082020-09-22T16:39:58  <sipa> i suspect some of bitcoin core's unit tests may be affected too
4092020-09-22T16:40:23  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4102020-09-22T16:40:55  <sdaftuar> whoa
4112020-09-22T16:40:59  <sipa> i don't immediately see any other uses that would be affected
4122020-09-22T16:41:14  *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4132020-09-22T16:43:02  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4142020-09-22T16:44:02  *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4152020-09-22T16:44:58  *** mol has quit IRC
4162020-09-22T16:48:09  <roconnor> Not fixed in GCC 10.2.  Fixed in master.
4172020-09-22T16:49:59  *** kristapsk has quit IRC
4182020-09-22T16:52:39  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4192020-09-22T16:52:39  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4202020-09-22T16:53:12  <sipa> roconnor: oh yes, i misread the report
4212020-09-22T16:53:37  <sipa> i confirm the bug exists in the 10.0.1 that's in ubuntu'
4222020-09-22T16:53:44  <sipa> i can't reproduce it with gcc 9.3
4232020-09-22T16:56:22  <sipa> i also see the problem with std::lexicographical_compare in C++
4242020-09-22T16:56:45  <roconnor> weird, I have trouble with gcc 9.3.
4252020-09-22T16:57:11  <roconnor> Are you using -O2?
4262020-09-22T16:58:41  <sipa> huh, in C++ i also see it with 9.3
4272020-09-22T16:58:44  <sipa> but not in C
4282020-09-22T16:58:48  <sipa> yes, using -O2
4292020-09-22T17:07:50  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4302020-09-22T17:27:19  *** belcher has quit IRC
4312020-09-22T17:30:21  <jonatack> Sorry for missing the p2p meeting. The implementations of addrv2, taproot, and PR19988 are probably the top 3 priorities to review for me.
4322020-09-22T17:40:01  *** tryphe has quit IRC
4332020-09-22T17:40:42  *** Kiminuo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4342020-09-22T17:40:47  *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4352020-09-22T17:41:56  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4362020-09-22T17:47:40  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4372020-09-22T17:47:41  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #19995: log: Mitigate disk filling attacks by rate limiting LogPrintf(…) (master...mitigate-log-disk-filling-attacks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19995
4382020-09-22T17:47:41  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4392020-09-22T17:55:24  *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4402020-09-22T17:58:39  *** mol_ has quit IRC
4412020-09-22T18:00:02  *** tomatopotato has quit IRC
4422020-09-22T18:00:03  *** mrostecki has quit IRC
4432020-09-22T18:22:07  *** kcomandich1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4442020-09-22T18:37:27  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4452020-09-22T18:39:50  *** molz_ has quit IRC
4462020-09-22T18:43:03  *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4472020-09-22T18:46:32  *** mol has quit IRC
4482020-09-22T18:47:41  *** Seaver has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4492020-09-22T19:14:03  *** Talkless has quit IRC
4502020-09-22T19:16:37  *** Seaver has quit IRC
4512020-09-22T19:24:16  *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
4522020-09-22T19:24:46  *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4532020-09-22T19:47:21  *** jonatack has quit IRC
4542020-09-22T19:50:51  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4552020-09-22T20:03:12  *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4562020-09-22T20:15:24  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
4572020-09-22T20:16:15  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4582020-09-22T20:32:21  *** MrPaz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4592020-09-22T20:37:26  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4602020-09-22T20:37:27  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d692d192cda3...c7eb85d00593
4612020-09-22T20:37:27  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f07fb5a fanquake: build: patch qt libpng to fix powerpc build
4622020-09-22T20:37:28  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c7eb85d MarcoFalke: Merge #19959: build: patch qt libpng to fix powerpc build
4632020-09-22T20:37:30  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4642020-09-22T20:37:46  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4652020-09-22T20:37:46  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19959: build: patch qt libpng to fix powerpc build (master...powerpc_libpng_qt) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19959
4662020-09-22T20:37:47  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4672020-09-22T20:44:36  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
4682020-09-22T20:44:52  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4692020-09-22T20:46:02  *** rh0nj has quit IRC
4702020-09-22T20:46:17  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4712020-09-22T20:46:18  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c7eb85d00593...b1291b2e8fc3
4722020-09-22T20:46:18  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e153448 t-bast: Clarify blocksonly whitelistforcerelay test
4732020-09-22T20:46:19  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b1291b2 MarcoFalke: Merge #19963: Clarify blocksonly whitelistforcerelay test
4742020-09-22T20:46:21  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4752020-09-22T20:46:37  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4762020-09-22T20:46:37  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19963: Clarify blocksonly whitelistforcerelay test (master...clarify-whitelist-force-relay-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19963
4772020-09-22T20:46:38  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4782020-09-22T20:47:07  *** rh0nj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4792020-09-22T21:00:01  *** kcomandich1 has quit IRC
4802020-09-22T21:01:50  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4812020-09-22T21:01:50  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #19997: History for Taproot PR #19953 (master...taproot-history) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19997
4822020-09-22T21:01:51  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4832020-09-22T21:08:25  *** Kiminuo has quit IRC
4842020-09-22T21:10:45  *** kristapsk has quit IRC
4852020-09-22T21:10:47  *** kristapsk_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4862020-09-22T21:11:52  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
4872020-09-22T21:17:53  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4882020-09-22T21:17:53  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #19998: rpc: Add `via_tor` to `getpeerinfo` output (master...200922-istor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19998
4892020-09-22T21:17:54  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4902020-09-22T21:21:29  *** gzhao408 is now known as gloriazhao
4912020-09-22T21:22:01  *** Shabbypenguin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4922020-09-22T22:04:07  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
4932020-09-22T22:04:10  *** gloriazhao has quit IRC
4942020-09-22T22:04:28  *** gertjaap_ has quit IRC
4952020-09-22T22:04:31  *** dergoegge has quit IRC
4962020-09-22T22:04:49  *** dergoegge has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4972020-09-22T22:04:49  *** gloriazhao has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4982020-09-22T22:04:57  *** elichai2 has quit IRC
4992020-09-22T22:05:06  *** gertjaap_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5002020-09-22T22:05:28  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5012020-09-22T22:05:41  *** elichai2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5022020-09-22T22:05:44  *** kexkey has quit IRC
5032020-09-22T22:07:23  *** afk11 has quit IRC
5042020-09-22T22:07:59  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5052020-09-22T22:09:33  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5062020-09-22T22:10:43  *** vasild has quit IRC
5072020-09-22T22:12:47  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5082020-09-22T22:17:10  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
5092020-09-22T22:25:37  *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5102020-09-22T22:32:05  *** Eagle[TM] has quit IRC
5112020-09-22T22:33:31  *** dr-orlovsky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5122020-09-22T22:37:23  *** shesek has quit IRC
5132020-09-22T22:43:23  *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5142020-09-22T22:46:35  *** mol_ has quit IRC
5152020-09-22T22:55:52  *** kexkey has quit IRC
5162020-09-22T23:13:43  *** molz_ has quit IRC
5172020-09-22T23:24:30  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
5182020-09-22T23:30:27  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5192020-09-22T23:39:24  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
5202020-09-22T23:41:36  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5212020-09-22T23:41:36  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #19751: depends: Split libpng out of Qt (master...depends_libpng) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19751
5222020-09-22T23:41:37  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5232020-09-22T23:45:44  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5242020-09-22T23:46:00  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5252020-09-22T23:49:26  *** afk11 has quit IRC
5262020-09-22T23:49:51  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5272020-09-22T23:50:26  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
5282020-09-22T23:52:03  *** jb55 has quit IRC
5292020-09-22T23:54:08  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
5302020-09-22T23:54:11  *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5312020-09-22T23:54:48  *** pinheadm_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5322020-09-22T23:57:00  *** yanmaani has quit IRC
5332020-09-22T23:57:53  *** yanmaani has joined #bitcoin-core-dev