12018-11-29T00:21:40 <dongcarl> Lol...
22018-11-29T00:23:03 <dongcarl> What are people's thoughts on having a static analyzer run by default on PRs?
32018-11-29T00:24:49 <sipa> dongcarl: the question is how it will report, and what the policy would be around it
42018-11-29T00:25:20 <sipa> for things that are reasonably false positives, you can't force contributors to avoid them
52018-11-29T00:27:41 <dongcarl> sipa: I think that the workflow should be this: CI shouldn't fail if the static analyzer notices problems, instead, once the static analyzer is done, a bot (like DrahtBot) posts a link to the report summary on the PR. Reviewers can take a look at the report, or not, completely supplementary info.
62018-11-29T00:28:22 <dongcarl> clang's static analyzer actually generates html for you, pretty convenient
72018-11-29T00:29:00 <sipa> dongcarl: also spamming PRs with things that aren't actionable is very annoing
82018-11-29T00:31:26 <dongcarl> Hmmmm... Okay. I think what's been happening currently is that every quarter or so kallewoof posts the static analyzer output as an Issue and people dig thru it... Perhaps that's less noisy?
92018-11-29T00:31:45 <sipa> dongcarl: i think it would be useful to have some separate page where you can see an overview of various analysis tools run on the PRs
102018-11-29T00:32:07 <sipa> but that's a lot more work obviously
112018-11-29T00:33:10 <dongcarl> sipa: Hmmm... I remember seeing some site like this but for benchmarking? Can't remember who's it was...
122018-11-29T00:34:19 <sipa> jamesob's ?
132018-11-29T00:36:38 <aj> bitcoinperf.com ?
142018-11-29T00:37:29 <dongcarl> Yup!
152018-11-29T00:50:03 *** keymone has quit IRC
162018-11-29T01:01:04 *** michaelsdunn1 has quit IRC
172018-11-29T01:01:44 *** michaelsdunn1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182018-11-29T01:14:33 <gmaxwell> the FP rate for something like that has to be very low, --- otherwise you just getting people making goofy changes to silence the analyizer, and that behavior lowers software quality.
192018-11-29T01:17:11 <sipa> agree; it's probably useful in combination with someone who is familiar with the code enough to determine which issues are relevant
202018-11-29T01:27:43 *** fabianfabian has quit IRC
212018-11-29T01:29:36 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
222018-11-29T01:33:51 *** dviola has quit IRC
232018-11-29T01:38:59 *** shigeya has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
242018-11-29T01:46:18 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252018-11-29T01:46:18 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] cryptosnail opened pull request #14833: 0.17 (master...0.17) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14833
262018-11-29T01:46:18 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
272018-11-29T01:47:22 *** shigeya has quit IRC
282018-11-29T01:47:26 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
292018-11-29T01:47:26 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] cryptosnail closed pull request #14833: 0.17 (master...0.17) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14833
302018-11-29T01:47:26 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
312018-11-29T01:57:42 *** shigeya has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
322018-11-29T01:59:31 *** shigeya has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
332018-11-29T01:59:59 *** shigeya has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
342018-11-29T02:05:34 *** bralyclow2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
352018-11-29T02:08:01 *** bralyclow2 has quit IRC
362018-11-29T02:13:40 *** shigeya has quit IRC
372018-11-29T02:14:51 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
382018-11-29T02:18:17 *** shigeya has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
392018-11-29T02:20:15 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
402018-11-29T02:23:27 *** shigeya has quit IRC
412018-11-29T02:25:02 *** arubi has quit IRC
422018-11-29T02:25:41 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
432018-11-29T02:31:03 *** shesek has quit IRC
442018-11-29T02:31:29 *** intcat has quit IRC
452018-11-29T02:32:00 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
462018-11-29T02:32:00 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
472018-11-29T02:33:45 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
482018-11-29T02:33:51 *** intcat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
492018-11-29T02:40:40 *** Tralfaz has quit IRC
502018-11-29T02:41:43 *** jb55 has quit IRC
512018-11-29T02:43:34 *** shigeya has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
522018-11-29T02:49:59 *** shesek has quit IRC
532018-11-29T02:50:45 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
542018-11-29T02:57:52 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
552018-11-29T03:09:56 *** aijinsong has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
562018-11-29T03:13:27 *** drexl has quit IRC
572018-11-29T03:16:12 *** phwalkr_ has quit IRC
582018-11-29T03:17:06 *** spinza has quit IRC
592018-11-29T03:18:28 *** Murch has quit IRC
602018-11-29T03:32:45 *** aijinsong has quit IRC
612018-11-29T03:33:01 *** rh0nj has quit IRC
622018-11-29T03:34:07 *** rh0nj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
632018-11-29T03:37:28 <jamesob> dongcarl sipa: bitcoinperf's interface needs a lot of work (and there's some of that in progress atm). Down the road I plan on building in some kind of opt-in benchmarking per PR; not necessarily anything that reports back to Github, but that may have PR-specific page on bitcoinperf. Comments to the PR are potentially disruptive given the number of listeners (see drahtbot's quest for one comment per PR).
642018-11-29T03:38:07 <dongcarl> Gotcha
652018-11-29T03:38:37 <dongcarl> Maybe someone can comment â@benchbot plz benchâ for opt-in benchmarking or something like that
662018-11-29T03:38:56 *** shesek has quit IRC
672018-11-29T03:39:47 <jamesob> Could be, though that's another boilerplate comment. I dunno, haven't thought a ton about it. Think hooking into Github's commit status API a la Travis might be worth exploring too.
682018-11-29T03:40:32 *** indistylo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
692018-11-29T03:41:59 *** shigeya has quit IRC
702018-11-29T03:42:07 *** shigeya has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
712018-11-29T03:50:18 <gmaxwell> anything that runs per PR and dumps data somewhere is great
722018-11-29T03:50:26 <gmaxwell> including crazy sanitizers and whatever
732018-11-29T03:50:57 <gmaxwell> We just should avoid things causing notifications unless we actually want people to take action on the vast majority of to notifications
742018-11-29T03:53:48 *** _cryptosignal_me has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
752018-11-29T03:55:15 *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
762018-11-29T04:00:22 *** michaelsdunn1 has quit IRC
772018-11-29T04:01:09 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
782018-11-29T04:08:24 <dongcarl> Yeah I agree notifications should be meaningful...
792018-11-29T04:08:39 <dongcarl> Looking at the GitHub checks API here: https://developer.github.com/v3/checks/runs/
802018-11-29T04:09:40 <dongcarl> Looks like benchmarks and static analysis could be notices with links attached
812018-11-29T04:09:45 <luke-jr> would be nice if GitHub let us add our own buttons to PRs :P
822018-11-29T04:10:16 <dongcarl> luke-jr: well I think each check can have a details url
832018-11-29T04:10:27 <luke-jr> yeah, I just mean if we want some things to run conditionally
842018-11-29T04:10:32 <dongcarl> Oh right yeah
852018-11-29T04:12:28 <dongcarl> Thinking off the top of my head: perhaps we can have tags that activate checks? As in... fanquake-driven development?
862018-11-29T04:16:17 <luke-jr> eh, it might work if anyone could add tags
872018-11-29T04:18:44 <dongcarl> True.
882018-11-29T04:19:28 <dongcarl> Yeah I'm just thinking about developer/reviewer ergonomics... Looks like I need to take a harder look at Github API
892018-11-29T04:20:05 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
902018-11-29T04:20:05 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kallewoof opened pull request #14834: validation: do not break assumption that pindexPrev may be null (master...20181129-contextualcheckblock-pindexprev-nullness) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14834
912018-11-29T04:20:05 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
922018-11-29T04:20:53 <kallewoof> dongcarl: you reminded me to run analyzer again. Rewriting those reports was a big pain in the ass though, but I might get around to it.
932018-11-29T04:21:25 <dongcarl> kallewoof: haha yeah I saw that PR and was like: I KNOW WHAT KALLE JUST DID
942018-11-29T04:21:36 <kallewoof> lol!
952018-11-29T04:21:58 <kallewoof> I figured I'd fix the obvious ones, to cut down on the report writing pain :P
962018-11-29T04:22:30 <dongcarl> kallewoof: I'm gunna see if I can find a solution to have more automatic analysis for PRs without spamming useless notifications
972018-11-29T04:22:37 <dongcarl> but yeah stopgap is you lol
982018-11-29T04:22:37 *** indistylo has quit IRC
992018-11-29T04:23:15 <kallewoof> TBH I think keeping track of which issues have been reported and only reporting them once with a single location where everyone can review all of them would be good enough, presuming FPs are not overly bad.
1002018-11-29T04:24:13 <kallewoof> Like.. "This PR introduces a new warning in the Clang Analyzer toolset. Make sure this is a false positive before this is merged. (Note: this message only appears once for this PR.)" or something.
1012018-11-29T04:24:48 <dongcarl> True
1022018-11-29T04:27:54 *** _cryptosignal_me has quit IRC
1032018-11-29T04:32:23 <gmaxwell> I think these PRs might also be candidates for 0.17.x backport
1042018-11-29T04:32:24 <gmaxwell> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14728
1052018-11-29T04:32:24 <gmaxwell> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14679
1062018-11-29T04:32:24 <gmaxwell> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14454
1072018-11-29T04:32:24 <gmaxwell> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14618
1082018-11-29T04:33:32 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1092018-11-29T04:33:33 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #14835: [0.17] Backport #14593, #14596 and #14690 (0.17...further-0-17-backports) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14835
1102018-11-29T04:33:33 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1112018-11-29T04:34:19 <gmaxwell> Also this isn't merged yet, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14380 but looks done to me? and its a fix we should have in 0.17.1
1122018-11-29T04:36:44 *** indistylo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1132018-11-29T04:50:29 *** Eagle[TM] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142018-11-29T04:51:24 *** EagleTM has quit IRC
1152018-11-29T04:51:50 *** wolfspraul has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1162018-11-29T05:19:33 *** owowo has quit IRC
1172018-11-29T05:24:12 *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182018-11-29T05:27:19 *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
1192018-11-29T05:28:35 *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202018-11-29T06:06:01 *** rh0nj has quit IRC
1212018-11-29T06:07:07 *** rh0nj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222018-11-29T06:26:18 *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
1232018-11-29T06:27:29 *** rafalcpp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1242018-11-29T06:33:27 *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
1252018-11-29T06:34:22 *** rafalcpp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1262018-11-29T07:07:34 *** kabaum has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1272018-11-29T07:10:48 *** chenpo_ has quit IRC
1282018-11-29T07:11:18 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1292018-11-29T07:13:07 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1302018-11-29T07:13:07 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] JeremyRubin opened pull request #14836: Probabalistic Checker for Duplicate Inputs (master...faster-dedup-working-rebase) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14836
1312018-11-29T07:13:07 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1322018-11-29T07:13:23 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332018-11-29T07:13:24 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] JeremyRubin closed pull request #14836: Probabalistic Checker for Duplicate Inputs (master...faster-dedup-working-rebase) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14836
1342018-11-29T07:13:24 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1352018-11-29T07:15:15 *** Eagle[TM] has quit IRC
1362018-11-29T07:21:36 *** chenpo has quit IRC
1372018-11-29T07:22:15 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1382018-11-29T07:26:40 *** chenpo has quit IRC
1392018-11-29T07:36:09 *** shesek has quit IRC
1402018-11-29T07:39:44 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1412018-11-29T07:42:01 *** shesek has quit IRC
1422018-11-29T07:42:42 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1432018-11-29T07:50:36 *** go1111111 has quit IRC
1442018-11-29T07:51:08 *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1452018-11-29T07:55:54 *** phwalkr has quit IRC
1462018-11-29T07:58:13 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1472018-11-29T07:59:28 *** shesek has quit IRC
1482018-11-29T08:00:35 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492018-11-29T08:00:35 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502018-11-29T08:07:56 *** promag has quit IRC
1512018-11-29T08:21:54 *** belcher has quit IRC
1522018-11-29T08:22:27 *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1532018-11-29T08:24:00 *** gribble has quit IRC
1542018-11-29T08:25:56 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1552018-11-29T08:25:56 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] JeremyRubin opened pull request #14837: Stricter & More Performant Invariant Checking in CheckBlock (master...faster-dedup-working-rebase) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14837
1562018-11-29T08:25:56 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1572018-11-29T08:29:27 *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1582018-11-29T08:31:29 *** shesek has quit IRC
1592018-11-29T08:33:03 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1602018-11-29T08:35:00 *** shesek has quit IRC
1612018-11-29T08:35:09 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1622018-11-29T08:35:09 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #14387: Faster Input Deduplication Algorithm (master...faster-dedup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14387
1632018-11-29T08:35:09 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1642018-11-29T08:35:38 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1652018-11-29T08:35:38 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1662018-11-29T08:38:26 *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
1672018-11-29T08:38:43 *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1682018-11-29T08:40:29 *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1692018-11-29T08:44:40 *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1702018-11-29T08:44:48 *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1712018-11-29T08:44:51 *** shesek has quit IRC
1722018-11-29T08:46:35 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1732018-11-29T08:46:35 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1742018-11-29T08:47:41 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752018-11-29T08:59:04 *** shesek has quit IRC
1762018-11-29T09:00:13 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1772018-11-29T09:02:00 *** shesek has quit IRC
1782018-11-29T09:04:04 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1792018-11-29T09:04:04 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1802018-11-29T09:04:53 *** shesek has quit IRC
1812018-11-29T09:05:57 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1822018-11-29T09:05:57 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1832018-11-29T09:07:46 *** shesek has quit IRC
1842018-11-29T09:08:52 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1852018-11-29T09:08:52 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1862018-11-29T09:09:09 *** chenpo has quit IRC
1872018-11-29T09:09:39 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1882018-11-29T09:13:06 *** shesek has quit IRC
1892018-11-29T09:13:27 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1902018-11-29T09:13:27 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #14838: Use const in COutPoint class (master...20181129-const-null-outpoint) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14838
1912018-11-29T09:13:27 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1922018-11-29T09:13:47 *** chenpo has quit IRC
1932018-11-29T09:14:42 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1942018-11-29T09:15:20 *** shesek has quit IRC
1952018-11-29T09:16:12 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1962018-11-29T09:16:12 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1972018-11-29T09:17:04 *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1982018-11-29T09:23:03 *** shesek has quit IRC
1992018-11-29T09:30:54 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2002018-11-29T09:39:02 *** indistylo has quit IRC
2012018-11-29T09:44:30 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2022018-11-29T09:45:12 *** chenpo has quit IRC
2032018-11-29T09:45:45 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2042018-11-29T09:46:48 *** shesek has quit IRC
2052018-11-29T09:46:57 *** elichai2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2062018-11-29T09:47:22 *** chenpo has quit IRC
2072018-11-29T09:47:22 *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
2082018-11-29T09:47:26 *** chenpo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2092018-11-29T09:48:16 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2102018-11-29T09:48:34 *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2112018-11-29T09:51:51 *** Murch has quit IRC
2122018-11-29T09:52:49 *** chenpo_ has quit IRC
2132018-11-29T10:02:53 *** shesek has quit IRC
2142018-11-29T10:02:58 *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2152018-11-29T10:08:35 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162018-11-29T10:08:51 *** chenpo has quit IRC
2172018-11-29T10:09:22 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2182018-11-29T10:10:48 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2192018-11-29T10:17:43 *** shesek has quit IRC
2202018-11-29T10:18:48 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2212018-11-29T10:18:48 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2222018-11-29T10:22:59 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2232018-11-29T10:24:04 *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2242018-11-29T10:25:40 *** chenpo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252018-11-29T10:28:27 *** chenpo has quit IRC
2262018-11-29T10:29:38 <fanquake> dongcarl I reckon that'd be too much pressure..
2272018-11-29T10:29:56 <fanquake> dongcarl Also, not sure where you are at with turtles work, but you might want to have a look at #14342
2282018-11-29T10:29:58 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14342 | threads: fix potential unitialized members in sched_param by theuni · Pull Request #14342 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2292018-11-29T10:40:56 *** keymone has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2302018-11-29T10:48:42 *** chenpo_ has quit IRC
2312018-11-29T10:49:20 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2322018-11-29T10:49:22 *** shesek has quit IRC
2332018-11-29T10:49:45 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342018-11-29T10:49:45 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2352018-11-29T10:51:54 *** luke-jr has quit IRC
2362018-11-29T10:53:18 *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2372018-11-29T10:53:19 *** chenpo has quit IRC
2382018-11-29T10:53:22 *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2392018-11-29T10:53:46 *** shesek has quit IRC
2402018-11-29T10:56:41 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2412018-11-29T10:57:31 *** shesek has quit IRC
2422018-11-29T10:59:06 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2432018-11-29T10:59:06 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #14839: [rebase] threads: fix unitialized members in sched_param (master...rebased-fix-musl-sched) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14839
2442018-11-29T10:59:06 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2452018-11-29T10:59:45 *** spinza has quit IRC
2462018-11-29T11:00:07 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2472018-11-29T11:00:07 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #14342: threads: fix potential unitialized members in sched_param (master...fix-musl-sched) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14342
2482018-11-29T11:00:07 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2492018-11-29T11:00:59 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2502018-11-29T11:01:01 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2512018-11-29T11:09:11 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2522018-11-29T11:11:31 *** shesek has quit IRC
2532018-11-29T11:12:22 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2542018-11-29T11:12:24 *** chenpo has quit IRC
2552018-11-29T11:12:55 *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2562018-11-29T11:12:57 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2572018-11-29T11:16:30 *** shesek has quit IRC
2582018-11-29T11:17:24 *** chenpo has quit IRC
2592018-11-29T11:17:26 *** chenpo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2602018-11-29T11:19:26 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2612018-11-29T11:19:26 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2622018-11-29T11:20:42 *** chenpo_ has quit IRC
2632018-11-29T11:22:21 *** shesek has quit IRC
2642018-11-29T11:22:33 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
2652018-11-29T11:22:52 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2662018-11-29T11:23:01 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2672018-11-29T11:25:17 *** shesek has quit IRC
2682018-11-29T11:26:41 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2692018-11-29T11:26:41 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2702018-11-29T11:26:49 *** chenpo has quit IRC
2712018-11-29T11:28:02 *** fanquake has quit IRC
2722018-11-29T11:28:38 *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2732018-11-29T11:30:40 *** shesek has quit IRC
2742018-11-29T11:31:21 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2752018-11-29T11:31:36 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2762018-11-29T11:32:34 *** murchandamus has quit IRC
2772018-11-29T11:32:47 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2782018-11-29T11:33:16 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2792018-11-29T11:33:16 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] AmirAbrams opened pull request #14840: Remove duplicate libconsensus linking in test make (master...patch-4) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14840
2802018-11-29T11:33:16 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2812018-11-29T11:33:19 *** shesek has quit IRC
2822018-11-29T11:34:53 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2832018-11-29T11:46:34 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2842018-11-29T11:47:18 *** shesek has quit IRC
2852018-11-29T11:49:19 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2862018-11-29T11:55:49 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2872018-11-29T11:55:49 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #14841: consensus: Move CheckBlock() call to critical section (master...20181129-checkblock-mutex) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14841
2882018-11-29T11:55:49 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2892018-11-29T11:57:41 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2902018-11-29T11:59:53 *** shesek has quit IRC
2912018-11-29T12:02:02 <fanquake> appveyor: the perpetually failing CI
2922018-11-29T12:03:00 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2932018-11-29T12:03:00 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2942018-11-29T12:06:56 *** shesek has quit IRC
2952018-11-29T12:08:27 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2962018-11-29T12:08:27 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2972018-11-29T12:15:20 *** chenpo has quit IRC
2982018-11-29T12:21:11 *** shesek has quit IRC
2992018-11-29T12:22:26 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3002018-11-29T12:24:07 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3012018-11-29T12:24:29 *** shesek has quit IRC
3022018-11-29T12:24:57 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3032018-11-29T12:24:57 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3042018-11-29T12:37:35 *** shesek has quit IRC
3052018-11-29T12:38:09 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3062018-11-29T12:39:35 *** promag has quit IRC
3072018-11-29T12:51:15 *** rex4539 has quit IRC
3082018-11-29T12:52:10 *** sakalli_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3092018-11-29T12:52:39 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
3102018-11-29T12:54:38 *** sakalli_ has quit IRC
3112018-11-29T12:57:08 *** phwalkr has quit IRC
3122018-11-29T13:00:42 *** indistylo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3132018-11-29T13:11:49 *** chenpo has quit IRC
3142018-11-29T13:12:32 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3152018-11-29T13:12:43 *** chenpo has quit IRC
3162018-11-29T13:13:46 *** shesek has quit IRC
3172018-11-29T13:14:31 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3182018-11-29T13:14:31 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3192018-11-29T13:16:59 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3202018-11-29T13:18:01 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3212018-11-29T13:20:15 *** chenpo has quit IRC
3222018-11-29T13:20:47 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3232018-11-29T13:20:50 *** shesek has quit IRC
3242018-11-29T13:21:37 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3252018-11-29T13:21:37 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3262018-11-29T13:25:14 *** chenpo has quit IRC
3272018-11-29T13:28:34 *** luke-jr has quit IRC
3282018-11-29T13:31:42 *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3292018-11-29T13:44:41 *** indistylo has quit IRC
3302018-11-29T13:45:18 *** indistylo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3312018-11-29T13:48:46 *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3322018-11-29T13:52:06 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
3332018-11-29T14:03:49 *** indistylo has quit IRC
3342018-11-29T14:04:24 *** indistylo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3352018-11-29T14:06:48 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
3362018-11-29T14:27:03 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3372018-11-29T14:28:06 *** chenpo has quit IRC
3382018-11-29T14:28:37 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3392018-11-29T14:33:16 *** chenpo has quit IRC
3402018-11-29T14:35:03 *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3412018-11-29T14:55:23 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3422018-11-29T14:55:24 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ariaamz opened pull request #14843: 0.17 (master...0.17) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14843
3432018-11-29T14:55:24 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3442018-11-29T14:55:43 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3452018-11-29T14:55:43 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #14843: 0.17 (master...0.17) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14843
3462018-11-29T14:55:43 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3472018-11-29T15:07:44 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3482018-11-29T15:07:53 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3492018-11-29T15:07:56 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3502018-11-29T15:12:51 *** schmidty_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3512018-11-29T15:14:29 *** schmidty has quit IRC
3522018-11-29T15:14:33 *** schmidty_ has quit IRC
3532018-11-29T15:16:02 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3542018-11-29T15:26:04 *** nullptr| has quit IRC
3552018-11-29T15:32:09 *** nullptr| has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3562018-11-29T15:35:52 *** wumpus2 is now known as wumpus
3572018-11-29T15:40:44 *** grubles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3582018-11-29T15:41:57 *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3592018-11-29T15:44:20 *** elichai2 has quit IRC
3602018-11-29T15:46:25 *** michaelsdunn1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3612018-11-29T15:46:25 *** tryphe has quit IRC
3622018-11-29T15:46:49 *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3632018-11-29T15:49:47 *** fanquake has quit IRC
3642018-11-29T15:51:28 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3652018-11-29T15:54:07 *** Murch has quit IRC
3662018-11-29T15:56:14 <adiabat> saw sipa's mention of the work I'm doing on accumulators, I don't have anything published yet but if anyone's interested can discuss on #utreexo (or here, but might be off-topic)
3672018-11-29T15:57:57 *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3682018-11-29T16:10:23 *** setpill has quit IRC
3692018-11-29T16:13:21 *** chenpo has quit IRC
3702018-11-29T16:13:59 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3712018-11-29T16:15:14 *** Murch has quit IRC
3722018-11-29T16:17:08 *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3732018-11-29T16:18:11 *** chenpo has quit IRC
3742018-11-29T16:40:35 <dongcarl> fanquake: Been on hold for a bit as I've been busy with other stuff... I'll take a look at your rebase for that PR
3752018-11-29T16:41:47 *** wxss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3762018-11-29T16:57:02 *** ExtraCrispy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3772018-11-29T16:59:25 *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3782018-11-29T17:10:17 *** mr_paz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3792018-11-29T17:10:33 *** shesek has quit IRC
3802018-11-29T17:11:15 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3812018-11-29T17:11:15 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3822018-11-29T17:11:17 *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3832018-11-29T17:15:24 *** phwalkr has quit IRC
3842018-11-29T17:19:57 *** Murch has quit IRC
3852018-11-29T17:21:50 *** _cryptodesktop_i has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3862018-11-29T17:24:42 *** EagleTM has quit IRC
3872018-11-29T17:27:02 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3882018-11-29T17:31:52 *** hebasto has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3892018-11-29T17:46:28 <promag> can't attend meeting :(
3902018-11-29T17:46:29 *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
3912018-11-29T17:48:40 *** achow101 has quit IRC
3922018-11-29T17:49:35 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3932018-11-29T17:55:42 *** _cryptodesktop_i has quit IRC
3942018-11-29T17:56:56 *** hashist has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3952018-11-29T17:59:59 *** chenpo has quit IRC
3962018-11-29T18:00:35 *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3972018-11-29T18:03:07 *** e4xit has quit IRC
3982018-11-29T18:03:24 *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3992018-11-29T18:09:37 *** spinza has quit IRC
4002018-11-29T18:13:24 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
4012018-11-29T18:14:46 <promag> fanquake: the perpetually failing CI << I'm hoping #14670 fixes it
4022018-11-29T18:14:49 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14670 | http: Fix HTTP server shutdown by promag · Pull Request #14670 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4032018-11-29T18:15:28 *** promag has quit IRC
4042018-11-29T18:17:46 *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4052018-11-29T18:19:41 *** zallarak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4062018-11-29T18:39:16 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4072018-11-29T18:39:16 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #14845: [tests] Add wallet_balance.py (master...balance_tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14845
4082018-11-29T18:39:16 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4092018-11-29T18:39:37 *** nullptr| has quit IRC
4102018-11-29T18:43:56 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4112018-11-29T18:43:56 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #14803: consensus: Avoid data race in CBlock class (master...20181125-cblock-threadsafe) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14803
4122018-11-29T18:43:56 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4132018-11-29T18:45:16 *** nullptr| has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4142018-11-29T18:45:51 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4152018-11-29T18:50:58 *** shesek has quit IRC
4162018-11-29T18:51:22 *** brianhoffman_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4172018-11-29T18:51:44 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4182018-11-29T18:53:57 *** brianhoffman has quit IRC
4192018-11-29T18:53:58 *** brianhoffman_ is now known as brianhoffman
4202018-11-29T18:56:37 *** shesek has quit IRC
4212018-11-29T18:56:56 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4222018-11-29T18:56:56 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4232018-11-29T19:00:22 <provoostenator> Meeting?
4242018-11-29T19:00:25 <wumpus> #startmeeting
4252018-11-29T19:00:25 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Nov 29 19:00:25 2018 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
4262018-11-29T19:00:25 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
4272018-11-29T19:00:38 <sipa> oh, meeting!
4282018-11-29T19:00:42 <dongcarl> hi
4292018-11-29T19:00:59 <moneyball> hi
4302018-11-29T19:01:04 <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator
4312018-11-29T19:01:14 <moneyball> suggested topic: proposed meeting topics ahead of time
4322018-11-29T19:01:17 *** shesek has quit IRC
4332018-11-29T19:01:23 <meshcollider> hi
4342018-11-29T19:01:25 <BlueMatt> topics: 0.17.1
4352018-11-29T19:01:52 <wumpus> #topic high priority for review
4362018-11-29T19:02:04 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4372018-11-29T19:02:30 <wumpus> current PRs: #14670 #13932 #14336 #14646
4382018-11-29T19:02:32 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14670 | http: Fix HTTP server shutdown by promag · Pull Request #14670 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4392018-11-29T19:02:36 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13932 | Additional utility RPCs for PSBT by achow101 · Pull Request #13932 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4402018-11-29T19:02:38 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14646 | Add expansion cache functions to descriptors (unused for now) by sipa · Pull Request #14646 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4412018-11-29T19:02:42 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14336 | net: implement poll by pstratem · Pull Request #14336 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4422018-11-29T19:02:53 <kanzure> hi.
4432018-11-29T19:03:48 <wumpus> anyone want to add or remove anything?
4442018-11-29T19:04:07 <sipa> lgtm
4452018-11-29T19:04:25 <meshcollider> Pieter already has one but it'd be great to have #14565
4462018-11-29T19:04:28 <gmaxwell> whats the overlap with 0.17.1 tag?
4472018-11-29T19:04:29 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14565 | Overhaul importmulti logic by sipa · Pull Request #14565 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4482018-11-29T19:04:43 <chenpo> hi
4492018-11-29T19:05:05 <wumpus> does the 0.17.1 tag have any non-backports left?
4502018-11-29T19:05:08 <gmaxwell> #14380
4512018-11-29T19:05:12 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14380 | fix assert crash when specified change output spend size is unknown by instagibbs · Pull Request #14380 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4522018-11-29T19:05:25 <gmaxwell> is what I was thinking of.
4532018-11-29T19:05:30 <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/39
4542018-11-29T19:06:09 <wumpus> let's add that one then
4552018-11-29T19:06:32 <meshcollider> 14782 is sort-of not a backport
4562018-11-29T19:06:41 <jnewbery> hi
4572018-11-29T19:06:49 <wumpus> meshcollider: which one is the most-blocking?
4582018-11-29T19:07:14 <wumpus> #14646 seems like it needs to go in before something else so looks like a typical candidate at least
4592018-11-29T19:07:16 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14646 | Add expansion cache functions to descriptors (unused for now) by sipa · Pull Request #14646 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4602018-11-29T19:07:38 <meshcollider> Yeah don't remove that one
4612018-11-29T19:08:19 <gmaxwell> The broken getbalance behavior should get fixed. It's an actual bug.
4622018-11-29T19:08:40 <wumpus> that's only broken on 0.17 and not master?
4632018-11-29T19:08:44 *** shesek has quit IRC
4642018-11-29T19:08:56 <provoostenator> #14602
4652018-11-29T19:08:58 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14602 | Bugfix: Correctly calculate balances when min_conf is used, and for getbalance("*") by luke-jr · Pull Request #14602 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4662018-11-29T19:09:15 <achow101> hi
4672018-11-29T19:09:17 <wumpus> wait, I added #14782 which is the 0.17 backport
4682018-11-29T19:09:19 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14782 | [0.17] Bugfix: Correctly calculate balances when min_conf is used, and for getbalance("*") by luke-jr · Pull Request #14782 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4692018-11-29T19:09:21 <jnewbery> I'm not clear what the behaviour is 'supposed' to be. There's no documentation or test coverage
4702018-11-29T19:09:26 <gmaxwell> wumpus: not yet, there is another PR
4712018-11-29T19:09:40 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4722018-11-29T19:09:41 <wumpus> why is a backport open before something is merged into master? is it signifiantly different?
4732018-11-29T19:09:42 <provoostenator> Ah yes, it's already marked for backport.
4742018-11-29T19:09:49 <meshcollider> The 0.17 backport of it is different yes
4752018-11-29T19:09:53 <meshcollider> Because of the accounts removal
4762018-11-29T19:09:57 <sipa> maybe the getbalance behaviour needs to be topic on its own>?
4772018-11-29T19:09:57 <wumpus> right
4782018-11-29T19:10:00 <gmaxwell> jnewbery: thats a fine concern, but it's not cool to break functionality just because there wasn't enough tests to stop you from doing so
4792018-11-29T19:10:10 <meshcollider> ping luke-jr
4802018-11-29T19:10:18 <wumpus> if there's any doubt it probably needs to stay as it was
4812018-11-29T19:10:33 <gmaxwell> The alternative of going and reverting the breaking change is unfortunately too disruptive (I already tried).
4822018-11-29T19:10:47 <meshcollider> Re-implementing the old behaviour without reintroducing account parameters is the issue
4832018-11-29T19:10:54 <jnewbery> the new behaviour in the fix is different from pre-0.17
4842018-11-29T19:11:15 <meshcollider> And it has some weird parameter type polymorphism
4852018-11-29T19:11:18 <wumpus> well for 0.18, changing the behavior can be discussed if there's agood reason
4862018-11-29T19:11:23 <sipa> gmaxwell: well given the removal of accounts, i think it's fair to say that anyone passing not-nothing as the account parameter to getbalance needs to change, and you can get the 0-conf behavior using getunconfirmedbalance
4872018-11-29T19:11:25 <jnewbery> so before we decide whether it should be merged, we should figure out what the behavious should be, document it and cover it with tests so it's not regressed
4882018-11-29T19:11:47 <provoostenator> getunconfirmedbalance _only_ includes unconfirmed balance afaik
4892018-11-29T19:11:51 <sipa> oh
4902018-11-29T19:12:00 <wumpus> for 0.17 it'd be good to go back to the old behavior because it was not announced in the release notes that it would change
4912018-11-29T19:12:01 <sipa> ignore my suggestion, again
4922018-11-29T19:12:02 <meshcollider> Add them together then :)
4932018-11-29T19:12:18 <gmaxwell> if you add them you'll double count
4942018-11-29T19:12:22 *** michaelsdunn1 has quit IRC
4952018-11-29T19:12:32 <meshcollider> wumpus: that's why the 0.17 backport was opened already
4962018-11-29T19:12:35 <provoostenator> It's useful in practice to be able to get the balance including unconfirmed, so you can compose a PSBT while you're waiting for confirmation.
4972018-11-29T19:12:36 <BlueMatt> also for 0.17.1 this seems a bit too late to be figuring out
4982018-11-29T19:12:43 <BlueMatt> we can revisit for 0.17.2 if there is one
4992018-11-29T19:12:43 <provoostenator> (without doing math)
5002018-11-29T19:13:11 <BlueMatt> but 0.17.0 currently cannot be self-built and bitcoin-qt opened on latest fedora/ubuntu release
5012018-11-29T19:13:16 <BlueMatt> both of which have been out for a bit now
5022018-11-29T19:13:17 <gmaxwell> It isn't just a question of unconfirmed or not, it's a question of your balance suddenly showing zero when you make a small payment.. because now your change is unconfirmed.
5032018-11-29T19:13:29 <sipa> gmaxwell: getbalance includes change
5042018-11-29T19:13:40 <sipa> just not unconfirmed incoming payments
5052018-11-29T19:14:02 <sipa> that was the distinction between getbalance and getbalance *, afaik
5062018-11-29T19:14:13 <wumpus> #topic getbalance
5072018-11-29T19:14:16 <gmaxwell> Right
5082018-11-29T19:14:30 *** michaelsdunn1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5092018-11-29T19:14:31 <gmaxwell> sipa: and thats also why you can't add getunconfirmedbalance.
5102018-11-29T19:14:39 <jnewbery> for those without context, this is (mostly) my fault for removing accounts. The first parameter to getbalance was 'account', it was marked DEPRECATED with a warning saying 'don't use this'. I removed it and it turns out people were using it to sum up untrusted coins
5112018-11-29T19:14:53 <sipa> you can simulate "getbalance *" using "getbalance minconf=1" + "getunconfirmedbalance" i guess
5122018-11-29T19:14:56 <wumpus> BlueMatt: yes, let's discuss what to in include in 0.17.1 in the 0.17.1 topic
5132018-11-29T19:15:00 <meshcollider> But the actual difference wasn't just unspent, it was untrusted, right?
5142018-11-29T19:15:05 <sipa> meshcollider: indeed
5152018-11-29T19:15:08 <meshcollider> Unconfirmed*
5162018-11-29T19:15:27 <jnewbery> getbalance -minconf=0 includes unconfirmed but not untrusted coins (eg your change)
5172018-11-29T19:15:40 <jnewbery> getbalance * 0 would (prior to 0.17) include untrusted
5182018-11-29T19:16:00 <jnewbery> so for example if someone sent you an output, then RBF'ed it, you'd still see that in your getbalance * 0
5192018-11-29T19:16:04 <meshcollider> as you pointed out on the PR though john, does that also include conflicting transactions and stuff too?
5202018-11-29T19:16:22 <jnewbery> or RBF'ed it to you, you'd double count it
5212018-11-29T19:16:29 <jnewbery> or you could have a negative balance
5222018-11-29T19:16:57 <meshcollider> Thats not sane behaviour to keep then :/
5232018-11-29T19:17:06 <wumpus> that sounds pretty broken
5242018-11-29T19:17:08 <gmaxwell> I didn't think it included conflicteds, but actually it makes sense.
5252018-11-29T19:17:11 <jnewbery> I don't know why people were using getbalance * 0, or what they were using it for. I've asked a few times on the PR but no-one can answer
5262018-11-29T19:17:41 <gmaxwell> If you recall when we removed accounts I raised a concern that didn't we still need move to fixed people's negative balances... because we still had those reported from time to time.
5272018-11-29T19:17:58 <jnewbery> ok, I've fixed that :)
5282018-11-29T19:18:08 <gmaxwell> jnewbery: to see unconfirmed payments... it's certantly what I always did before I gave up on balances and just switched to looking at the unspent outputs directly
5292018-11-29T19:18:09 <ryanofsky> It sounded to me like people were just using it to get unconfirmed balance without having two make two calls
5302018-11-29T19:18:29 <provoostenator> That's exactly how I use it.
5312018-11-29T19:18:42 <sipa> how about adding a "requiretrusted" parameter to getbalance...?
5322018-11-29T19:18:43 <gmaxwell> ryanofsky: not just without having to make two calls, because getbalance included 0 conf trusted coins.
5332018-11-29T19:18:52 <provoostenator> If you want to prepare a transaction to spend all, you need to enter the amount to send.
5342018-11-29T19:18:53 <gmaxwell> ryanofsky: and the minconf parameter was added later
5352018-11-29T19:19:01 <jnewbery> I think it's fine to have a balance including unconfirmeds if they're trusted (ie all inputs were yours). Having a balance containing unconfirmeds that aren't trusted and so can be double-accounted or worse doesn't make sense to me
5362018-11-29T19:19:12 <meshcollider> sipa: the PR introduces a bool for trustedness
5372018-11-29T19:19:18 <sipa> meshcollider: oh!
5382018-11-29T19:19:36 <jnewbery> I strongly discourage any 'balance' that contains untrusted coins
5392018-11-29T19:19:38 <sipa> does it allow counting untrusted, while excluding conflicting etc?
5402018-11-29T19:19:44 <meshcollider> No
5412018-11-29T19:19:53 <gmaxwell> jnewbery: I don't understand "trusted and so can be double-accounted" -- even a trusted payment could be conflicted
5422018-11-29T19:20:00 <provoostenator> jnewbery: why? Isn't that implied when the user enters 0 instead of 1 confirmations?
5432018-11-29T19:20:28 <meshcollider> unconfirmed != untrusted though
5442018-11-29T19:20:41 <gmaxwell> jnewbery: we _show_ unconfirmed payments in the wallet, so it's somewhat odd and confusing that we don't have "pending balance"
5452018-11-29T19:21:10 <wumpus> the GUI does have a 'unconfirmed balance' IIRC?
5462018-11-29T19:21:27 <sipa> showing untrusted balance sounds perfectly reasonable, but it shouldn't include conflicting/... things
5472018-11-29T19:21:27 *** shesek has quit IRC
5482018-11-29T19:21:27 *** hebasto has quit IRC
5492018-11-29T19:21:43 <meshcollider> We could break the getbalance output and return an array of "confirmed":, "unconfirmed":, "conflicting:
5502018-11-29T19:21:45 *** hebasto has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5512018-11-29T19:21:54 <jnewbery> for me 'pending balance' doesn't make sense if it can double-count conflicting transactions. It's worse that not having a pending balance at all
5522018-11-29T19:21:55 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5532018-11-29T19:21:55 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5542018-11-29T19:22:02 <meshcollider> ^
5552018-11-29T19:22:06 <sipa> jnewbery: i agree
5562018-11-29T19:22:07 <morcos> yes, its not clear to me what the problem is with using getbalance and getunconfirmedbalance when using -cli and the GUI already does the right thing?
5572018-11-29T19:22:07 <gmaxwell> In any case, you wanted the use case, the reason people use getbalance "*" is to (Attempt) to learn their pending balance. What they'll have assuming nothing goes wrong. Now if that was also double counting conflicteds and ending up negative, I think thats a bug. (and probably the origin of the negative balances I was concerned about before)
5582018-11-29T19:22:14 <wumpus> users don't know what 'untrusted balance' is supposed to be, I think exposing these kind of implementation details on the interface is a bit confusing
5592018-11-29T19:22:15 <provoostenator> I agree double counting is undesirable.
5602018-11-29T19:22:20 <jnewbery> it will make users think their money has disappeared because once one of those conflicting transactions is confirmed their balance goes down
5612018-11-29T19:22:39 <morcos> can someone clearly point out exactly what we can not do now (other than we didn't properly explain what was changing)
5622018-11-29T19:22:43 <meshcollider> luke-jr: should be here to argue the other side
5632018-11-29T19:22:45 <sipa> jnewbery: i think no getbalance* call should evr include conflicted things
5642018-11-29T19:22:49 <provoostenator> It should probably use mempool rules to figure out which transaction to ignore.
5652018-11-29T19:23:05 <sipa> provoostenator: some things do
5662018-11-29T19:23:06 <meshcollider> IMO setting min_conf to 0 is enough?
5672018-11-29T19:23:08 <gmaxwell> sipa: wait. I would think that it would include one side of a conflict...
5682018-11-29T19:23:32 <sipa> gmaxwell: oh sure; terminology
5692018-11-29T19:23:33 <wumpus> isn't it supposed to make one side of a conflict non-conflicting?
5702018-11-29T19:23:46 <sipa> i guess by non-conflicting i mean "in the mempool" ?
5712018-11-29T19:23:57 <wumpus> right
5722018-11-29T19:24:01 <gmaxwell> Good! jnewbery's comment about balances going down confused me
5732018-11-29T19:24:18 <sipa> gmaxwell: or do you think unconfirmed untrusted not-in-the-mempool unconflicted things should be counted?
5742018-11-29T19:24:22 <jnewbery> sorry, I've got to step away now. My main point is that the expected behaviour should be well documented and covered by tests
5752018-11-29T19:24:32 *** brianhoffman_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5762018-11-29T19:24:33 <gmaxwell> sipa: no. I don't.
5772018-11-29T19:24:37 <sipa> ok, good
5782018-11-29T19:24:52 <jnewbery> I've written a test script for wallet balances, but we need to agree what the behaviour *should* be before merging any of this stuff
5792018-11-29T19:25:04 <meshcollider> Agreed
5802018-11-29T19:25:08 <provoostenator> If something gets confirmed against what you would expect fromt he mempool then a balance change is fine imo, but not otherwise.
5812018-11-29T19:25:23 <sipa> so how about getbalance requires the minconf as directed, and (if trusted is directed, trusted, otherwise in-the-mempool)
5822018-11-29T19:26:03 <provoostenator> sipa: the only criteria for "trusted" is whether it's change, right?
5832018-11-29T19:26:09 <gmaxwell> I think if sipa is right that the behavior can be emulated by getbalance minconf=1 + getunconfirmed then at least we have a workaround. Though it's always confusing to have a deault behavior which cannot be explained by some setting of the arguments
5842018-11-29T19:26:14 <sipa> provoostenator: or confirmed
5852018-11-29T19:27:27 <gmaxwell> "What is the default minconf setting of getbalance? Mu. getbalance output shows minconf=0 for trusted outputs, and minconf=1 for others. so trusted defaults to true? No, there is no trusted argument."
5862018-11-29T19:27:33 *** brianhoffman has quit IRC
5872018-11-29T19:27:34 *** brianhoffman_ is now known as brianhoffman
5882018-11-29T19:28:18 <sipa> gmaxwell: #14602 includes a trusted_only argument that is true by default
5892018-11-29T19:28:22 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14602 | Bugfix: Correctly calculate balances when min_conf is used, and for getbalance("*") by luke-jr · Pull Request #14602 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5902018-11-29T19:28:23 <provoostenator> I know the wallet makes a distinction between change and non-change when it comes to spending, which is fine, but I don't think we should do that for balance. So by default minconf=0 should show change and non-change, but not replaced-by.
5912018-11-29T19:28:39 <ryanofsky> just want to note, it looks like we didn't delete the GetLegacyBalance function, so it would be trivial to restore the old getbalance "*" behavior, if we can't figure out something better right now
5922018-11-29T19:28:44 <gmaxwell> I know 14602 does. I'm trying to imagine a world where we keep things as they are and try to release note ourselves out of it
5932018-11-29T19:29:28 <provoostenator> (as for 0.17 I'm fine with release-noting our way of it)
5942018-11-29T19:29:42 <sipa> oh, i was just trying to establish what the desired behavior is before we go discuss what to do about it
5952018-11-29T19:30:11 <provoostenator> sipa: that's a good idea
5962018-11-29T19:30:37 <sipa> and i think there is at least a rough conclusion? allow counting untrusted, but never count not-in-mempool?
5972018-11-29T19:31:12 <gmaxwell> Right, I think the desired behavior is that balances shows confirmed + trusted-in-mempool-0conf. And that you be able to adjust the threshold for confirmed and turn the trusted-in-mempool-zeroconf on and off. And if you make the confirmed=0, it should still only count in-mempool
5982018-11-29T19:31:39 <provoostenator> (and maybe add a 4th argument along the lines of unconfirmed_change_only
5992018-11-29T19:31:53 <gmaxwell> (and potentially the arguments should just be minconf_for_not_you=1 minconf_for_from_you=0 )
6002018-11-29T19:32:15 <sipa> i think the default of minconf=0 but trusted_only=true makes sense; if you choose trusted_only=false it should still only include confirmed or mempool things
6012018-11-29T19:32:21 <morcos> sipa: the problem with never counting not-in-mempool is if you spend a 10 BTC input to pay 0.001 BTC, and that tx doesn't go in your mempool then your balance goes down by 10 mysteriously, but thats hard to solve
6022018-11-29T19:32:36 <sipa> morcos: yeah...
6032018-11-29T19:32:53 <gmaxwell> morcos: yes, I think thats hard to solve, also it's kinda good that it goes down in that you're actually screwed for the moment :P
6042018-11-29T19:33:07 <gmaxwell> like if that txn doesn't confirm, your funds are actually stuck.
6052018-11-29T19:33:38 <gmaxwell> (until you abandon the transaction)
6062018-11-29T19:33:41 <wumpus> right
6072018-11-29T19:34:07 <gmaxwell> I guess I can argue the consequences either way, I can imagine someone losing a wallet file with lots of bitcoin in it because it showed a low balance due to some easily abandoned transactions.
6082018-11-29T19:34:08 <sipa> so i think we can work out how to implement this for 0.17 and 0.18 on the PRs or issues; no need for further design here?
6092018-11-29T19:34:52 <gmaxwell> I thought luke's PR basically implemented what we came up with here. But I'm not sure.
6102018-11-29T19:35:07 <sipa> gmaxwell: i'm not sure about the mempool part
6112018-11-29T19:35:21 <wumpus> gmaxwell: people are likely to use 'getbalance' without parameters in that case, to check wallet balance, not the specific combo that this is about
6122018-11-29T19:35:28 <gmaxwell> certantly if we're showing all unconfirmeds, including both sides of a conflict, thats bad. :P
6132018-11-29T19:36:24 <provoostenator> Luke's PR adds a trusted_only as a first parameter. I find that a fairly confusing term, so hopefully we can avoid it with the ^
6142018-11-29T19:36:37 <sipa> with the what?
6152018-11-29T19:37:02 <wumpus> trusted_only sounds really confusing to users, if you make a parameter like that you need to carefully explain in the RPC help what 'truste'd means in this setting
6162018-11-29T19:37:13 <sipa> agree, it needs documentation for sure
6172018-11-29T19:37:23 <wumpus> it's far from obvious, I don't know if we picked a good term for it
6182018-11-29T19:37:36 <provoostenator> With what you said: "allow counting untrusted, but never count not-in-mempool"
6192018-11-29T19:38:07 <provoostenator> It's already a default, so maybe just a matter of renaming and documenting it.
6202018-11-29T19:38:17 *** timothy has quit IRC
6212018-11-29T19:38:47 <sipa> provoostenator: it can certainly be explained more friendly as "Whether unconfirmed payments from others are excluded"
6222018-11-29T19:38:58 <provoostenator> 1. zero_conf_change_only (default: false)
6232018-11-29T19:39:07 <wumpus> sipa: that sounds much better
6242018-11-29T19:39:15 <sipa> i think we're getting in the weeds here
6252018-11-29T19:39:34 <wumpus> yes, time for next otpic?
6262018-11-29T19:39:41 <sipa> agree
6272018-11-29T19:39:43 <wumpus> #topic 0.17.1
6282018-11-29T19:39:43 <provoostenator> Next topic sounds good.
6292018-11-29T19:39:50 <BlueMatt> release time!
6302018-11-29T19:39:52 <wumpus> 20 minutes left
6312018-11-29T19:39:53 *** michaelsdunn1 has quit IRC
6322018-11-29T19:40:01 <BlueMatt> cool, release in 20 minutes? :p
6332018-11-29T19:40:02 <provoostenator> BlueMatt is the main reason Ubutnu?
6342018-11-29T19:40:07 <meshcollider> Lol
6352018-11-29T19:40:16 <BlueMatt> provoostenator: also fedora, debian testing, .......
6362018-11-29T19:40:22 <provoostenator> Because an alternative could be 0.17.0.2 like we did with MacOS. Though I'm fine with proper 0.17.1 too
6372018-11-29T19:40:25 <wumpus> still lots of backports open https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/39 I guess they need review, or at least merging
6382018-11-29T19:40:33 <BlueMatt> provoostenator: also there are a number of other bugs and backports that are done, etc
6392018-11-29T19:40:36 <sipa> we have a bunch of bugfixes lined up too
6402018-11-29T19:40:37 <wumpus> nah let's do a proper release
6412018-11-29T19:40:40 <sipa> it may be time for a 0.17.1
6422018-11-29T19:40:41 <BlueMatt> things already merged on master probably worth backporting
6432018-11-29T19:40:43 <wumpus> it's too late for 0.17.0.2 IMO
6442018-11-29T19:40:46 <BlueMatt> cause there are a bunch there
6452018-11-29T19:41:16 <provoostenator> Right, that would involve branching off of the 0.17.0.1 tag and get weird.
6462018-11-29T19:41:19 <wumpus> .z releases are really 'oops we did a release and need to fix this thing up'
6472018-11-29T19:41:20 <BlueMatt> but, at least IMO, its super annoying that you cant build+run bitcoin-qt on the now-several-months-old versions of various OSs, and I presume other rolling distros (eg arch) also have this issue
6482018-11-29T19:41:24 <wumpus> not for month later
6492018-11-29T19:41:33 <instagibbs> I keep crashing, get 14380 in please ;P
6502018-11-29T19:41:50 <BlueMatt> so I would prefer we not wait around for fixing getbalance :p
6512018-11-29T19:41:56 <wumpus> I agree with BlueMatt on this
6522018-11-29T19:42:05 <BlueMatt> #14380 looks more than merge-able from where I'm sitting in the ack department
6532018-11-29T19:42:08 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14380 | fix assert crash when specified change output spend size is unknown by instagibbs · Pull Request #14380 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6542018-11-29T19:42:13 <BlueMatt> and not too hard to backport
6552018-11-29T19:42:44 <sipa> can people have a look at #14780 too?
6562018-11-29T19:42:46 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14780 | PSBT backports to 0.17 by sipa · Pull Request #14780 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6572018-11-29T19:42:59 <sipa> (i'm mostly unfamiliar with the backports process)
6582018-11-29T19:43:01 <wumpus> there is no agreement on getbalance yet, it can wait for 0.17.2
6592018-11-29T19:43:07 <wumpus> sipa: sure!
6602018-11-29T19:43:14 <sipa> thanks
6612018-11-29T19:43:59 <wumpus> sipa: please make sure you include the commit metadata (Github-Pull: #.... and Rebased-From: <commit>)
6622018-11-29T19:44:10 <BlueMatt> next topic: the wall of text I just posted to bitcoin-dev :p
6632018-11-29T19:44:13 <wumpus> (see the commits in other backport PRs such as https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14835)
6642018-11-29T19:44:32 <sipa> BlueMatt: not there
6652018-11-29T19:44:34 <wumpus> next topic is moneyball's
6662018-11-29T19:44:41 <moneyball> hi
6672018-11-29T19:44:41 <BlueMatt> err, topic suggestion
6682018-11-29T19:44:50 <BlueMatt> anything else on 0.17.1?
6692018-11-29T19:45:01 <BlueMatt> or just generally a "lets take things that we can merge today, do backports, and get this thing going"
6702018-11-29T19:45:04 <provoostenator> BlueMatt: "IRC logs have been disabled due to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)."
6712018-11-29T19:45:16 <wumpus> BlueMatt: +1
6722018-11-29T19:45:37 <provoostenator> +1
6732018-11-29T19:45:57 <wumpus> #topic proposed meeting topics ahead of time (moneyball)
6742018-11-29T19:46:02 <moneyball> Iâd like to suggest that people can propose Core weekly meeting topics anytime throughout the week in this IRC channel using #proposedmeetingtopic tag. I will collect these throughout the week, add them to a gist that anyone can have a look at during the week. The primary intended benefit of this is to allow people to know which topics are going to be discussed ahead of time allowing them to prepare.
6752018-11-29T19:46:26 <moneyball> Any concerns?
6762018-11-29T19:46:31 <BlueMatt> seems reasonable
6772018-11-29T19:46:36 <provoostenator> +1
6782018-11-29T19:46:38 <BlueMatt> easier than remembering to mention them in meeting
6792018-11-29T19:46:42 <Chris_Stewart_5> +1
6802018-11-29T19:46:46 <meshcollider> +1
6812018-11-29T19:46:52 <BlueMatt> next topic? #thatwaseasy
6822018-11-29T19:46:59 *** marpme has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6832018-11-29T19:47:03 <wumpus> yes, good idea, let's see how it goes
6842018-11-29T19:47:08 <moneyball> Ok I will start doing it!
6852018-11-29T19:47:15 <wumpus> BlueMatt: ok what was your proposal, I'm not in #bitcoin-dev
6862018-11-29T19:47:22 <provoostenator> And there's no logs..
6872018-11-29T19:47:32 <BlueMatt> oh, i meant bitcoin-dev ml but it hasnt passed moderation yet
6882018-11-29T19:47:36 <BlueMatt> anyway, I can tl;dr it in two lines
6892018-11-29T19:47:53 <BlueMatt> in lightning (and other related payment channel-y systems) you have the general issue of pre-signing transactions
6902018-11-29T19:48:06 <BlueMatt> so you have to predict what the feerate on the network will be in the future at the time your counterparty misbehaves
6912018-11-29T19:48:09 <wumpus> #topic pre-signing transactions (BlueMatt)
6922018-11-29T19:48:09 <BlueMatt> this is....obviously insane
6932018-11-29T19:48:18 <BlueMatt> instead, we'd (obviously) like to use cpfp
6942018-11-29T19:48:38 <BlueMatt> but there are the cpfp rbf-pinning-ish issues where your counterparty can fill up the package with big-bug-low-ish-feerate txn
6952018-11-29T19:48:43 <BlueMatt> so that you cant cpfp it yourself
6962018-11-29T19:49:03 <BlueMatt> I'd like to propose we tweak the cpfp/rbf rules
6972018-11-29T19:49:04 <BlueMatt> The last transaction which is added to a package of dependent transactions in the mempool must:
6982018-11-29T19:49:04 <BlueMatt> * Have no more than one unconfirmed parent,
6992018-11-29T19:49:04 <BlueMatt> * Be of size no greater than 1K in virtual size.
7002018-11-29T19:49:25 <BlueMatt> (we'd, in practice, first decrease the package size limits by 1 1K-virtual-size transaction, then make it so that the last one must meet those rules)
7012018-11-29T19:49:47 <BlueMatt> this allows for cpfp by letting each side of a lightning channel independantly cpfp without considering what the other side may be doing
7022018-11-29T19:49:48 <provoostenator> Current RBF rules for reference: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki#Implementation_Details
7032018-11-29T19:50:08 <BlueMatt> that may be too much to think about before reading the full ml post, but mostly it just covers background material
7042018-11-29T19:50:18 <BlueMatt> /fin
7052018-11-29T19:50:29 *** michaelsdunn1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7062018-11-29T19:50:29 *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7072018-11-29T19:50:37 <BlueMatt> (oh, also this fix requires package relay, which is another can of worms itself)
7082018-11-29T19:50:40 <sipa> here is another earlier proposed modification: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-February/015717.html
7092018-11-29T19:50:47 <sipa> BlueMatt: oh dear
7102018-11-29T19:51:16 <BlueMatt> well, luckily only one-deep package relay and only for small-ish packages
7112018-11-29T19:51:19 <BlueMatt> or at least small dependents
7122018-11-29T19:51:48 <instagibbs> sorry how does cpfp get pinned again?
7132018-11-29T19:51:57 <instagibbs> RBF pinning I know
7142018-11-29T19:52:05 <BlueMatt> instagibbs: A -> B where B is 100KB but low feerate, but high fee. its the same issue for lightning
7152018-11-29T19:52:11 <BlueMatt> cause you cant add to the package cause the package is max size
7162018-11-29T19:52:22 <instagibbs> ah
7172018-11-29T19:52:33 <sipa> my response to this is "eh... sure.... but how?"
7182018-11-29T19:52:34 <instagibbs> so it's not something you can attach B'
7192018-11-29T19:52:36 <BlueMatt> so you have to add to the package by rbf which means you have to increase total size, if you can even do that, which you'd have to tweak rbf rules to let you replace B with C, but you cant do that today
7202018-11-29T19:52:46 <BlueMatt> sipa: hmm?
7212018-11-29T19:52:52 <sipa> you need package relay...
7222018-11-29T19:53:17 <sipa> that's not just a small few-lines policy change
7232018-11-29T19:53:19 <provoostenator> An alternative, I forgot what the problem was, is to drop RBF rule "3. The replacement transaction pays an absolute fee of at least the sum paid by the original transactions." and only consider fee rate of the replacement, regardless of size.
7242018-11-29T19:53:23 <sdaftuar> so i think package relay is a whole other topic
7252018-11-29T19:53:27 <BlueMatt> I have another bitcoin-dev post coming discussing package relay, but we have a few options there, if we just want to solve package relay for contracting applications like lightning, we can do so with limited consideration, I think
7262018-11-29T19:53:48 <BlueMatt> if we want a more general solution I still think its possible but requires more in-depth ATMP refactoring
7272018-11-29T19:54:00 <sipa> and P2P changes...
7282018-11-29T19:54:05 <BlueMatt> assuming we do at least one of those two, this is a simple (I think) policy change that I'm hoping people here dont object to
7292018-11-29T19:54:15 <BlueMatt> possibly, though actaully not neccessarily
7302018-11-29T19:54:21 <BlueMatt> but, probably
7312018-11-29T19:54:34 <sipa> this sounds very preliminary to me
7322018-11-29T19:54:48 <BlueMatt> i presume you mean the package relay part?
7332018-11-29T19:54:48 *** phwalkr has quit IRC
7342018-11-29T19:54:59 <BlueMatt> the policy rule here is pretty straightforward, I think?
7352018-11-29T19:55:06 <BlueMatt> and not very preliminary, again assuming some form of package relay
7362018-11-29T19:55:32 <sipa> i don't understand how you can say it's not preliminary, while relying on something we have no idea about yet
7372018-11-29T19:55:49 <meshcollider> Shall we discuss next week instead after reading the ml
7382018-11-29T19:55:50 <gmaxwell> MAGIC
7392018-11-29T19:55:55 <BlueMatt> heh, sdaftuar and I have been batting package relay back and forth for months, but, whatever
7402018-11-29T19:56:03 <BlueMatt> agreed we need a harder proposal for package relay
7412018-11-29T19:56:11 <sdaftuar> well i think it'd be useful to layout the design goals for a package relay ssytem
7422018-11-29T19:56:12 <BlueMatt> anyway, yes, we'll discuss package relay on the ml and then come back to this
7432018-11-29T19:56:13 <sipa> BlueMatt: yes i'd like to see a proposal for that :)
7442018-11-29T19:56:16 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: the point is that the policy change justification is a black box to us for the moment. :P
7452018-11-29T19:56:20 <BlueMatt> also what sdaftuar said
7462018-11-29T19:56:28 <BlueMatt> this is also a motivator for package relay
7472018-11-29T19:56:36 <BlueMatt> as its yet another thing to feed into the design goals
7482018-11-29T19:56:57 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I mean if you presume package relay it isnt at all a black box?
7492018-11-29T19:56:58 <BlueMatt> huh
7502018-11-29T19:57:05 <BlueMatt> anyway, -> ml
7512018-11-29T19:57:06 <provoostenator> Topic suggestion: dandelion stempool relay :-P
7522018-11-29T19:57:14 * sdaftuar hides
7532018-11-29T19:57:14 <BlueMatt> 4 minutes, GO
7542018-11-29T19:57:19 <BlueMatt> err, 3
7552018-11-29T19:57:27 <instagibbs> sdaftuar, you ahve 3 minutes to resolve it
7562018-11-29T19:58:19 <wumpus> #topic wallet maintainer
7572018-11-29T19:58:42 <wumpus> meshcollider has shown interest in becoming wallet maintainer!
7582018-11-29T19:59:01 <provoostenator> Awesome
7592018-11-29T19:59:03 * sipa offers condolences
7602018-11-29T19:59:12 <sipa> :)
7612018-11-29T19:59:21 <provoostenator> Anyoe against, no, done. End meeting :-)
7622018-11-29T19:59:31 <wumpus> which is great news, I think he'd be good at his, many of his his contributions have been to the wallet
7632018-11-29T19:59:33 <meshcollider> :)
7642018-11-29T19:59:59 <wumpus> and he's been active contributor for quite a while
7652018-11-29T20:00:00 <sipa> more seriously, sounds great to me
7662018-11-29T20:00:05 <achow101> +1
7672018-11-29T20:00:05 <wumpus> yes!
7682018-11-29T20:00:27 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7692018-11-29T20:00:27 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] vim88 opened pull request #14846: Docs: Adds development guidelines about Scripts shebang to developer-notes.md. (master...add_scripts_development_guidelines) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14846
7702018-11-29T20:00:27 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
7712018-11-29T20:00:41 <wumpus> ok, that was a quick topic, was intending to bring it up sooner but BlueMatt kind of ninja'd it :)
7722018-11-29T20:00:46 <wumpus> #endmeeting
7732018-11-29T20:00:46 <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Nov 29 20:00:46 2018 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
7742018-11-29T20:00:46 <lightningbot> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-11-29-19.00.html
7752018-11-29T20:00:46 <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-11-29-19.00.txt
7762018-11-29T20:00:46 <lightningbot> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-11-29-19.00.log.html
7772018-11-29T20:01:24 *** shesek has quit IRC
7782018-11-29T20:01:34 <provoostenator> So have we figured out what a mainainter actually does? Shepharding PR's on the topic and some sort of super ACK?
7792018-11-29T20:01:44 *** Jbaczuk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7802018-11-29T20:01:55 <meshcollider> I don't want a super ACK ;)
7812018-11-29T20:02:22 <provoostenator> By super ACK I mean that you would consider it reviewed by enough compentent people.
7822018-11-29T20:02:25 <wumpus> he decides when to merge the stuff
7832018-11-29T20:02:26 <provoostenator> More of a meta-ACK
7842018-11-29T20:02:32 <BlueMatt> no, definitely no such thing as super ack
7852018-11-29T20:02:36 <BlueMatt> super-concept-ack, though, yes :)
7862018-11-29T20:03:10 <wumpus> "consider it reviewed by enough compentent people", that's more or less the idea yes
7872018-11-29T20:03:30 <wumpus> understand the changes where possible
7882018-11-29T20:03:37 <provoostenator> That sounds good.
7892018-11-29T20:03:41 <wumpus> unless it's coin selection he opted out of that :)
7902018-11-29T20:03:47 <meshcollider> ^ lol
7912018-11-29T20:03:59 <achow101> coin selection? what's wrong with that?
7922018-11-29T20:04:18 <achow101> it's super simple and not at all hard to understand :p
7932018-11-29T20:04:31 <meshcollider> Trivial even :p
7942018-11-29T20:04:31 <provoostenator> You get a coin, you get a coin, everyone gets a coin!
7952018-11-29T20:04:46 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7962018-11-29T20:04:46 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7972018-11-29T20:04:51 <sipa> we'll just ask Bob who gets which coin
7982018-11-29T20:05:08 <BlueMatt> sipa: it was pointed out that the above policy doesnt, entirely rely on package relay - eg if you have a transaction A that you want to confirm, today, you pay a feerate that is reasonable for today and hope that that's enough to get confirmed later...well obviously if it isnt maybe you're still gonna meet the get-into-mempool limit even if not get-mined-limit
7992018-11-29T20:05:35 <BlueMatt> so its still a significant improvement over today
8002018-11-29T20:10:49 *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8012018-11-29T20:11:07 *** shesek has quit IRC
8022018-11-29T20:12:05 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8032018-11-29T20:12:05 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8042018-11-29T20:21:04 *** schmidty_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8052018-11-29T20:21:05 *** schmidty has quit IRC
8062018-11-29T20:22:20 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8072018-11-29T20:23:31 *** clarkmoody has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8082018-11-29T20:25:13 *** shesek has quit IRC
8092018-11-29T20:26:04 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8102018-11-29T20:27:55 *** clarkmoody has quit IRC
8112018-11-29T20:33:13 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
8122018-11-29T20:35:40 *** shesek has quit IRC
8132018-11-29T20:37:25 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8142018-11-29T20:43:19 *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8152018-11-29T20:43:21 *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8162018-11-29T20:46:48 *** shesek has quit IRC
8172018-11-29T20:46:48 *** Aaronvan_ is now known as AaronvanW
8182018-11-29T20:47:16 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8192018-11-29T20:47:16 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8202018-11-29T20:47:19 *** zallarak has quit IRC
8212018-11-29T20:47:40 *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
8222018-11-29T20:49:56 *** drexl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8232018-11-29T20:50:14 *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8242018-11-29T20:52:06 *** belcher has quit IRC
8252018-11-29T20:52:19 *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8262018-11-29T20:54:59 *** rex4539 has quit IRC
8272018-11-29T20:55:02 *** e4xit has quit IRC
8282018-11-29T20:59:04 *** marpme has quit IRC
8292018-11-29T21:00:36 *** shesek has quit IRC
8302018-11-29T21:03:51 <jnewbery> sorry, missed the end of the meeting, but big ACK for meshcollider being wallet maintainer ð
8312018-11-29T21:09:48 *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8322018-11-29T21:09:53 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8332018-11-29T21:10:10 <meshcollider> jnewbery: thank you!
8342018-11-29T21:10:35 <luke-jr> [19:38:58] <provoostenator> 1. zero_conf_change_only (default: false) <-- that's too behaviour-specific IMO
8352018-11-29T21:13:33 <luke-jr> I can very well imagine the definition of trusted being revised in the future
8362018-11-29T21:17:04 *** michaelsdunn1 has quit IRC
8372018-11-29T21:19:02 *** michaelsdunn1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8382018-11-29T21:20:07 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8392018-11-29T21:20:35 *** shesek has quit IRC
8402018-11-29T21:22:56 *** promag has quit IRC
8412018-11-29T21:24:05 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8422018-11-29T21:24:05 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8432018-11-29T21:24:21 *** shesek has quit IRC
8442018-11-29T21:25:15 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8452018-11-29T21:25:15 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8462018-11-29T21:27:17 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8472018-11-29T21:34:45 *** shesek has quit IRC
8482018-11-29T21:35:41 *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8492018-11-29T21:36:37 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8502018-11-29T21:37:18 *** mr_paz has quit IRC
8512018-11-29T21:55:53 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
8522018-11-29T22:02:48 *** zallarak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8532018-11-29T22:13:52 <zallarak> Is there any sort of prioritization among open issues? I picked one up to start with, and now in finding the next one to work on, was wondering how to choose.
8542018-11-29T22:20:40 *** schmidty_ has quit IRC
8552018-11-29T22:25:36 *** nullptr| has quit IRC
8562018-11-29T22:27:50 <jnewbery> zallarak: any testing/review of PRs in 'high priority for review' is always appreciated: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
8572018-11-29T22:28:09 *** CodeBlue1776 has quit IRC
8582018-11-29T22:29:22 <hebasto> wumpus: hi, regarding #14409 "This absolutely needs testing in a functional test." Should I submit another PR for this functional test or should it be as another commit in the same PR?
8592018-11-29T22:29:24 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14409 | utils and libraries: Make blocksdir always net specific by hebasto · Pull Request #14409 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
8602018-11-29T22:29:31 <zallarak> jnewbery: excellent, will do.
8612018-11-29T22:29:54 *** CodeBlue1776 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8622018-11-29T22:30:58 <jnewbery> hebasto: same PR please (so they can be reviewed and merged together)
8632018-11-29T22:31:13 *** gribble has quit IRC
8642018-11-29T22:31:17 <hebasto> jnewbery: ty
8652018-11-29T22:31:52 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8662018-11-29T22:32:22 *** nullptr| has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8672018-11-29T22:35:01 *** rh0nj has quit IRC
8682018-11-29T22:36:08 *** rh0nj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8692018-11-29T22:36:32 *** schmidty has quit IRC
8702018-11-29T22:37:48 *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8712018-11-29T22:39:19 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8722018-11-29T22:42:44 *** spinza has quit IRC
8732018-11-29T22:42:53 *** schmidty_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8742018-11-29T22:43:48 *** schmidty has quit IRC
8752018-11-29T22:45:14 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8762018-11-29T22:45:49 *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8772018-11-29T22:47:42 *** schmidty_ has quit IRC
8782018-11-29T22:48:01 *** shesek has quit IRC
8792018-11-29T22:48:46 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8802018-11-29T22:49:36 *** schmidty_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8812018-11-29T22:49:52 *** schmidty has quit IRC
8822018-11-29T22:52:09 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8832018-11-29T22:53:15 <moneyball> Here is the gist I created for weekly meeting topics #proposedmeetingtopic https://gist.github.com/moneyball/071d608fdae217c2a6d7c35955881d8a
8842018-11-29T22:54:15 <moneyball> Perhaps this link is pinned to the channel like the logs for easy access
8852018-11-29T22:54:18 *** schmidty_ has quit IRC
8862018-11-29T22:56:21 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8872018-11-29T22:57:13 *** schmidty has quit IRC
8882018-11-29T22:58:49 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8892018-11-29T23:02:34 *** schmidty has quit IRC
8902018-11-29T23:02:40 *** schmidty_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8912018-11-29T23:05:26 *** shesek has quit IRC
8922018-11-29T23:05:42 *** schmidty_ has quit IRC
8932018-11-29T23:05:51 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8942018-11-29T23:06:28 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8952018-11-29T23:06:28 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8962018-11-29T23:07:43 *** shesek has quit IRC
8972018-11-29T23:08:39 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8982018-11-29T23:10:24 *** schmidty has quit IRC
8992018-11-29T23:10:28 *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
9002018-11-29T23:10:56 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9012018-11-29T23:11:11 *** rafalcpp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9022018-11-29T23:11:22 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9032018-11-29T23:12:29 <promag> meshcollider: congrats!
9042018-11-29T23:14:26 *** hebasto_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9052018-11-29T23:14:31 *** hebasto has quit IRC
9062018-11-29T23:17:42 <meshcollider> promag: thank you!
9072018-11-29T23:17:50 <meshcollider> moneyball: +1 for pin
9082018-11-29T23:18:54 *** schmidty has quit IRC
9092018-11-29T23:24:02 *** michaels_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9102018-11-29T23:26:16 *** michaelsdunn1 has quit IRC
9112018-11-29T23:26:17 *** arubi_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9122018-11-29T23:26:50 *** promag has quit IRC
9132018-11-29T23:27:13 *** arubi has quit IRC
9142018-11-29T23:27:40 *** Apocalyptic has quit IRC
9152018-11-29T23:32:03 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9162018-11-29T23:32:59 *** shesek has quit IRC
9172018-11-29T23:33:30 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9182018-11-29T23:34:32 *** Apocalyptic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9192018-11-29T23:37:06 *** shesek has quit IRC
9202018-11-29T23:37:07 *** schmidty has quit IRC
9212018-11-29T23:37:54 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9222018-11-29T23:37:54 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9232018-11-29T23:37:57 *** shesek has quit IRC
9242018-11-29T23:38:23 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9252018-11-29T23:38:23 *** shesek has quit IRC
9262018-11-29T23:38:23 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9272018-11-29T23:40:20 *** blackbear01 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9282018-11-29T23:53:03 <gleb> Who I should ask to add me to that ping list at the beginning of the meeting? wumpus ? I keep coming one hour later...
9292018-11-29T23:53:08 *** shesek has quit IRC
9302018-11-29T23:53:47 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9312018-11-29T23:58:16 *** spinza has quit IRC