1 2020-05-28T00:00:02  *** Guest8623 has quit IRC
  2 2020-05-28T00:00:27  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
  3 2020-05-28T00:01:10  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
  4 2020-05-28T00:01:19  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  5 2020-05-28T00:06:20  *** kaftejiman has left #bitcoin-core-dev
  6 2020-05-28T00:14:16  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  7 2020-05-28T00:15:40  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  8 2020-05-28T00:15:40  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ajtowns opened pull request #19084: net: add comments on dns seed behaviour (master...202005-dns-seed-doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19084
  9 2020-05-28T00:15:41  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 10 2020-05-28T00:18:23  *** RC-3004 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 11 2020-05-28T00:20:11  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
 12 2020-05-28T00:21:03  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 13 2020-05-28T00:34:27  *** promag has quit IRC
 14 2020-05-28T00:37:57  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 15 2020-05-28T00:42:28  *** promag has quit IRC
 16 2020-05-28T00:51:22  *** jarthur has quit IRC
 17 2020-05-28T01:20:25  *** proofofk_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 18 2020-05-28T01:20:39  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
 19 2020-05-28T01:21:12  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2020-05-28T01:24:57  *** proofofk_ has quit IRC
 21 2020-05-28T01:33:03  *** PaulTroon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 22 2020-05-28T01:38:02  *** PaulTroon has quit IRC
 23 2020-05-28T01:41:46  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 24 2020-05-28T01:49:11  *** roconnor has quit IRC
 25 2020-05-28T02:29:41  *** sdaftuar has quit IRC
 26 2020-05-28T02:30:03  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
 27 2020-05-28T02:30:07  *** sdaftuar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 28 2020-05-28T02:40:07  *** shesek has quit IRC
 29 2020-05-28T02:40:33  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 30 2020-05-28T02:40:33  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 31 2020-05-28T02:50:19  *** Relis has quit IRC
 32 2020-05-28T02:55:52  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
 33 2020-05-28T02:57:27  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 34 2020-05-28T03:00:02  *** RC-3004 has quit IRC
 35 2020-05-28T03:01:24  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 36 2020-05-28T03:01:24  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #19085: Refactor: clean up PeriodicFlush() (master...2020-05-refactor-periodic-flush) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19085
 37 2020-05-28T03:01:25  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 38 2020-05-28T03:01:38  *** tylerdmace has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 39 2020-05-28T03:06:30  *** Relis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 40 2020-05-28T03:17:14  *** surja795 has quit IRC
 41 2020-05-28T03:21:13  *** Darki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 42 2020-05-28T03:22:09  *** surja795 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 43 2020-05-28T03:26:24  *** surja795 has quit IRC
 44 2020-05-28T04:01:41  <jeremyrubin> For #18191 I'm really conflicted with what to do on the compiler warnings that jonatack is reporting. The const txiter that I wrote is intentionally const. I'm a const-me-if-you-can beleiver. But it causes a false-positive compiler warning on certain clangs, and I don't love removing a safety annotation for a compiler warning.
 45 2020-05-28T04:01:44  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18191 | Change UpdateForDescendants to use Epochs by JeremyRubin · Pull Request #18191 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 46 2020-05-28T04:02:07  <jeremyrubin> I'm happy to do whatever wumpus says I should do here
 47 2020-05-28T04:06:36  <sipa> jeremyrubin: making it const txiter& isn't removing any safety?
 48 2020-05-28T04:07:07  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 49 2020-05-28T04:13:13  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 50 2020-05-28T04:14:04  *** Relis has quit IRC
 51 2020-05-28T04:16:11  <jeremyrubin> Ah right I am a bit foggy today I misremembered what the fix is and why I didn't like it. I think maybe if we should change this code, it's maybe worth style guiding to not use copy vs ref or remove -Wrange-loop-analysis if we don't want to require it
 52 2020-05-28T04:16:37  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
 53 2020-05-28T04:21:02  <sipa> i think for any moderately decent optimizing compiler, passing by reference is never worse (and often better)
 54 2020-05-28T04:23:43  *** vasild has quit IRC
 55 2020-05-28T04:23:57  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 56 2020-05-28T04:24:00  <sipa> so the advice of -Wrange-loop-analysis always applies
 57 2020-05-28T04:26:47  <jeremyrubin> ok I guess i'll squash in changing them. My frustration is less so about this one in specific and more so that there's like 30 some odd other commits that I need to re-write for this warning for the pending work on the mempool project.
 58 2020-05-28T04:27:11  <jeremyrubin> Is there any way that gcc can throw this warning as well or we can make it more reliably triggered?
 59 2020-05-28T04:27:48  *** jarthur has quit IRC
 60 2020-05-28T04:30:13  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 61 2020-05-28T04:30:50  <jeremyrubin> I re-asked this on the github thread in case anyone knows
 62 2020-05-28T04:30:55  <jeremyrubin> 'night
 63 2020-05-28T04:32:58  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
 64 2020-05-28T04:35:28  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 65 2020-05-28T04:39:34  *** promag has quit IRC
 66 2020-05-28T04:58:39  *** bitdex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 67 2020-05-28T05:00:24  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
 68 2020-05-28T05:00:51  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 69 2020-05-28T05:09:15  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 70 2020-05-28T05:17:58  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
 71 2020-05-28T05:25:11  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 72 2020-05-28T05:33:42  *** Wendell69Maggio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 73 2020-05-28T05:45:49  *** Wendell69Maggio has quit IRC
 74 2020-05-28T06:00:01  *** Darki has quit IRC
 75 2020-05-28T06:06:24  *** danielyin has quit IRC
 76 2020-05-28T06:19:51  *** Harwood has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 77 2020-05-28T06:25:38  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 78 2020-05-28T06:25:38  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] lareq opened pull request #19086: fixed typo - polish translation (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19086
 79 2020-05-28T06:25:39  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 80 2020-05-28T06:26:48  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 81 2020-05-28T06:26:48  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #19086: fixed typo - polish translation (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19086
 82 2020-05-28T06:26:49  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 83 2020-05-28T06:41:15  *** frogar has quit IRC
 84 2020-05-28T06:41:36  *** frogar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 85 2020-05-28T06:51:51  *** johanna1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 86 2020-05-28T06:52:50  *** PaulTroon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 87 2020-05-28T07:12:47  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 88 2020-05-28T07:15:02  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 89 2020-05-28T07:16:29  *** jonatack_ has quit IRC
 90 2020-05-28T07:17:24  *** jonatack_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 91 2020-05-28T07:18:40  *** jonatack_ has quit IRC
 92 2020-05-28T07:19:53  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
 93 2020-05-28T07:28:56  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 94 2020-05-28T07:34:49  *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
 95 2020-05-28T07:36:34  *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 96 2020-05-28T07:38:33  *** Deacyde has quit IRC
 97 2020-05-28T07:40:25  *** Deacyde has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 98 2020-05-28T07:42:14  *** johanna1 has quit IRC
 99 2020-05-28T07:42:36  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
100 2020-05-28T07:50:41  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
101 2020-05-28T07:50:41  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #19088: validation: use std::chrono throughout some validation functions (master...validation_chrono) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19088
102 2020-05-28T07:50:49  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
103 2020-05-28T07:54:01  *** yojoots has quit IRC
104 2020-05-28T07:54:14  *** yojoots has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
105 2020-05-28T07:55:44  *** kljasdfvv has quit IRC
106 2020-05-28T07:57:46  *** kljasdfvv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
107 2020-05-28T07:58:26  *** jonatack has quit IRC
108 2020-05-28T08:00:40  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
109 2020-05-28T08:03:39  *** lehnberg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2020-05-28T08:06:49  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
111 2020-05-28T08:07:10  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
112 2020-05-28T08:19:23  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
113 2020-05-28T08:20:38  *** Mister_X1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
114 2020-05-28T08:29:54  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
115 2020-05-28T08:30:14  *** kristapsk has quit IRC
116 2020-05-28T08:30:40  *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
117 2020-05-28T08:34:21  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
118 2020-05-28T08:37:20  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
119 2020-05-28T08:38:11  *** jonatack has quit IRC
120 2020-05-28T08:38:40  *** jonatack_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
121 2020-05-28T09:00:02  *** Mister_X1 has quit IRC
122 2020-05-28T09:18:16  *** Luke-Jr-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
123 2020-05-28T09:21:05  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
124 2020-05-28T09:37:26  *** jonatack_ has quit IRC
125 2020-05-28T09:39:53  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
126 2020-05-28T09:40:10  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
127 2020-05-28T09:43:57  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
128 2020-05-28T09:44:18  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
129 2020-05-28T09:46:02  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
130 2020-05-28T09:47:51  *** mrostecki has quit IRC
131 2020-05-28T09:53:05  *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132 2020-05-28T09:53:31  *** shesek has quit IRC
133 2020-05-28T09:55:48  *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
134 2020-05-28T09:56:06  <hebasto> MarcoFalke: recent changes in #19064 introduced new circular deps. Which is the best: revert changes or allow new circular deps?
135 2020-05-28T09:56:09  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19064 | refactor: Cleanup thread ctor calls by hebasto · Pull Request #19064 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
136 2020-05-28T09:58:12  *** shaunsun has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
137 2020-05-28T09:58:42  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
138 2020-05-28T10:00:04  *** shaunsun_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
139 2020-05-28T10:02:36  *** shaunsun has quit IRC
140 2020-05-28T10:03:18  *** Mabelle34Bartole has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
141 2020-05-28T10:06:14  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
142 2020-05-28T10:08:07  *** Mabelle34Bartole has quit IRC
143 2020-05-28T10:11:07  *** surja795 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
144 2020-05-28T10:15:59  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
145 2020-05-28T10:17:39  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
146 2020-05-28T10:20:17  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
147 2020-05-28T10:22:13  *** midnight has quit IRC
148 2020-05-28T10:23:41  *** midnight has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2020-05-28T10:24:43  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
150 2020-05-28T10:31:03  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
151 2020-05-28T10:31:03  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152 2020-05-28T10:35:46  *** PaulTroon has quit IRC
153 2020-05-28T10:38:30  *** promag has quit IRC
154 2020-05-28T10:39:19  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
155 2020-05-28T10:39:55  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
156 2020-05-28T10:44:14  *** promag has quit IRC
157 2020-05-28T11:04:50  *** PaulTroon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
158 2020-05-28T11:07:59  <wumpus> hebasto: as the goal of the PR is only 'readabillity and maintainability' I'd err on the site of reverting the part that introduces the circular dependency
159 2020-05-28T11:08:23  <wumpus> if it was anything critical like a bugfix or feeature I'd say otherwise
160 2020-05-28T11:10:03  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
161 2020-05-28T11:12:26  *** jonatack has quit IRC
162 2020-05-28T11:13:39  <hebasto> wumpus: thanks
163 2020-05-28T11:14:41  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
164 2020-05-28T11:26:55  <wumpus> in general we have checks like 'prevent circular dependencies' because we want to work toward a state where there are none, ideally all commits should leave the source in a better state in that regard than they found is
165 2020-05-28T11:30:22  <wumpus> or at least not worse
166 2020-05-28T11:44:25  *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
167 2020-05-28T11:50:14  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
168 2020-05-28T11:55:26  *** Zenton has quit IRC
169 2020-05-28T11:55:39  *** promag has quit IRC
170 2020-05-28T11:59:57  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
171 2020-05-28T11:59:57  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #19089: cli, test, doc: bitcoin-cli -getinfo multiwallet balances follow-ups (master...cli-getinfo-multiwallet-follow-ups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19089
172 2020-05-28T11:59:58  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
173 2020-05-28T12:00:02  *** Luke-Jr-jr has quit IRC
174 2020-05-28T12:16:21  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
175 2020-05-28T12:17:05  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
176 2020-05-28T12:23:37  *** jonatack has quit IRC
177 2020-05-28T12:33:58  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
178 2020-05-28T12:34:25  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
179 2020-05-28T12:49:54  *** Guest37028 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
180 2020-05-28T12:56:05  *** Relis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
181 2020-05-28T13:03:46  *** Guyver2_ has quit IRC
182 2020-05-28T13:03:53  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
183 2020-05-28T13:03:54  *** Relis has quit IRC
184 2020-05-28T13:07:34  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
185 2020-05-28T13:07:34  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #19090: refactor: Misc scheduler cleanups (master...2005-schedulerCleanup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19090
186 2020-05-28T13:07:35  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
187 2020-05-28T13:08:54  *** jonatack has quit IRC
188 2020-05-28T13:10:25  *** troygiorshev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
189 2020-05-28T13:11:00  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
190 2020-05-28T13:13:09  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
191 2020-05-28T13:13:34  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192 2020-05-28T13:15:41  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
193 2020-05-28T13:21:13  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
194 2020-05-28T13:31:55  *** shesek has quit IRC
195 2020-05-28T13:34:40  *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
196 2020-05-28T13:44:48  *** jonatack has quit IRC
197 2020-05-28T13:46:43  *** troygiorshev has quit IRC
198 2020-05-28T13:47:35  *** Relis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
199 2020-05-28T13:48:07  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
200 2020-05-28T13:50:58  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
201 2020-05-28T13:51:36  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
202 2020-05-28T13:54:28  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
203 2020-05-28T13:55:14  *** d_t has quit IRC
204 2020-05-28T14:11:35  *** a5m0 has quit IRC
205 2020-05-28T14:17:49  *** a5m0 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
206 2020-05-28T14:23:38  *** a5m0 has quit IRC
207 2020-05-28T14:24:30  *** a5m0 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
208 2020-05-28T14:31:45  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
209 2020-05-28T14:32:44  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
210 2020-05-28T14:33:48  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
211 2020-05-28T14:35:05  *** lehnberg has quit IRC
212 2020-05-28T14:35:15  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
213 2020-05-28T14:35:20  *** lehnberg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
214 2020-05-28T14:36:10  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
215 2020-05-28T14:48:59  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
216 2020-05-28T14:49:24  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
217 2020-05-28T14:50:36  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
218 2020-05-28T14:50:37  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 6 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/55b4c65bd1d8...082a417abcce
219 2020-05-28T14:50:38  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 79be487 Hennadii Stepanov: Add thread safety annotated wrapper for std::mutex
220 2020-05-28T14:50:39  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master dfb75ae Hennadii Stepanov: refactor: Rename LockGuard to StdLockGuard for consistency with StdMutex
221 2020-05-28T14:50:40  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 971a468 Hennadii Stepanov: Use template function instead of void* parameter
222 2020-05-28T14:50:41  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
223 2020-05-28T14:51:06  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
224 2020-05-28T14:51:06  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #18635: Replace -Wthread-safety-analysis with broader -Wthread-safety (master...200414-threads) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18635
225 2020-05-28T14:51:07  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
226 2020-05-28T15:00:02  *** Guest37028 has quit IRC
227 2020-05-28T15:08:30  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
228 2020-05-28T15:15:03  *** mrostecki has quit IRC
229 2020-05-28T15:16:35  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
230 2020-05-28T15:17:16  *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
231 2020-05-28T15:18:14  *** Toflar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232 2020-05-28T15:20:06  *** Highway62 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
233 2020-05-28T15:21:39  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
234 2020-05-28T15:21:39  *** Highway62 is now known as Highway61
235 2020-05-28T15:30:38  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
236 2020-05-28T15:32:05  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
237 2020-05-28T15:33:10  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
238 2020-05-28T15:34:08  *** kristapsk_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
239 2020-05-28T15:34:31  *** kristapsk has quit IRC
240 2020-05-28T15:38:28  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
241 2020-05-28T15:39:23  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
242 2020-05-28T15:41:27  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
243 2020-05-28T15:43:22  *** troygiorshev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
244 2020-05-28T15:53:03  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
245 2020-05-28T15:53:30  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
246 2020-05-28T15:55:48  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
247 2020-05-28T15:55:49  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/082a417abcce...ea3e9e0b84c5
248 2020-05-28T15:55:49  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e8fa0a3 Samuel Dobson: Fix WSL file locking by using flock instead of fcntl
249 2020-05-28T15:55:49  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ea3e9e0 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #18700: Fix locking on WSL using flock instead of fcntl
250 2020-05-28T15:55:51  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
251 2020-05-28T15:56:19  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252 2020-05-28T15:56:19  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #18700: Fix locking on WSL using flock instead of fcntl (master...202004_file_lock_windows) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18700
253 2020-05-28T15:56:20  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
254 2020-05-28T15:57:01  *** PaulTroon has quit IRC
255 2020-05-28T16:05:01  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
256 2020-05-28T16:08:45  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
257 2020-05-28T16:12:04  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
258 2020-05-28T16:17:31  <MarcoFalke> #proposedmeetingtopic 0.20.0-final
259 2020-05-28T16:17:50  <MarcoFalke> #proposedmeetingtopic separate repo for the gui
260 2020-05-28T16:17:56  *** PaulTroon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
261 2020-05-28T16:19:52  *** Talkless has quit IRC
262 2020-05-28T16:20:21  *** vasild_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
263 2020-05-28T16:20:32  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
264 2020-05-28T16:23:14  *** Highway62 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
265 2020-05-28T16:24:03  *** vasild has quit IRC
266 2020-05-28T16:24:04  *** vasild_ is now known as vasild
267 2020-05-28T16:24:34  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
268 2020-05-28T16:24:34  *** Highway62 is now known as Highway61
269 2020-05-28T16:25:58  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
270 2020-05-28T16:29:44  *** Relis has quit IRC
271 2020-05-28T16:32:56  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
272 2020-05-28T16:34:43  *** Relis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
273 2020-05-28T16:36:19  *** PaulTroon has quit IRC
274 2020-05-28T16:46:04  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
275 2020-05-28T16:46:05  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #19092: cli: display multiwallet total balance in -getinfo (master...cli-getinfo-multiwallet-total-balance) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19092
276 2020-05-28T16:46:06  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
277 2020-05-28T16:51:13  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
278 2020-05-28T16:51:43  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
279 2020-05-28T16:54:34  *** joerodgers has quit IRC
280 2020-05-28T16:58:47  *** Sammie51Dibbert has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
281 2020-05-28T17:04:23  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
282 2020-05-28T17:05:24  *** timothy has quit IRC
283 2020-05-28T17:05:44  *** Sammie51Dibbert has quit IRC
284 2020-05-28T17:07:33  *** mmitech_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
285 2020-05-28T17:12:49  *** troygiorshev has quit IRC
286 2020-05-28T17:22:53  *** cltrbreak_MAD2 has quit IRC
287 2020-05-28T17:23:21  *** cltrbreak_MAD2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
288 2020-05-28T17:23:29  *** Hilario58Smith has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
289 2020-05-28T17:30:21  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
290 2020-05-28T17:30:22  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] rajarshimaitra opened pull request #19093: RPC: testmempoolaccept returns transaction fee (master...fee-trial3) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19093
291 2020-05-28T17:30:22  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
292 2020-05-28T17:33:22  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
293 2020-05-28T17:36:20  *** mol_ has quit IRC
294 2020-05-28T17:37:22  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
295 2020-05-28T17:37:22  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #19094: build: Only allow ASCII identifiers (master...2020_05_no_extended_identifiers) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19094
296 2020-05-28T17:37:23  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
297 2020-05-28T17:38:56  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
298 2020-05-28T17:38:57  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #19095: [tools] Update clang-format config for multi-line function declarations and calls (master...2020-05-clang-tidy) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19095
299 2020-05-28T17:38:58  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
300 2020-05-28T17:39:47  *** troygiorshev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
301 2020-05-28T17:49:49  *** Hilario58Smith has quit IRC
302 2020-05-28T17:50:56  *** Noemi32Moore has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
303 2020-05-28T17:53:16  *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
304 2020-05-28T17:55:07  *** Highway62 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
305 2020-05-28T17:56:37  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
306 2020-05-28T17:56:38  *** Highway62 is now known as Highway61
307 2020-05-28T17:58:14  *** Noemi32Moore has quit IRC
308 2020-05-28T18:00:02  *** Toflar has quit IRC
309 2020-05-28T18:05:06  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
310 2020-05-28T18:05:06  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #19096: Remove g_rpc_chain global (master...pr/wc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19096
311 2020-05-28T18:05:18  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
312 2020-05-28T18:16:30  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
313 2020-05-28T18:20:54  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
314 2020-05-28T18:21:04  *** promag has quit IRC
315 2020-05-28T18:21:09  *** promag_ is now known as promag
316 2020-05-28T18:21:42  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
317 2020-05-28T18:22:09  *** esandeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
318 2020-05-28T18:22:41  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
319 2020-05-28T18:29:20  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
320 2020-05-28T18:29:20  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
321 2020-05-28T18:29:34  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
322 2020-05-28T18:34:42  *** lehnberg has quit IRC
323 2020-05-28T18:48:14  *** go11111111111 is now known as go1111111
324 2020-05-28T18:58:56  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
325 2020-05-28T18:58:56  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #19097: qt: Add missing QPainterPath include (master...qpainterpath-include) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19097
326 2020-05-28T18:58:57  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
327 2020-05-28T19:00:39  <wumpus> #startmeeting
328 2020-05-28T19:00:39  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu May 28 19:00:39 2020 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
329 2020-05-28T19:00:39  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
330 2020-05-28T19:00:47  <achow101> hi
331 2020-05-28T19:00:48  <sipa> hi
332 2020-05-28T19:00:48  <fjahr> hi
333 2020-05-28T19:00:50  <provoostenator> hi
334 2020-05-28T19:00:55  <jnewbery> hi
335 2020-05-28T19:01:01  <instagibbs> hi
336 2020-05-28T19:01:06  <amiti> hi
337 2020-05-28T19:01:07  <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator aj Chris_Stewart_5 dongcarl gwillen jamesob ken281221 ryanofsky gleb moneyball kvaciral ariard digi_james amiti fjahr
338 2020-05-28T19:01:09  <harding> hi
339 2020-05-28T19:01:09  <wumpus> jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55 elichai2
340 2020-05-28T19:01:17  <promag> hi
341 2020-05-28T19:01:29  <jamesob> Hi
342 2020-05-28T19:01:31  <dongcarl> hi
343 2020-05-28T19:01:45  <troygiorshev> hi
344 2020-05-28T19:01:45  <ariard> hi
345 2020-05-28T19:01:46  <aj> hi
346 2020-05-28T19:01:47  <wumpus> two proposed topics (by MarcoFalke): 0.20.0-final, separate repo for the gui
347 2020-05-28T19:02:08  <MarcoFalke> hi, anyone heard or seen of issues with 0.20.0?
348 2020-05-28T19:02:22  <kanzure> hi
349 2020-05-28T19:02:23  <wumpus> none!
350 2020-05-28T19:02:26  <sipa> yes, it's not released yet
351 2020-05-28T19:02:32  <MarcoFalke> *rc2
352 2020-05-28T19:02:38  <sipa> ;)
353 2020-05-28T19:02:46  <MarcoFalke> ah
354 2020-05-28T19:03:06  <jonasschnelli> hi
355 2020-05-28T19:03:19  <provoostenator> I'm using rc2 on a Linux and macOS machine, so far so good.
356 2020-05-28T19:03:22  <wumpus> if not, it's probably time to do the release soon
357 2020-05-28T19:03:53  <MarcoFalke> ack
358 2020-05-28T19:04:32  <wumpus> #topic High priority for review
359 2020-05-28T19:04:50  <fjahr> #18000 can be removed from chasing concept ACK
360 2020-05-28T19:04:52  <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8  currently 5 blockers, 1 bugfix, 4 chasing concept ACK
361 2020-05-28T19:04:53  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18000 | [WIP] Index for UTXO Set Statistics by fjahr · Pull Request #18000 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
362 2020-05-28T19:05:00  <MarcoFalke> Can I exchange mine for #18968 plz
363 2020-05-28T19:05:02  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18968 | doc: noban precludes maxuploadtarget disconnects by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #18968 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
364 2020-05-28T19:05:07  <achow101> add ##18971
365 2020-05-28T19:05:09  <wumpus> fjahr: done
366 2020-05-28T19:05:10  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18971 | wallet: Refactor the classes in wallet/db.{cpp/h} by achow101 · Pull Request #18971 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
367 2020-05-28T19:05:12  <fjahr> And i would like to add #19055 to blockers, it’s the start of #18000 being split up
368 2020-05-28T19:05:14  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19055 | Calculate UTXO set hash using Muhash by fjahr · Pull Request #19055 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
369 2020-05-28T19:05:16  <promag> #19033 its tagged for 0.20
370 2020-05-28T19:05:16  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18000 | [WIP] Index for UTXO Set Statistics by fjahr · Pull Request #18000 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
371 2020-05-28T19:05:18  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19033 | http: Release work queue after event base finish by promag · Pull Request #19033 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
372 2020-05-28T19:05:35  *** nullptr| has quit IRC
373 2020-05-28T19:05:54  <sipa> can i have #18468 ?
374 2020-05-28T19:05:57  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18468 | Span improvements by sipa · Pull Request #18468 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
375 2020-05-28T19:06:11  *** nullptr| has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
376 2020-05-28T19:06:13  <sipa> also, thanks everyone for getting the serialization improvements in
377 2020-05-28T19:06:18  <sipa> it took a while :)
378 2020-05-28T19:06:19  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: done
379 2020-05-28T19:06:33  <provoostenator> I'd like to nominate #15382
380 2020-05-28T19:06:36  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15382 | util: add runCommandParseJSON by Sjors · Pull Request #15382 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
381 2020-05-28T19:06:56  *** shaunsun_ has quit IRC
382 2020-05-28T19:06:59  <jonatack> hi
383 2020-05-28T19:07:21  <provoostenator> For code review, but if it gets stuck in another concept discussion, we can bump it to that column.
384 2020-05-28T19:08:36  <wumpus> achow101, sipa, fjahr: added
385 2020-05-28T19:08:44  <wumpus> sipa: yess finally
386 2020-05-28T19:08:46  <sipa> thanks
387 2020-05-28T19:08:50  <fjahr> Thank you!
388 2020-05-28T19:09:26  <MarcoFalke> sipa: Was good that they were split up into reviewable chunks
389 2020-05-28T19:09:32  <wumpus> provoostenator: added
390 2020-05-28T19:09:39  <wumpus> right, that really helped
391 2020-05-28T19:10:49  *** shaunsun has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
392 2020-05-28T19:11:16  <wumpus> promag: added
393 2020-05-28T19:11:26  <sipa> MarcoFalke: yes, it really helped; the resulting changes were much better than the original monolithic PR too
394 2020-05-28T19:11:35  *** Talkless has quit IRC
395 2020-05-28T19:11:40  <MarcoFalke> #18971 has almost 20 commits and changes 1000 lines of code. that sounds like a whole afternoon of review. I wonder if it can be split up as well
396 2020-05-28T19:11:43  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18971 | wallet: Refactor the classes in wallet/db.{cpp/h} by achow101 · Pull Request #18971 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
397 2020-05-28T19:12:09  <achow101> MarcoFalke: I'll look into it
398 2020-05-28T19:12:41  <provoostenator> achow101: MarcoFalke I'm getting used to the behemoths :-)
399 2020-05-28T19:12:51  <wumpus> achow101: great work on the sqlite wallet stuff
400 2020-05-28T19:12:58  <jamesob> if high prio list isn't too full, can add #18637?
401 2020-05-28T19:13:00  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18637 | coins: allow cache resize after init by jamesob · Pull Request #18637 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
402 2020-05-28T19:13:30  <MarcoFalke> jamesob: Every contributor is allowed to add one thing, so it's not full yet for you ;)
403 2020-05-28T19:13:44  * sipa spins up his sybils
404 2020-05-28T19:14:02  <wumpus> jamesob: added
405 2020-05-28T19:14:09  <jamesob> thanks maintainers
406 2020-05-28T19:15:22  <wumpus> #topic Separate repository for GUI (MarcoFalke)
407 2020-05-28T19:15:25  <MarcoFalke> Some more background in #19071
408 2020-05-28T19:15:27  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19071 | [WIP RFC DONOTMERGE] meta: Separate repository for the gui by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #19071 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
409 2020-05-28T19:16:48  <wumpus> I like the idea at least
410 2020-05-28T19:17:13  <provoostenator> Same, it seems worth a try and easy to reverse.
411 2020-05-28T19:17:15  <MarcoFalke> It is hard to predict if that is going to be benefical for the GUI (Does it increase review or decrease?)
412 2020-05-28T19:17:23  <jnewbery> concept ACK. Haven't thought too much about the approach
413 2020-05-28T19:17:30  <achow101> i feel like that might kill the gui further..
414 2020-05-28T19:17:30  <wumpus> I'd like it to increase contributions mainly
415 2020-05-28T19:17:39  <MarcoFalke> Yes, the change is only "meta" (no build system changes), so it should be trivial to revert
416 2020-05-28T19:17:54  <wumpus> currently it's *scary* to contribute to the GUI being part of the same repository as the consensus code
417 2020-05-28T19:17:55  <MarcoFalke> wumpus: Same, and I think it will.
418 2020-05-28T19:18:00  <wumpus> this turns away some ppl
419 2020-05-28T19:18:04  <jonasschnelli> Yeah. Definitively worth a try.
420 2020-05-28T19:18:27  <jamesob> wumpus: do you really think it actually turns away people, just that GUI is under bitcoin/bitcoin?
421 2020-05-28T19:18:34  <wumpus> jamesob: yes
422 2020-05-28T19:18:36  <MarcoFalke> The GUI review isn't in the best state anyway right now. It can't get much worse tbh
423 2020-05-28T19:18:39  <wumpus> the bar is really high
424 2020-05-28T19:18:51  <provoostenator> It's hard to predict. The smaller Github repo might create more of a critical mass for GUI devs. Or it slows down. But in that case we can undo.
425 2020-05-28T19:18:57  <jamesob> wumpus: but won't process be the same in the GUI "repo"?
426 2020-05-28T19:18:58  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: also true, we could get some more people involed then too
427 2020-05-28T19:19:14  <jonatack> I think the key question is if it will draw new contributors to it.
428 2020-05-28T19:19:42  <wumpus> jamesob: the process, yeah, I guess, but we don't have to have exactly the same team there
429 2020-05-28T19:19:51  <MarcoFalke> jonatack: Even if it didn't draw any new contributors, but the existing ones can more effectively work on core or the gui (or both), then that is already a win, imo
430 2020-05-28T19:19:53  <promag> but in what way does it ease new comers and progress if it's another repo? and at the end its all built together?
431 2020-05-28T19:19:58  <jamesob> afaict all this change (as proposed) accomplishes is segmentation of email/github alerts & issue/PR queues  - and I'm certainly not knocking that
432 2020-05-28T19:20:26  <wumpus> promag: marcofalke's work is one step
433 2020-05-28T19:20:28  <MarcoFalke> jamesob: Yes, it is mostly a meta way to form different notification streams
434 2020-05-28T19:20:39  <wumpus> I think eventually the GUI should evolve faster / partially separate from the rest
435 2020-05-28T19:20:42  <jonasschnelli> The PR/issue separation is IMO already solvable
436 2020-05-28T19:20:55  <promag> isn't it better to do this after multiprocess is in?
437 2020-05-28T19:20:58  <wumpus> but even separating things like issues is probably good
438 2020-05-28T19:21:04  <wumpus> promag: it doesn't matter
439 2020-05-28T19:21:22  <provoostenator> I've _rarely_ used the GUI tag to look for GUI PR's. I don't know if I'm more likely to look at a seperate repo, but I image that I'm reviewing 1 GUI PR, I'm more likely to notice another one.
440 2020-05-28T19:21:46  <wumpus> the current repository just has too wide a scope
441 2020-05-28T19:22:15  <wumpus> it makes sense, conceptually, in the long term to separate things out so why not try to make a little progress
442 2020-05-28T19:22:16  <MarcoFalke> It is not only about the tag, but any kind of communication or notifications
443 2020-05-28T19:22:16  <harding> I think it's important for Bitcoin Core to continue to ship releases with a default GUI, which this allows, and making it easier for people to follow just GUI issues sounds very nice to me, so +1
444 2020-05-28T19:22:25  <jnewbery> promag: there aren't any dependencies between separating GUI into a different repo and multiprocess
445 2020-05-28T19:22:27  <troygiorshev> i can imagine it may help attract people who are more UI/UX focused, and who would be scared away by the breadth of the main repo
446 2020-05-28T19:22:33  <wumpus> harding: yeah what we ship is not going to change
447 2020-05-28T19:23:07  <harding> wumpus: excellent!  I was rather worried about that when I saw the proposed meeting topic.
448 2020-05-28T19:23:07  <gwillen> jnewbery: I was going to kind of ask about the same thing, I imagine that a clean interface separation would make it much easier for people to work on the GUI with confidence about not touching anything in consensus or whatever
449 2020-05-28T19:23:08  <jamesob> troygiorshev: per this proposal, the breadth in terms of code will be the same (which I think may confuse people)
450 2020-05-28T19:23:09  <wumpus> troygiorshev: right
451 2020-05-28T19:23:20  *** joerodgers has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452 2020-05-28T19:23:25  <MarcoFalke> I think the only requirement for this split was the src/interfaces cleanup, because previously the gui directly accessed node globals and state IIRC
453 2020-05-28T19:23:26  <wumpus> gwillen: there is a clear interface separation already
454 2020-05-28T19:23:29  *** jarthur has quit IRC
455 2020-05-28T19:23:30  <jnewbery> gwillen: there already is clean interface separation
456 2020-05-28T19:23:45  <wumpus> has been there, for a while
457 2020-05-28T19:24:13  <achow101> I think this will make some wallet improvements harder. the gui almost has direct access to wallet things and some wallet changes have an effect on the gui
458 2020-05-28T19:24:15  <gwillen> I guess a lot of GUI changes do respect that, it's my own fault that my own GUI changes also require changes to that interface and so touch both sides
459 2020-05-28T19:24:40  <achow101> so then you end up with having a wallet change that requires simultaneous gui changes. with 2 repos, that's more difficult
460 2020-05-28T19:24:57  <jnewbery> at the moment, both sides of that interface are in the same process. But everything goes through src/interfaces/node
461 2020-05-28T19:25:01  <promag> but whats the idea? someone clones the gui repo, pulls core somehow and builds eveything?
462 2020-05-28T19:25:15  <gwillen> one thing I see a lot of is the GUI reaching "through" the interface layer to grab a direct pointer to an object on the other side and twiddle it
463 2020-05-28T19:25:27  <gwillen> but anyway maybe this is off the current topic
464 2020-05-28T19:25:29  <wumpus> achow101: for most things the GUI shouldn't care about the *kind* of wallet though
465 2020-05-28T19:26:08  <jnewbery> that interface was introduced a couple of years ago and has been cleaned up continually. If separating the GUI dev process into a separate repo makes us clean it up faster, so much the better!
466 2020-05-28T19:26:11  <wumpus> achow101: e.g. imagine the GUI or some other software accesses the core wallet through RPC, why would it care the wallet was implemented differently?
467 2020-05-28T19:26:27  <MarcoFalke> achow101: If a wallet change has an effect on the gui (e.g. a wallet method was renamed), then that simply goes into the main repo
468 2020-05-28T19:26:28  <sipa> i don't have much of an opinion on the repo separation here... i'm skeptical that it will help, but i agree it's easy to revert if not
469 2020-05-28T19:26:31  <wumpus> achow101: seems also a matter of interface design
470 2020-05-28T19:27:02  <jamesob> it sounds like some people are conflating this proposal with having separate source trees in separate repos; the proposal as-is (IIUC) is to have the same source tree in two separate github repos just to segment github workflow
471 2020-05-28T19:27:03  <promag> adding stuff to core+gui at the same time will take longer too right?
472 2020-05-28T19:27:15  <wumpus> promag: yes
473 2020-05-28T19:27:37  <wumpus> promag: but the preferred flow *already* is, and has been for a long time: implement it in bitcoind, then later add it to the GUI
474 2020-05-28T19:27:45  <MarcoFalke> I also don't think we will see groundbreaking changes, but at least we can gather some data points and experience. And based on those a future "complete" split will be easier to reject or accept.
475 2020-05-28T19:28:08  <sipa> as for better defined interfaces... if the hope is that this will result in more GUI work, and that happens, I expect we'll find out that more work on the GUI will entail more changes to the interface as well... and having things in separate repositories will only complicate things (i realize that this is not what this PR does, but if that's the eventual goal... it can cut both ways)
476 2020-05-28T19:28:26  <jamesob> sipa: agreed
477 2020-05-28T19:28:34  <jnewbery> sipa: sounds like a good problem
478 2020-05-28T19:28:34  <wumpus> I like to split up the repository, ideally I'd like to have started at seperating out consensus code, but we all agree it's much harder than the GUI :)
479 2020-05-28T19:28:39  <achow101> wumpus: I think a specific example of what I'm talking about was with descriptor wallets and watchonly. The GUI had to display different things for descriptor wallets because of the different watchonly behavior, so there needed to be simultaneous wallet and gui changes otherwise the gui would show the wrong thing.
480 2020-05-28T19:28:49  <MarcoFalke> sipa: It is currently not decided if interfaces count to the gui side or the node side
481 2020-05-28T19:28:51  <achow101> I suppose that's more an artifact of legacy wallets though and maybe doesn't matter moving forwards
482 2020-05-28T19:28:56  *** kvaciral has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
483 2020-05-28T19:29:08  <sipa> MarcoFalke: node side, obviously?
484 2020-05-28T19:29:13  <jonasschnelli> why would the interface be on the GUI side?
485 2020-05-28T19:29:13  <wumpus> achow101: I agree it will make some things more difficult, though, that seems like a one-time thing
486 2020-05-28T19:29:13  <sipa> they're also used by RPC, no?
487 2020-05-28T19:29:21  <MarcoFalke> are they?
488 2020-05-28T19:29:28  <wumpus> the interface would be node-side, I guess
489 2020-05-28T19:29:32  <MarcoFalke> the rpc directly calls into the node right now
490 2020-05-28T19:29:34  <wumpus> that's the idea of an interface
491 2020-05-28T19:29:36  <jonasschnelli> it's an interface,.. the GUI consumes/adapts to it.
492 2020-05-28T19:29:39  <wumpus> yes
493 2020-05-28T19:29:46  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
494 2020-05-28T19:29:52  *** mol has quit IRC
495 2020-05-28T19:29:57  <wumpus> the node defines the interface the GUI uses it
496 2020-05-28T19:30:10  <jnewbery> the rpc doesn't use the interface (but I agree with everyone else that it's part of the node)
497 2020-05-28T19:30:20  <sipa> huh
498 2020-05-28T19:30:23  <wumpus> the GUI can have arbitrary changes as long as the interface doesn't need to change
499 2020-05-28T19:30:24  <jonasschnelli> and since the interface is on the node/core side, I think changing the GUI will be much harder
500 2020-05-28T19:30:31  <wumpus> no, the RPC doesn't use that interface
501 2020-05-28T19:30:35  <wumpus> that doesn't matter here though
502 2020-05-28T19:30:37  <sipa> ok, i never paid attention to the interface side, but i assumed it would be shared between GUI and RPC
503 2020-05-28T19:30:40  *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
504 2020-05-28T19:30:58  <wumpus> RPC is very tightly bound to the node and that's not going to change any time soon
505 2020-05-28T19:31:09  <jamesob> ironic that the guy leading process sep (ryanofsky) isn't saying anything!
506 2020-05-28T19:31:26  <MarcoFalke> silence means ACK, right?
507 2020-05-28T19:31:34  <jamesob> maxim of the law, yes
508 2020-05-28T19:31:44  <jonatack> What were the pain points driving the proposed change? ISTM this isn't clear in the RFC. Lack of GUI review? Other things?
509 2020-05-28T19:31:50  <troygiorshev> is there confusion in where PRs that touch both sides would go?
510 2020-05-28T19:31:52  <jnewbery> but again, process sep is almost completely orthogonal
511 2020-05-28T19:31:57  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: it will make changing the GUI harder *if* it needs an interface change
512 2020-05-28T19:31:59  <provoostenator> Two seperate repos might also make it (slightly) easier to demo more radical forms of splitting the code.
513 2020-05-28T19:32:03  <jamesob> jnewbery: right
514 2020-05-28T19:32:22  <jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke: I'm currently working on a GUI PR that (mempool histogram) that changes the interface.. how would I have to proceed?
515 2020-05-28T19:32:24  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: if it's internal to the GUI, say, moving around some buttons or changing dialogs, not so much, and that's the kind of thing that *needs* to be easier
516 2020-05-28T19:32:26  <provoostenator> troygiorshev: no, they go to the main repo
517 2020-05-28T19:32:51  <jonasschnelli> First PR the interface change (without an consuming element),... then PR the GUI part? Or simultanously... how do we handle the merge?
518 2020-05-28T19:32:59  <promag> wumpus: why? is it hard?
519 2020-05-28T19:33:07  <provoostenator> jonasschnelli: I usually make two PR's that build on eachother
520 2020-05-28T19:33:14  <MarcoFalke> jonasschnelli: Well, everyone except me said that interfaces are node code, so I guess you will have to add the interface first and then make the gui changes
521 2020-05-28T19:33:44  <sipa> jnewbery: i don't know if an outcome where it's easier to make nitty changes, but harder to make substantial changes, is an improvement
522 2020-05-28T19:33:48  <wumpus> yes, you'll have to change the interface first
523 2020-05-28T19:34:02  <wumpus> same as if you were going to change an RPC-facing application and needed some new interface
524 2020-05-28T19:34:03  <jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke: what would be merged first? Or simulatnously?
525 2020-05-28T19:34:03  <MarcoFalke> Obviously this means there will be an unsused method in the interface temporarily, but that should be ok
526 2020-05-28T19:34:09  <gwillen> sipa: well, I think it depends on what your goal is for the GUI
527 2020-05-28T19:34:15  <MarcoFalke> the interface change will be merged first
528 2020-05-28T19:34:24  <gwillen> right now it is clearly a user interface designed by programmers who would rather be doing literally anything other than designing a user interface ;-)
529 2020-05-28T19:34:29  <jonasschnelli> what is the GUI change never gets merged?
530 2020-05-28T19:34:34  *** lehnberg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
531 2020-05-28T19:34:47  <MarcoFalke> It can also be merged at the same time, I guess?
532 2020-05-28T19:34:49  <gwillen> I assume the hope is that separating it means that the GUI can get a lot more work from people who have more expertise in GUIs and less in the backend behind it
533 2020-05-28T19:34:50  *** owowo has quit IRC
534 2020-05-28T19:34:57  <jonasschnelli> If we merge at the same time... do we have really benefits?
535 2020-05-28T19:35:05  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: sure, you'd have to coordinate that
536 2020-05-28T19:35:14  <provoostenator> I hope eventually the GUI and RPC use the same interface, but that's not anytime soon...
537 2020-05-28T19:35:15  <sipa> as an example... btcd started out with separate repos and well-defined interfaces between wallet and node and p2p and ... and after a while they realized it's too much of a pain and moved everything into one repo
538 2020-05-28T19:35:24  <MarcoFalke> jonasschnelli: The majority of GUI changes hopefully don't change the interface
539 2020-05-28T19:35:29  <wumpus> provoostenator: that was always my preference, but it's not going to happen, face it
540 2020-05-28T19:35:30  <sipa> because interesting changes invariable change the interface
541 2020-05-28T19:35:41  <jonasschnelli> ^ +1
542 2020-05-28T19:35:41  <MarcoFalke> I hope the interface converges over time
543 2020-05-28T19:35:51  <jonasschnelli> That would mean the GUI has stalled
544 2020-05-28T19:36:04  <jonasschnelli> (eventually)
545 2020-05-28T19:36:16  <jonasschnelli> (maybe not)
546 2020-05-28T19:36:23  <wumpus> I do think it's absurd to have everything from the consensus code to GUI in the same repo, and would like to change this
547 2020-05-28T19:36:28  <wumpus> but yes where to start
548 2020-05-28T19:36:32  <jamesob> I was going to argue that true repo separation is good because it makes us more likely to screw up the dangerous stuff (consensus, network), but I'm not even sure there's a good argument for that
549 2020-05-28T19:36:34  <sipa> wumpus: yes, i know
550 2020-05-28T19:36:40  <jonasschnelli> wumpus. Yes. I agree.
551 2020-05-28T19:36:41  <ryanofsky> sorry missed earlier discussion, but i think there's a lot of work can get done in gui that doesn't require changing interfaces
552 2020-05-28T19:36:42  <jamesob> *less likely!
553 2020-05-28T19:37:00  <jonasschnelli> But still,... a tiny GUI change can draw the code node down (since everything runs in the same process)
554 2020-05-28T19:37:01  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
555 2020-05-28T19:37:05  <jonasschnelli> We still have to be careful
556 2020-05-28T19:37:07  <jnewbery> sipa: "if this will result in more GUI work ... more work on the GUI will entail more changes to the interface" is the good problem :)
557 2020-05-28T19:37:15  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: hence the process separation work
558 2020-05-28T19:37:31  <ryanofsky> for changes that do affect interfaces, just submit the pr in the main repo. or if it's easy just add the interface in one pr and use it in a different pr
559 2020-05-28T19:37:31  <promag> how would this benefit new GUIs?
560 2020-05-28T19:37:37  <jonasschnelli> Yes. I just wonder if it would be wiser to seperate the repositories with merging "the" process seprataion
561 2020-05-28T19:37:41  <elichai2> Sipa I can give an example of where it does work. In the rust compiler there's a monorepo that contains most of the complex compiler stuff and it contains submodules of interface tools (static analysis, dynamic analysis, more lints etc) and when a PR changes both repos they're linked together and after ACK on both sides they first merge the compiler side and then the tool's side.
562 2020-05-28T19:38:02  <MarcoFalke> promag: Right now the change does not benefit new GUIs
563 2020-05-28T19:38:14  <wumpus> it's only one step
564 2020-05-28T19:38:18  <wumpus> come on
565 2020-05-28T19:38:36  <jonasschnelli> Yeah. I agree that its worth a try
566 2020-05-28T19:38:47  <jonasschnelli> It might be simpler and more efficient that we initially think.
567 2020-05-28T19:38:48  <MarcoFalke> It is a step in the direction. If we can't get that done, then we shouldn't attempt any further splits imo
568 2020-05-28T19:38:49  <jonasschnelli> Lets try
569 2020-05-28T19:38:49  <achow101> I suppose that if we can easily revert it later then it's fine
570 2020-05-28T19:38:57  <sipa> yeah, this discussion isn't about this PR anymore but more longer-term effects
571 2020-05-28T19:39:01  <jamesob> heck I'm ACK. it'll be easy to revert, and if maintainers want it then so be it - they're the ones who it affects most
572 2020-05-28T19:39:03  <ryanofsky> yeah, it's just a minor step. i can't see how it would help anything that email filtering wouldn't help, but it seems harmless
573 2020-05-28T19:39:12  <sipa> i agree with this because it's so easy to revert
574 2020-05-28T19:39:27  <jonasschnelli> PR/email filtering is easy... that should not be the reason to split off
575 2020-05-28T19:39:40  <wumpus> yes, filtering is easy, that's not the point
576 2020-05-28T19:39:40  <jonasschnelli> review style,.. contributors should it be
577 2020-05-28T19:39:41  <wumpus> delegation is
578 2020-05-28T19:39:45  <jonasschnelli> yes
579 2020-05-28T19:39:50  <wumpus> I don't want to be the bottleneck for everything
580 2020-05-28T19:39:56  <wumpus> certainly not on the long run
581 2020-05-28T19:40:02  <sipa> of course
582 2020-05-28T19:40:03  <jonasschnelli> indeed.
583 2020-05-28T19:40:08  <wumpus> the bitcoi repositry is way too broad
584 2020-05-28T19:40:09  <jb55> I wouldn't say its that easy, there's no way to filter based on labels via email
585 2020-05-28T19:40:11  <elichai2> The downside of "reverting" is losing PRs/Issues history.(by having some of it in a deprecated out of date repo) Altough that's probably not a big deal
586 2020-05-28T19:40:27  <promag> wumpus: right, one step, I'm just wondering about the next steps
587 2020-05-28T19:40:28  <ryanofsky> how is this different than you just filtering out gui-tagged prs and issues?
588 2020-05-28T19:40:33  <provoostenator> I don't even use email for notifications :-)
589 2020-05-28T19:40:35  <wumpus> sigh...
590 2020-05-28T19:40:39  <achow101> elichai2: issues can be moved between repos now. not sure about prs
591 2020-05-28T19:40:56  <elichai2> achow101: you're right. Forgot about that feature
592 2020-05-28T19:40:59  <jamesob> jb55: agree, also curious how people are filtering gui emails out...
593 2020-05-28T19:41:01  <MarcoFalke> elichai2: The same pr (commit hash) can be opened against either repo
594 2020-05-28T19:41:08  <sipa> ryanofsky: someone has to merge things still, and i think wumpus feels responsible for that eventually
595 2020-05-28T19:41:11  <wumpus> yes, how are you even doing that?
596 2020-05-28T19:41:37  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
597 2020-05-28T19:41:45  <MarcoFalke> I click on "mute conversation" manually on most gui emails
598 2020-05-28T19:41:54  <achow101> isn't jonasschnelli supposed to be the gui maintainer?
599 2020-05-28T19:42:01  <jamesob> achow101: LOL
600 2020-05-28T19:42:03  <jonasschnelli> I try to take care of the GUI prs...
601 2020-05-28T19:42:08  <jonasschnelli> though there are a lot of PR waiting for more reviewers..
602 2020-05-28T19:42:18  <wumpus> currently, yes
603 2020-05-28T19:42:23  <jonasschnelli> or are of isigificance that it doesnt attact reviewers
604 2020-05-28T19:42:25  <jonatack> github-cli now works quite well for filtering things by label
605 2020-05-28T19:42:40  <jnewbery> MarcoFalke: what's the process for merging from the GUI repo to the main repo? Do you propose that it happens immediately after a PR is merged, or do you batch it? Do all of the reviewer ACKs get lost?
606 2020-05-28T19:42:48  <jonasschnelli> if a GUI misses review or maintainer action,.. just point me to it.
607 2020-05-28T19:42:59  <wumpus> I can't be the only person why things it's, in principle, absurd for the GUI to be in the same repository as critical consensus code
608 2020-05-28T19:43:00  <MarcoFalke> jnewbery: The github-merge.py script does it
609 2020-05-28T19:43:11  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: agre
610 2020-05-28T19:43:14  <MarcoFalke> It is instantaneous to both repos, nothing is lost
611 2020-05-28T19:43:25  <jamesob> what is the anticipated burden of rerouting people filing issues/PRs in bitcoin/bitcoin to bitcoin/bitcoin-gui when appropriate?
612 2020-05-28T19:43:35  <MarcoFalke> jonasschnelli: I think #16432 is close to merge (off-topic)
613 2020-05-28T19:43:39  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16432 | qt: Add privacy to the Overview page by hebasto · Pull Request #16432 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
614 2020-05-28T19:43:42  <wumpus> but in any case it seems I have a large disconnect with other developers in that regard
615 2020-05-28T19:43:43  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
616 2020-05-28T19:44:01  <MarcoFalke> jamesob: A linter could do that
617 2020-05-28T19:44:16  <jamesob> wumpus: no I think there's broad agreement there. does *anyone* think that all else equal, gui + consensus is a good thing?
618 2020-05-28T19:44:24  <jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke: indeed... will take a final look
619 2020-05-28T19:44:38  <ryanofsky> MarcoFalke, master branch is effectively mirrored both repos?
620 2020-05-28T19:44:44  <provoostenator> One can make the same argument for the wallet, but that's about the only think I can think of splitting.
621 2020-05-28T19:44:48  <MarcoFalke> ryanofsky: Yes. monotree
622 2020-05-28T19:44:52  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
623 2020-05-28T19:44:56  <wumpus> jamesob: I don't know, this comes up every few years and it seems besides a few people agreeing, most thing the status quo is okay
624 2020-05-28T19:45:09  <MarcoFalke> The gui repo only has the master branch (or tree)
625 2020-05-28T19:45:17  <wumpus> provoostenator: yes, one can make the same argument for the walet, but that's a discussion for another time
626 2020-05-28T19:45:35  <provoostenator> agreed, GUI is a good place to start
627 2020-05-28T19:45:37  <MarcoFalke> Yes, let's wait with the wallet until at least next year :)
628 2020-05-28T19:45:52  <MarcoFalke> No need to rush
629 2020-05-28T19:46:00  <wumpus> right, need to start somewheere and with some small step
630 2020-05-28T19:46:20  <MarcoFalke> Separation was suggested in 2013. At one point we need to take a small step
631 2020-05-28T19:46:25  <wumpus> yes...
632 2020-05-28T19:46:26  <MarcoFalke> (or even earlier)
633 2020-05-28T19:46:29  <jonasschnelli> heh
634 2020-05-28T19:46:30  <wumpus> 2012 I think
635 2020-05-28T19:46:37  <wumpus> I was ther
636 2020-05-28T19:46:49  <sipa> you wrote the qt gui :p
637 2020-05-28T19:46:57  <MarcoFalke> blame wumpus
638 2020-05-28T19:46:57  <wumpus> biggest mistake in my life
639 2020-05-28T19:47:02  <MarcoFalke> xD
640 2020-05-28T19:47:04  <sipa> no it wasn't
641 2020-05-28T19:47:08  <wumpus> well ,second (but not going into details there)
642 2020-05-28T19:47:09  <jonasschnelli> hah
643 2020-05-28T19:47:14  <jamesob> lol
644 2020-05-28T19:47:18  <jb55> at least it wasn't an electron gui
645 2020-05-28T19:47:22  <sipa> imagine we'd still be stuck on a pre-release wxwindows version
646 2020-05-28T19:47:22  <MarcoFalke> the gui made me contribute to Core
647 2020-05-28T19:47:24  <wumpus> heh
648 2020-05-28T19:47:30  <jonasschnelli> me 2
649 2020-05-28T19:47:43  <jonasschnelli> the GUI is a great module to win new contributors
650 2020-05-28T19:48:02  <aj> jamesob: (consensus and a block-explorer gui; p2p and a p2p gui; and wallet and wallet gui make sense as individual pairs; consensus and wallet gui seem weird, but not an unreasonable consequence of us not having split consensus, p2p and wallet into separate repos)
651 2020-05-28T19:48:05  <wumpus> I'm sorry to not have addressed #17145 though when I could
652 2020-05-28T19:48:06  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17145 | GUI event loop should be block free · Issue #17145 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
653 2020-05-28T19:48:07  <jonasschnelli> without the interfaces, it was also easier to learn about the internals
654 2020-05-28T19:48:14  <elichai2> I know dozens of people that run full nodes only because of the gui
655 2020-05-28T19:48:52  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: no worries. Don't blame yourself. Things evolve. No-one would have started everything async in 2011.
656 2020-05-28T19:48:55  <wumpus> I'm glad to hear some people do appreciate it :)
657 2020-05-28T19:49:14  <jb55> elichai2: yeah I mainly use gui now due to the recent psbt/hww features
658 2020-05-28T19:49:14  <jamesob> aj: I see what you're getting at there - but I think the rationale is that consensus is so sensitive that you want it as isolated as is practical
659 2020-05-28T19:49:22  <jonasschnelli> Yeah. We should not underestimate the GUI (even if most of us devs won't use it).
660 2020-05-28T19:50:01  <MarcoFalke> I like the RPC console :)
661 2020-05-28T19:50:08  <MarcoFalke> (10 min left)
662 2020-05-28T19:50:09  <jonasschnelli> m2
663 2020-05-28T19:50:11  <gwillen> jb55: :D that's exciting to hear, and I swear I am going to go rebase #18027 today so you can use it on master :-)
664 2020-05-28T19:50:14  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18027 | "PSBT Operations" dialog by gwillen · Pull Request #18027 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
665 2020-05-28T19:50:15  <ariard> side-topic, on altnet, I've started to gather issues here : https://github.com/ariard/altnet-proposals
666 2020-05-28T19:50:37  <wumpus> jamesob: yes, isolating the consensus code would be the other side to start, but it technically much more difficult
667 2020-05-28T19:50:44  * sipa idly wonders if bitcoin 0.4.0 would compile against wxwidget 3.0 (as the 2.9 that was used at the time was never released...)
668 2020-05-28T19:50:45  <ariard> currently in the process talking with people who do actually alt-coms, to learn what could help them
669 2020-05-28T19:51:08  <jb55> gwillen: :+1:
670 2020-05-28T19:51:10  <instagibbs> gwillen, :D
671 2020-05-28T19:51:20  <jamesob> ariard: nice ascii art
672 2020-05-28T19:51:20  <provoostenator> jonasschnelli: without the interfaces, you had no choice but to learn the internals :-)
673 2020-05-28T19:51:29  <jonasschnelli> right!
674 2020-05-28T19:51:43  <MarcoFalke> writing new interfaces will also teach the internals ;)
675 2020-05-28T19:52:17  <gwillen> instagibbs: :D thanks for the reminder about that PR last week, you put it back on my radar, then I avoided replying out of embarrassment
676 2020-05-28T19:52:27  <jonatack> gwillen: nice!
677 2020-05-28T19:52:30  <wumpus> but definitely, if someone was to start designing a GUI nowadays, they'd start with using RPC and an all-async design
678 2020-05-28T19:52:35  <MarcoFalke> And maybe it is a good thing that new gui contributors don't need to learn the cs_main horror
679 2020-05-28T19:52:36  <provoostenator> Looking forward to reviewing that one gwillen
680 2020-05-28T19:53:03  <wumpus> but hey my GUI was better separated from the core code than Satoshi's was…
681 2020-05-28T19:53:04  <promag> MarcoFalke: re separation, all in to help out - still skeptical though
682 2020-05-28T19:53:11  <instagibbs> gwillen, non-0 amount of people including me will use it
683 2020-05-28T19:53:17  <jamesob> "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love cs_main"
684 2020-05-28T19:53:32  <jb55> we should bring back the poker client as per satoshi's vision
685 2020-05-28T19:53:56  <MarcoFalke> Also fun draw transaction (requested in 2016)
686 2020-05-28T19:54:05  <sipa> wumpus: you mean it was a problem that main.cpp called into the GUI directly?
687 2020-05-28T19:54:22  <sipa> MarcoFalke: and savage wallet
688 2020-05-28T19:54:25  <wumpus> sipa: heh
689 2020-05-28T19:54:29  <MarcoFalke> what could possibly go wrong?
690 2020-05-28T19:55:04  <jamesob> hey uh by the way when's the next coredev?
691 2020-05-28T19:55:14  <jamesob> should we do something digitally?
692 2020-05-28T19:55:28  <jonasschnelli> in person?! 😱
693 2020-05-28T19:55:35  <MarcoFalke> Wait for the vaccine first, maybe
694 2020-05-28T19:55:54  <instagibbs> jamesob, might be worth asking fulmo folks they've done a few hackathons
695 2020-05-28T19:55:56  <wumpus> at the first next year I guess
696 2020-05-28T19:56:13  <sipa> i don't know how valuable a virtual coredev would be
697 2020-05-28T19:56:20  <wumpus> travel is going to be a mess for a while
698 2020-05-28T19:56:22  <jonasschnelli> we have that already
699 2020-05-28T19:56:24  <MarcoFalke> IRC!
700 2020-05-28T19:56:25  <sipa> i feel IRC is pretty good for communication
701 2020-05-28T19:56:26  <wumpus> yesss
702 2020-05-28T19:56:42  <sipa> in-person is definitely better... but, we'll need to wait for that
703 2020-05-28T19:56:47  <wumpus> I personally don't feel like doing vr or video chat or something
704 2020-05-28T19:57:04  <MarcoFalke> I am certainly not buying VR glasses
705 2020-05-28T19:57:04  <sipa> i like vr meetups... but not for more than 1-2 hours
706 2020-05-28T19:57:18  <jb55> can't get my vr setup working on my linux distro :(
707 2020-05-28T19:57:21  <sipa> and they're more a social thing than a communication thing
708 2020-05-28T19:57:31  <jonasschnelli> yes
709 2020-05-28T19:57:33  <jamesob> right
710 2020-05-28T19:57:36  <jonatack> agree
711 2020-05-28T19:57:39  <jonasschnelli> Lets aim for next year...
712 2020-05-28T19:57:42  <jonasschnelli> plz hawaii. :)
713 2020-05-28T19:57:49  <jnewbery> jonasschnelli: do you mind taking a look at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15206#issuecomment-634707439? I like the approach there that moves the header checking to net.cpp and doesn't change behaviour
714 2020-05-28T19:58:04  <jonasschnelli> jnewbery: it's on my list
715 2020-05-28T19:58:05  <jonasschnelli> will do first thing tmr
716 2020-05-28T19:58:06  <wumpus> :D
717 2020-05-28T19:58:14  <jnewbery> great. Thanks!
718 2020-05-28T19:58:54  <promag> facebook has this rooms thing now -.-
719 2020-05-28T19:59:24  <wumpus> concept ACK #15206 somehow missed that one
720 2020-05-28T19:59:24  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15206 | Immediately disconnect on invalid net message checksum by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #15206 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
721 2020-05-28T19:59:29  <wumpus> oh I didn't but it's more than a year old hehe
722 2020-05-28T20:00:02  <promag> dong
723 2020-05-28T20:00:04  <jonasschnelli> Yeah.. you concept ACKd long time ago
724 2020-05-28T20:00:06  <wumpus> #endmeeting
725 2020-05-28T20:00:06  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu May 28 20:00:06 2020 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
726 2020-05-28T20:00:06  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-05-28-19.00.html
727 2020-05-28T20:00:06  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-05-28-19.00.txt
728 2020-05-28T20:00:06  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-05-28-19.00.log.html
729 2020-05-28T20:00:13  <jamesob> pretty good meeting. missed you guys :)
730 2020-05-28T20:00:30  <MarcoFalke> jamesob: wen assumeutxo?
731 2020-05-28T20:00:33  <jnewbery> wumpus: I think https://github.com/troygiorshev/bitcoin/tree/p2p-refactor-header is possibly a cleaner implementation
732 2020-05-28T20:00:40  <jamesob> MarcoFalke: as fast as you can merge it buddy
733 2020-05-28T20:01:57  <MarcoFalke> jnewbery: I am happy to review both versions. From the perspective of the disconnected peer, they should behave identical.
734 2020-05-28T20:02:36  <jnewbery> the p2p-refactor-header doesn't disconnect the peer (maintains current behaviour)
735 2020-05-28T20:03:43  *** kristapsk_ has quit IRC
736 2020-05-28T20:03:50  <MarcoFalke> The tests are changed, so it changes log behavior at least :)
737 2020-05-28T20:03:54  <wumpus> jamesob: welcome back!
738 2020-05-28T20:04:31  <wumpus> jnewbery: wait, isn't the disconnection the point?
739 2020-05-28T20:06:07  <troygiorshev> wumpus: not really.  Yes from the title of the PR, but the discussion has moved to it just being a refactor of the checks into net from net_processing
740 2020-05-28T20:06:19  <troygiorshev> #15197 is the "other half"
741 2020-05-28T20:06:21  <wumpus> if a peer sends invalid data it should be disconnected imo
742 2020-05-28T20:06:21  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15197 | Refactor and slightly stricter p2p message processing by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #15197 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
743 2020-05-28T20:06:55  <wumpus> if it's just a refactor I'm not sure it's that interesting
744 2020-05-28T20:07:42  *** promag has quit IRC
745 2020-05-28T20:11:01  *** shaunsun_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
746 2020-05-28T20:12:57  *** shaunsun has quit IRC
747 2020-05-28T20:13:23  <wumpus> I guess the only thing causing it to disconnect on complete garbage is the invalid messagestart bytes now
748 2020-05-28T20:14:08  <troygiorshev> i found in testing that most of the time garbage was being rejected on message size
749 2020-05-28T20:14:19  <troygiorshev> (pretty likely to have a 1 in the first 15 bits of the message size field)
750 2020-05-28T20:15:41  <wumpus> will it disconnect for invalid size though?
751 2020-05-28T20:15:48  <wumpus> m_valid_header=false doesn't seem to be a disconnect condition
752 2020-05-28T20:15:56  <troygiorshev> it's in readheader
753 2020-05-28T20:16:55  <troygiorshev> it's there so that we don't possibly read and hash >4G from the peer before disconnecting
754 2020-05-28T20:17:34  <wumpus> yes there's that :)
755 2020-05-28T20:19:19  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
756 2020-05-28T20:21:28  <troygiorshev> m_valid_header effectively only pertains to the messagetype.  The other two checks (size and netmagic) are done and dealt with beforehand.  I think (hope) i caught all of the overlap in my branch
757 2020-05-28T20:21:40  <achow101> MarcoFalke: How split up do you want #18971 to be? Most of the commits are self contained and could standalone, but don't necessarily make sense by themselves. So I could make 10 PRs with 2 or so commits each, but would that really be beneficial?
758 2020-05-28T20:21:42  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18971 | wallet: Refactor the classes in wallet/db.{cpp/h} by achow101 · Pull Request #18971 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
759 2020-05-28T20:21:43  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
760 2020-05-28T20:22:05  <wumpus> troygiorshev: right, invalid message types are okay to ignore
761 2020-05-28T20:22:43  <wumpus> explicitly shouldn't disconnect for those as it's an extension mechanism
762 2020-05-28T20:22:44  <MarcoFalke> achow101: Not sure. I guess reviewers can also do several afternoons reviewing 5 commits each and then sharing their intermediate review comments incrementally
763 2020-05-28T20:26:24  <wumpus> (though having NUL bytes in between the name, what it checks for there, is questionable, and also tends to indicate corruption or a buggy implementation)
764 2020-05-28T20:33:50  <troygiorshev> imo we should disconnect on those two checks (0s and invalid chars), and disconnect on checksum fail, and stay connected on an unrecognized but otherwise well-constructed message type.  There was a lot of disagreement in the pr and the pr review club though.  At least my branch will make it easier to do that in the future :)
765 2020-05-28T20:35:03  *** lehnberg has quit IRC
766 2020-05-28T20:38:54  <wumpus> I guess checksum failures can *rarely* happen for users that are on really crappy networks, TCP and IP checksums will catch most corruption, it needs to be really bad for it to sometimes slip through that
767 2020-05-28T20:39:29  <wumpus> in the case of something like SSH that's annoying because yo ureally want to remain connected to that one host, for bitcoin P2P though ,they'll just connect to a different node
768 2020-05-28T20:39:38  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
769 2020-05-28T20:42:16  *** jarthur has quit IRC
770 2020-05-28T20:46:32  <jnewbery> wumpus: there was lots of discussion about whether we should drop the message or disconnect in the case of a bad checksum. See here onwards if you're interested: https://bitcoincore.reviews/15206.html#l-81
771 2020-05-28T20:47:18  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
772 2020-05-28T20:47:37  <wumpus> jnewbery: thanks!
773 2020-05-28T20:48:15  <jnewbery> the short answer is that jonasschnelli's PR did two things: move checksum checking from net_processing into net (definitely good), and change behaviour from drop message to disconnect peer (probably good, but at least worth discussion)
774 2020-05-28T20:48:52  <jnewbery> Troy's branch just does the first, so discussion of the behaviour change can be separated
775 2020-05-28T20:49:15  <wumpus> I understand, disconnecting a peer for one corrupted message sounds like overkill somehow, and not really robust
776 2020-05-28T20:49:51  <wumpus> especially as bitcoin's P2P protocol is more or less stateless and can handle lost messages
777 2020-05-28T20:50:21  <jnewbery> right. There was some discussion about whether an overzelous firewall could mess around with IP addresses in version or addr messages and break the checksum. Anyway, it's all in the review club notes :)
778 2020-05-28T20:50:44  <jonasschnelli> I start to agree with wumpus...
779 2020-05-28T20:51:11  <jonasschnelli> The longer i noodle about it,... the more sense it makes to close 15206
780 2020-05-28T20:51:58  <jnewbery> jonasschnelli: not changing behaviour is the conservative choice
781 2020-05-28T20:52:25  <jonasschnelli> Yeah. But the refactor alone doesn't really make much sense...
782 2020-05-28T20:52:31  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
783 2020-05-28T20:52:59  <jonasschnelli> its nice. but not necessary anymore for future transport protocols (like BIP324)
784 2020-05-28T20:53:06  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
785 2020-05-28T20:53:08  <jnewbery> I think it does. Moving header checking down and making net processing unaware of p2p header format is a useful thing
786 2020-05-28T20:53:17  *** jarthur has quit IRC
787 2020-05-28T20:53:20  <jnewbery> both for BIP324 and altnet
788 2020-05-28T20:53:31  <jnewbery> and just good architecture
789 2020-05-28T20:53:37  <jonasschnelli> Yes. I agree.
790 2020-05-28T20:53:44  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
791 2020-05-28T20:53:49  *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
792 2020-05-28T20:53:50  <jonasschnelli> I strip down the PR... but it's impact and refactoring leverage is minimal.
793 2020-05-28T20:54:35  <wumpus> jnewbery: that's an interesting thought though: if it replaces a certain 4-byte sequence with another one, consistently, that will also interfere with some blocks and header propagation at the least
794 2020-05-28T20:54:41  <jnewbery> take a look at Troy's branch before you spend too much time changing yours. It's slightly fiddly to do the checking in net.cpp without causing a disconnect
795 2020-05-28T20:54:56  <jonasschnelli> Yes. I'll do that.
796 2020-05-28T20:57:37  <jnewbery> wumpus: I'm not personally convinced about the firewalls changing messages argument, but it was presented as a reason to be careful about changing behaviour
797 2020-05-28T21:00:01  *** esandeen has quit IRC
798 2020-05-28T21:01:14  <wumpus> jnewbery: clearly we should do scrambling + error correction at the application layer to work around network layer corruption :-)
799 2020-05-28T21:02:23  <wumpus> or even just scrabling, at least the bit patterns that cause packet drop would be unpredictable then
800 2020-05-28T21:03:14  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
801 2020-05-28T21:03:14  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #19098: test: Remove duplicate NodeContext hacks (master...pr/qtx) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19098
802 2020-05-28T21:03:15  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
803 2020-05-28T21:03:57  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
804 2020-05-28T21:04:08  *** waxwing has quit IRC
805 2020-05-28T21:04:16  *** waxwing_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
806 2020-05-28T21:07:57  <wumpus> in any case the only reason this is controversial at all is because bitcoin's P2P is semi-stateless so losing a packet is not necessarily fatal, in a stateful protocol the only sensible thing is to disconnect
807 2020-05-28T21:08:24  <sipa> many messages aren't stateless at all
808 2020-05-28T21:08:35  <wumpus> I know, hence the semi-
809 2020-05-28T21:08:43  <wumpus> otherwise the best suggestion would be to just go UDP
810 2020-05-28T21:08:49  <sipa> right
811 2020-05-28T21:15:43  <wumpus> when corruption happens in the middle of something stateful it's probably better to disconnect immediately instead of continue and wait for expiration
812 2020-05-28T21:19:54  *** JesusFreke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
813 2020-05-28T21:25:04  <wumpus> the firewall case is statistically mostly bound to happen in addr messages of course
814 2020-05-28T21:25:26  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
815 2020-05-28T21:25:26  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #19099: refactor: Move wallet methods out of chain.h and node.h (master...pr/wclient) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19099
816 2020-05-28T21:25:27  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
817 2020-05-28T21:25:28  <sipa> and the initial version message
818 2020-05-28T21:26:08  <sipa> but yes... if it's in addr messages, maintaining the connection would be preferable
819 2020-05-28T21:26:20  <wumpus> that's an interesting one, if the checksum of the initial version message fails ... the connection will never go anywhere
820 2020-05-28T21:26:58  <sipa> though it could be a firewall that's only rewriting some address ranges, which only occur in randomly gossiped addressed, not the addresses of the connection partners
821 2020-05-28T21:27:44  <wumpus> I know it disconnects if some other message is sent as first message, but a checksum failure will probably keep open the connection
822 2020-05-28T21:28:22  <sipa> if anyone is interested: an evolution of current libsecp256k1 master's verification speed in various gcc versions: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/548488/83195267-d4bc6b00-a0ee-11ea-8e47-4489cd9824ae.png
823 2020-05-28T21:28:25  <wumpus> yes it could be very specific about that
824 2020-05-28T21:29:57  <wumpus> interesting
825 2020-05-28T21:29:59  <sipa> which gcc are 0.20 release binaries built with?
826 2020-05-28T21:30:21  <wumpus> so O3 is faster than O3 with asm with 10.0.1?
827 2020-05-28T21:30:30  <sipa> indeed
828 2020-05-28T21:30:35  <luke-jr> interesting
829 2020-05-28T21:30:51  <sipa> but -O2 without asm is suddenly a lot slower
830 2020-05-28T21:31:12  <sipa> (note that the y axis isn't rooted at 0)
831 2020-05-28T21:31:14  <wumpus> we should do the same check for ARM, I sometimes wonder if gcc already managed to beat my ARM assembly, for RISC-V I couldn't beat it
832 2020-05-28T21:31:26  <luke-jr> could it be CPU-specific?
833 2020-05-28T21:31:55  <sipa> it's not -march=native or so
834 2020-05-28T21:32:04  <sipa> so this is optimized for generic x86_64
835 2020-05-28T21:32:14  <luke-jr> but CPUs do perform differently
836 2020-05-28T21:32:22  <sipa> of course, my CPU could be more or less close to the generic thing GCC optimizes for
837 2020-05-28T21:32:27  <sipa> but that'd be coincidence
838 2020-05-28T21:32:39  <wumpus> sipa: gcc 8.x
839 2020-05-28T21:32:55  <luke-jr> IMO it'd be an interesting datapoint to get march=native on a few Intel vs AMD CPUs
840 2020-05-28T21:33:11  <luke-jr> probably harder to compare tho
841 2020-05-28T21:33:14  <sipa> i'll run the same on a ARM threadripper
842 2020-05-28T21:33:16  <sipa> eh, AMD
843 2020-05-28T21:33:24  * sipa wishes: ARM threadripper
844 2020-05-28T21:33:28  <luke-jr> heh
845 2020-05-28T21:33:43  <luke-jr> sipa: why wouldn't you just use POWER for that use case?
846 2020-05-28T21:33:46  * wumpus wishes: RISC-V threadripper
847 2020-05-28T21:34:03  <luke-jr> wumpus: but POWER is more open than RISC-V last I checked ;)
848 2020-05-28T21:34:33  <sipa> return -ETOOMANYHYPOTHETICALS;
849 2020-05-28T21:38:49  <tryphe> sipa: wow, that's cool! and here i am using gcc 6.3 like a cave man.
850 2020-05-28T21:39:21  <sipa> same for clang: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/548488/83189237-c584ef80-a0e5-11ea-828c-ffea26c50ea1.png
851 2020-05-28T21:39:44  <sipa> interestingly for clang, -O2 asm and -O3 asm seem indistinguishable
852 2020-05-28T21:42:10  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
853 2020-05-28T21:43:48  <wumpus> weird
854 2020-05-28T21:44:30  <wumpus> so there, too, asm makes -O3 slower and -O2 faster
855 2020-05-28T21:45:36  <wumpus> but not as extreme as for gcc 10.0.1, so they end up on top of each other
856 2020-05-28T21:46:02  <luke-jr> could it be issues were found with some optimisers so got demoted to -O3?
857 2020-05-28T22:06:37  <wumpus> it wouldn't be the first time secp256k1 triggers a compiler bug, but i doubt compilers are self-aware enough to demote optimizations in that case :)
858 2020-05-28T22:07:23  <sipa> wumpus: hmm, i can't recall any examples
859 2020-05-28T22:07:24  <luke-jr> well, as long as the bug doesn't impact correctness..
860 2020-05-28T22:07:30  <sipa> of secp256k1 triggering a known bug
861 2020-05-28T22:08:35  <sipa> maybe it's some meltdown/spectre style protections that got enabled by default?
862 2020-05-28T22:08:39  <sipa> unsure about that
863 2020-05-28T22:09:13  <luke-jr> speaking of, did anyone ever figure out if we should be enabling retpolines?
864 2020-05-28T22:11:06  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
865 2020-05-28T22:11:06  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #19101: refactor: remove ::vpwallets and related global variables (master...pr/novp) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19101
866 2020-05-28T22:11:07  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
867 2020-05-28T22:11:19  <wumpus> it's probably better to leave such things to the OS/compiler
868 2020-05-28T22:12:14  *** troygiorshev has quit IRC
869 2020-05-28T22:13:10  <sipa> gcc has some flags to enable protections, but they're not enabled by default afaik
870 2020-05-28T22:13:40  <wumpus> likely because they make things much slower
871 2020-05-28T22:13:50  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
872 2020-05-28T22:13:51  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #19102: wallet: Introduce and use DummyDatabase instead of dummy BerkeleyDatabase (master...true-dummydb) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19102
873 2020-05-28T22:13:51  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
874 2020-05-28T22:14:40  <luke-jr> wumpus: the OS/compiler can't guess at what we need
875 2020-05-28T22:17:21  <wumpus> there's quite a few kernel-level workarounds at least that activate based on the actual CPU
876 2020-05-28T22:20:14  <wumpus> this mostly has to do with guarding the userspace-kernel space interface, which is a clear boundary, inside applications it's a lot less clear what you can do, and there's been such a cesspool of different vulnerabilities I'm not sure anyone does
877 2020-05-28T22:21:57  <sipa> applications that have JIT compiled code executed in the same process also are particularly vulnerable, but that's not the case for us either
878 2020-05-28T22:22:21  <sipa> or more specifically, untrusted JIT compiled code
879 2020-05-28T22:22:31  <sipa> (browser tab spying on another browser tab etc)
880 2020-05-28T22:23:10  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
881 2020-05-28T22:25:37  <wumpus> yup, that's another trusted-untrusted boundary
882 2020-05-28T22:27:38  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
883 2020-05-28T22:40:00  *** mdunnio has quit IRC
884 2020-05-28T22:45:14  *** IGHOR has quit IRC
885 2020-05-28T22:46:16  <fanquake> sipa: it depends on the distribution you’re using, if the flags are on by default
886 2020-05-28T22:47:00  *** IGHOR has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
887 2020-05-28T22:49:33  <fanquake> If we were to upgrade to a newer Ubuntu for gitian builds, we’d end up with a few new protections turned on unless we start explicitly opting out.
888 2020-05-28T22:51:08  <sipa> fanquake: ah good to know
889 2020-05-28T22:51:29  <sipa> i'm on ubuntu focal, so this may have influenced my measurements
890 2020-05-28T22:51:48  <fanquake> Yep. They started patching new things in from unit in 19.10 onwards
891 2020-05-28T22:51:57  <fanquake> *Ubuntu
892 2020-05-28T22:52:24  <fanquake> I have a PR open with some details, but haven’t gotten to any significant benchmarking
893 2020-05-28T22:52:44  *** troygiorshev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
894 2020-05-28T22:53:09  <fanquake> #18921
895 2020-05-28T22:53:11  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18921 | build: add stack-clash and control-flow protection options to hardening flags by fanquake · Pull Request #18921 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
896 2020-05-28T22:53:35  <fanquake> Waiting to convince jamesob to throw it into bitcoinperf
897 2020-05-28T23:03:26  <luke-jr> hmm, does that suggest we ought to be enabling those things? (new Ubuntu defaults)
898 2020-05-28T23:08:40  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
899 2020-05-28T23:09:34  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
900 2020-05-28T23:13:43  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
901 2020-05-28T23:18:54  *** promag has quit IRC
902 2020-05-28T23:21:41  *** jarthur has quit IRC
903 2020-05-28T23:27:10  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
904 2020-05-28T23:27:20  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
905 2020-05-28T23:29:04  *** troygiorshev has quit IRC
906 2020-05-28T23:41:20  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
907 2020-05-28T23:41:52  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
908 2020-05-28T23:51:42  *** shaunsun_ has quit IRC
909 2020-05-28T23:53:36  *** troygiorshev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev