12020-08-25T00:00:02  *** Avelino has quit IRC
  22020-08-25T00:12:11  *** sipa has quit IRC
  32020-08-25T00:12:25  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  42020-08-25T00:21:59  *** survivor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  52020-08-25T01:10:12  *** Livestradamus has quit IRC
  62020-08-25T01:20:08  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  72020-08-25T01:20:09  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #19796: build: Drop ZeroMQ patch for glibc < 2.12 (master...200824-zmq) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19796
  82020-08-25T01:20:10  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
  92020-08-25T01:38:42  *** Livestradamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 102020-08-25T01:59:11  *** arowser has quit IRC
 112020-08-25T02:00:04  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 122020-08-25T02:09:25  *** spinza has quit IRC
 132020-08-25T02:27:11  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142020-08-25T02:27:13  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7f609f68d835...c6b730dbfcbd
 152020-08-25T02:27:13  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 079df96 Hennadii Stepanov: build: Drop ZeroMQ patch for Mingw-w64 < 4.0
 162020-08-25T02:27:14  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f642b49 Hennadii Stepanov: build: Drop ZeroMQ patch for glibc < 2.12
 172020-08-25T02:27:15  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c6b730d fanquake: Merge #18405: build: Drop all of the ZeroMQ patches
 182020-08-25T02:27:17  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 192020-08-25T02:28:16  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 202020-08-25T02:28:16  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #18405: build: Drop all of the ZeroMQ patches (master...20200322-zmq-mingw) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18405
 212020-08-25T02:28:17  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 222020-08-25T02:28:51  *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 232020-08-25T02:36:06  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 242020-08-25T02:38:13  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 252020-08-25T02:38:24  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
 262020-08-25T02:38:41  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 272020-08-25T02:40:38  <fanquake> If someone is bored, that binary compare patches in the maintainer tools repo need updating 🙏
 282020-08-25T02:50:08  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 292020-08-25T03:00:01  *** survivor has quit IRC
 302020-08-25T03:19:11  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
 312020-08-25T03:22:11  *** bitprophet1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 322020-08-25T03:35:20  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 332020-08-25T03:38:24  *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
 342020-08-25T03:39:56  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
 352020-08-25T03:41:09  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 362020-08-25T03:47:15  *** arowser has quit IRC
 372020-08-25T03:48:12  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 382020-08-25T03:53:26  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 392020-08-25T03:53:26  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c6b730dbfcbd...8e0f341779e1
 402020-08-25T03:53:27  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1ccb9f3 Luke Dashjr: Move Win32 defines to configure.ac to ensure they are globally defined
 412020-08-25T03:53:28  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8e0f341 fanquake: Merge #15704: Move Win32 defines to configure.ac to ensure they are global...
 422020-08-25T03:53:29  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 432020-08-25T03:55:11  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 442020-08-25T03:55:11  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #15704: Move Win32 defines to configure.ac to ensure they are globally defined (master...win32_defines_globally) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15704
 452020-08-25T03:55:13  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 462020-08-25T04:07:37  *** davec has quit IRC
 472020-08-25T04:27:59  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 482020-08-25T04:32:25  *** davec has quit IRC
 492020-08-25T04:34:26  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 502020-08-25T04:38:47  *** davec has quit IRC
 512020-08-25T04:48:33  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 522020-08-25T04:56:10  <fanquake> luke-jr: It'd be great if you could explain how #19614 was "completely broken": https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14501#issuecomment-677807196.
 532020-08-25T04:56:12  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19614 | util: use HAVE_FDATASYNC to determine fdatasync() use by fanquake · Pull Request #19614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 542020-08-25T04:56:21  <fanquake> I'm confused because you seem to have a similar patch in knots: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/commit/02577153ffc1bb09832853b7d4b513e21caf2628, but don't seem to have your patch (3a0c9b550cc5d59800ae294dbf65e3b65ebf6be6) from 14501.
 552020-08-25T04:56:31  <fanquake> I only looked briefly, but does that mean it's "completely broken" there too? There's also two checks for fdatasync in the knots configure?
 562020-08-25T04:56:41  <fanquake> Regardless, if you spot an issue with master, I'd much prefer you open a new PR (or issue) clearly explaining the problem and the fix.
 572020-08-25T04:56:53  <fanquake> Rather than bundling the fix into a in multi-year-old, semi-related PR.
 582020-08-25T04:58:46  <luke-jr> fanquake: AC_CHECK_FUNCS defines HAVE_FDATASYNC
 592020-08-25T04:59:22  <luke-jr> AC_SUBST only provides it within Makefiles, not as a #define
 602020-08-25T05:00:43  <luke-jr> Not sure it's merely semi-related. It fixes issues with the same logic already. I noticed the issues in 19614 rebasing it because it is the same stuff
 612020-08-25T05:01:08  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 622020-08-25T05:01:35  <luke-jr> doesn't seem to make sense to split up the fix?
 632020-08-25T05:07:25  *** davec has quit IRC
 642020-08-25T05:09:11  <fanquake> It makes sense to split up the fix, because fixing this doesn't seem predicated on 14501 being merged.
 652020-08-25T05:09:12  *** sipa has quit IRC
 662020-08-25T05:09:41  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 672020-08-25T05:10:09  <fanquake> Also it seems that after rebasing some of the commits in 14501 need updating. i.e https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14501/commits/f3f48e3ad0f18abcf7d8c77ede7156b9be8f1ecd mentions "__linux__ or __NetBSD__," and "the next commit", which are no-longer relevant.
 682020-08-25T05:11:04  *** IGHOR has quit IRC
 692020-08-25T05:13:39  *** IGHOR has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 702020-08-25T05:21:39  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 712020-08-25T05:36:07  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 722020-08-25T06:00:02  *** bitprophet1 has quit IRC
 732020-08-25T06:21:55  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 742020-08-25T06:22:20  *** Mister_X1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 752020-08-25T06:27:14  *** arowser has quit IRC
 762020-08-25T06:28:07  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 772020-08-25T06:30:35  *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 782020-08-25T06:55:12  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
 792020-08-25T06:56:06  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 802020-08-25T06:58:24  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 812020-08-25T07:03:26  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 822020-08-25T07:08:56  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 832020-08-25T07:23:30  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 842020-08-25T07:23:59  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 852020-08-25T07:28:32  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 862020-08-25T07:32:48  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 872020-08-25T07:34:49  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 882020-08-25T07:35:15  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 892020-08-25T07:39:19  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 902020-08-25T07:40:06  <sipa> my calendar claims there is a p2p meeting in 20 minutez
 912020-08-25T07:40:14  <sipa> i assume i just entered that incorrectly
 922020-08-25T07:40:18  <fanquake> your calendar is probably  wrong
 932020-08-25T07:40:30  <fanquake> as the meetings are never at a convenient time for me
 942020-08-25T07:40:41  *** Talkless has quit IRC
 952020-08-25T07:40:45  <hebasto> isn't p2p meeting at 15 utc?
 962020-08-25T07:40:54  <fanquake> I have the meeting happening in 7hr20m
 972020-08-25T07:40:55  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 982020-08-25T07:41:31  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 992020-08-25T07:42:16  <aj> fanquake: when sipa says there's a p2p meeting in 20 minutes, you say "yes sir!" !
1002020-08-25T07:42:37  <hebasto> :D
1012020-08-25T07:43:37  <fanquake> aj: heh. I guess he has already committed
1022020-08-25T07:44:02  <sipa> if i want to be awake for the *other* p2p meeting in 7h17h, maybe i should skip this one
1032020-08-25T07:52:04  <aj> dangit
1042020-08-25T07:54:54  <aj> fanquake: we'll never trick ppl into holding meetings at convenient times at this rate
1052020-08-25T07:55:31  <kallewoof> haha
1062020-08-25T08:01:44  <fanquake> aj: sorry. I forgot about that master plan
1072020-08-25T08:07:23  *** cato_ has quit IRC
1082020-08-25T08:09:31  *** cato_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1092020-08-25T08:09:41  *** ghost43_ has quit IRC
1102020-08-25T08:10:31  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1112020-08-25T08:14:15  <aj> oops, apparently it was sydney socratic in 80 minutes, not p2p in 20 minutes
1122020-08-25T08:15:16  <fanquake> aj: hah. Thanks for the reminder. I normally forget to listen in
1132020-08-25T08:17:48  *** bosch has quit IRC
1142020-08-25T08:22:03  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
1152020-08-25T08:26:36  <jnewbery> fanquake: if you're still around, #19601 seems RFM. ACKs from me, fjahr, jonatack and instagibbs
1162020-08-25T08:26:38  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19601 | Refactoring CHashWriter & Get{Prevouts,Sequence,Outputs}Hash to SHA256 (Alternative to #18071) by JeremyRubin · Pull Request #19601 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1172020-08-25T08:28:48  <jeremyrubin> jnewbery: I'd maybe like to see ACK from sipa maybe? But I agree he has had chance to NACK it so probably RFM.
1182020-08-25T08:30:39  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1192020-08-25T08:31:17  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202020-08-25T08:31:28  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1212020-08-25T08:31:50  *** andreaca_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222020-08-25T08:34:22  *** andreaca_ has quit IRC
1232020-08-25T08:34:57  *** andreaca_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1242020-08-25T08:35:38  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1252020-08-25T08:38:55  *** andreaca_ has quit IRC
1262020-08-25T08:40:37  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1272020-08-25T08:40:37  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
1282020-08-25T08:43:37  <jnewbery> jeremyrubin: sipa already has those commits in a branch he's PR'ed. Seems like an implicit ACK to me. Also: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19601#issuecomment-668785825
1292020-08-25T08:43:43  *** tryphe_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1302020-08-25T08:43:47  *** tryphe has quit IRC
1312020-08-25T08:56:39  <fanquake> jnewbery: it’s on my list. Got stuck with sed
1322020-08-25T08:58:41  <jnewbery> thanks!
1332020-08-25T09:00:01  *** Mister_X1 has quit IRC
1342020-08-25T09:02:49  *** kexkey has quit IRC
1352020-08-25T09:05:51  *** vincenzopalazzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362020-08-25T09:15:42  *** palazzovincenzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1372020-08-25T09:16:42  *** vincenzopalazzo has quit IRC
1382020-08-25T09:18:56  *** palazzovincenzo has quit IRC
1392020-08-25T09:19:04  *** palazzovincenzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1402020-08-25T09:21:54  *** fnichol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1412020-08-25T09:22:50  *** palazzovincenzo has quit IRC
1422020-08-25T09:22:58  *** vincenzopalazzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1432020-08-25T09:25:26  *** promag has quit IRC
1442020-08-25T09:25:35  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1452020-08-25T09:27:00  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1462020-08-25T09:32:13  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1472020-08-25T09:35:45  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1482020-08-25T09:36:15  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492020-08-25T09:37:55  *** andreaca_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502020-08-25T09:40:44  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1512020-08-25T09:55:24  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1522020-08-25T10:00:01  *** shesek has quit IRC
1532020-08-25T10:00:59  *** andreaca_ has quit IRC
1542020-08-25T10:01:28  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1552020-08-25T10:02:34  *** fuzzing has quit IRC
1562020-08-25T10:06:02  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1572020-08-25T10:06:03  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1582020-08-25T10:08:06  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1592020-08-25T10:12:36  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1602020-08-25T10:13:29  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1612020-08-25T10:14:46  *** eragmus has quit IRC
1622020-08-25T10:15:10  *** valwal_ has quit IRC
1632020-08-25T10:15:25  *** eragmus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1642020-08-25T10:15:35  *** valwal_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1652020-08-25T10:16:08  *** bosma has quit IRC
1662020-08-25T10:16:08  *** Jackielove4u has quit IRC
1672020-08-25T10:17:28  *** bosma has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1682020-08-25T10:17:33  *** Jackielove4u has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1692020-08-25T10:17:50  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1702020-08-25T10:17:56  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1712020-08-25T10:18:32  *** Cary39Cormier has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722020-08-25T10:21:43  *** arowser has quit IRC
1732020-08-25T10:24:21  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1742020-08-25T10:28:38  *** cato__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752020-08-25T10:30:03  *** cato_ has quit IRC
1762020-08-25T10:31:50  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1772020-08-25T10:32:38  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1782020-08-25T10:33:02  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1792020-08-25T10:33:54  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1802020-08-25T10:33:56  *** mol has quit IRC
1812020-08-25T10:38:32  *** andreacab has quit IRC
1822020-08-25T10:39:47  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1832020-08-25T10:40:25  *** Cary39Cormier has quit IRC
1842020-08-25T10:43:14  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
1852020-08-25T10:50:15  *** jakesyl has quit IRC
1862020-08-25T10:50:29  *** felixweis has quit IRC
1872020-08-25T10:50:33  *** wallet42_ has quit IRC
1882020-08-25T10:50:52  *** elichai2 has quit IRC
1892020-08-25T10:55:52  *** vasild_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1902020-08-25T10:58:43  *** vasild has quit IRC
1912020-08-25T10:58:44  *** vasild_ is now known as vasild
1922020-08-25T11:00:18  *** felixweis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1932020-08-25T11:00:30  *** wallet42_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1942020-08-25T11:00:50  *** elichai2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1952020-08-25T11:01:38  *** jakesyl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1962020-08-25T11:12:55  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1972020-08-25T11:13:34  *** kristapsk_ has quit IRC
1982020-08-25T11:13:48  *** kristapsk_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1992020-08-25T11:17:29  *** andreacab has quit IRC
2002020-08-25T11:30:00  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2012020-08-25T11:32:48  *** andreacab has quit IRC
2022020-08-25T11:33:18  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2032020-08-25T11:37:37  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2042020-08-25T11:37:39  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052020-08-25T11:37:47  *** andreacab has quit IRC
2062020-08-25T11:40:55  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has quit IRC
2072020-08-25T11:41:56  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
2082020-08-25T12:00:01  *** fnichol has quit IRC
2092020-08-25T12:05:43  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
2102020-08-25T12:06:34  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2112020-08-25T12:11:03  *** andreacab has quit IRC
2122020-08-25T12:11:26  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
2132020-08-25T12:19:05  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2142020-08-25T12:19:05  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 4 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8e0f341779e1...f8462a6d2794
2152020-08-25T12:19:06  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b475d7d Jeremy Rubin: Add single sha256 call to CHashWriter
2162020-08-25T12:19:06  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6510d0f Jeremy Rubin: Add SHA256Uint256 helper functions
2172020-08-25T12:19:07  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9ab4caf Jeremy Rubin: Refactor Get{Prevout,Sequence,Outputs}Hash to Get{Prevouts,Sequences,Outpu...
2182020-08-25T12:19:08  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2192020-08-25T12:19:25  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2202020-08-25T12:19:25  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #19601: Refactoring CHashWriter & Get{Prevouts,Sequence,Outputs}Hash to SHA256 (Alternative to #18071)  (master...refactoring-hashers-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19601
2212020-08-25T12:19:26  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2222020-08-25T12:22:13  *** ram1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2232020-08-25T12:25:27  *** ram1 has quit IRC
2242020-08-25T12:26:29  <jnewbery> thanks fanquake!
2252020-08-25T12:28:34  <fanquake> if only that meant the work day was over
2262020-08-25T12:28:49  <fanquake> odds on me not staying up for the entirety of your p2p meeting
2272020-08-25T12:30:11  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2282020-08-25T12:31:56  *** mol has quit IRC
2292020-08-25T12:32:10  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2302020-08-25T12:33:45  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2312020-08-25T12:33:45  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #19800: test: Mockwallet (master...2008-testMiniWallet) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19800
2322020-08-25T12:33:46  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2332020-08-25T12:42:59  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342020-08-25T12:44:34  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2352020-08-25T12:47:15  *** andreacab has quit IRC
2362020-08-25T12:48:43  *** vasild has quit IRC
2372020-08-25T12:49:03  *** kristapsk_ has quit IRC
2382020-08-25T12:49:48  *** troygiorshev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2392020-08-25T12:54:40  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2402020-08-25T12:56:46  *** fancyremarker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2412020-08-25T12:59:07  <fanquake> wumpus / sipa: can you block StanislavKlimov95
2422020-08-25T12:59:19  <fanquake> spamming addresses and nonsense
2432020-08-25T13:05:48  <wumpus>  fanquake done
2442020-08-25T13:06:03  <fanquake> wumpus: thanks
2452020-08-25T13:07:10  *** arowser has quit IRC
2462020-08-25T13:07:51  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2472020-08-25T13:09:12  *** arowser has quit IRC
2482020-08-25T13:09:54  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2492020-08-25T13:09:58  *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2502020-08-25T13:10:13  *** arowser has quit IRC
2512020-08-25T13:10:55  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2522020-08-25T13:12:09  *** arowser has quit IRC
2532020-08-25T13:12:35  *** mol has quit IRC
2542020-08-25T13:12:52  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2552020-08-25T13:13:54  *** tralfaz is now known as Davterra
2562020-08-25T13:16:45  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2572020-08-25T13:21:57  *** gzhao408 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2582020-08-25T13:22:09  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2592020-08-25T13:22:23  *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
2602020-08-25T13:22:50  *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2612020-08-25T13:23:11  *** andreacab has quit IRC
2622020-08-25T13:27:39  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2632020-08-25T13:30:26  *** fancyremarker has quit IRC
2642020-08-25T13:30:57  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00__ has quit IRC
2652020-08-25T13:39:18  *** promag has quit IRC
2662020-08-25T13:39:32  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2672020-08-25T13:52:51  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2682020-08-25T13:52:51  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #19801: test: check for all possible OP_CLTV fail reasons in feature_cltv.py (BIP 65) (master...20200825-test-check-all-failure-reasons-for-CLTV) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19801
2692020-08-25T13:52:52  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2702020-08-25T14:02:40  *** disconnected has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2712020-08-25T14:06:47  *** promag has quit IRC
2722020-08-25T14:07:30  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2732020-08-25T14:14:39  *** promag has quit IRC
2742020-08-25T14:14:51  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2752020-08-25T14:23:31  *** lightlike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2762020-08-25T14:29:34  *** lightlike_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2772020-08-25T14:30:07  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
2782020-08-25T14:30:17  *** lightlike_ has quit IRC
2792020-08-25T14:32:34  *** lightlike has quit IRC
2802020-08-25T14:38:12  *** arowser has quit IRC
2812020-08-25T14:38:54  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2822020-08-25T14:44:42  *** promag has quit IRC
2832020-08-25T14:45:21  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2842020-08-25T14:46:37  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2852020-08-25T14:46:56  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2862020-08-25T14:53:47  <jnewbery> hi folks. We'll get started with the p2p meeting in a few minutes. We'll start like last week with a chance for people to share what they're working on and their priorities are, so if you're planning on attending perhaps have a think about whether there's anything you want to share.
2872020-08-25T14:56:10  *** lightlike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2882020-08-25T14:57:08  <sdaftuar> maybe don't need to do a roll call on everyone to share, just let people jump in on anything that has changed since last time?
2892020-08-25T15:00:02  *** disconnected has quit IRC
2902020-08-25T15:00:13  <jnewbery> #startmeeting
2912020-08-25T15:00:13  <lightningbot> Meeting started Tue Aug 25 15:00:13 2020 UTC.  The chair is jnewbery. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
2922020-08-25T15:00:13  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
2932020-08-25T15:00:21  <jonatack> hi
2942020-08-25T15:00:23  <hebasto> hi
2952020-08-25T15:00:24  <sdaftuar> hi
2962020-08-25T15:00:24  <troygiorshev> hi
2972020-08-25T15:00:26  <amiti> hi
2982020-08-25T15:00:28  <ajonas> hi
2992020-08-25T15:00:29  <fanquake> hi
3002020-08-25T15:00:41  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3012020-08-25T15:00:52  <gzhao408> hi
3022020-08-25T15:01:05  <jnewbery> #bitcoin-core-dev P2P Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator aj Chris_Stewart_5 dongcarl gwillen jamesob ken281221 ryanofsky gleb moneyball kvaciral ariard digi_james
3032020-08-25T15:01:11  <MarcoFalke> hi
3042020-08-25T15:01:11  <jnewbery> amiti fjahr jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55 elichai2
3052020-08-25T15:01:26  <jnewbery> hi folks. Welcome to p2p meeting 2!
3062020-08-25T15:01:36  <sipa> hi
3072020-08-25T15:01:40  <jnewbery> #topic priority/focus
3082020-08-25T15:01:54  <jnewbery> Does anyone have any updates that they want to share since last week?
3092020-08-25T15:02:05  <jonatack> y
3102020-08-25T15:02:08  <jnewbery> feel free to jump in
3112020-08-25T15:02:24  <jnewbery> s/last week/last meeting/
3122020-08-25T15:02:27  <jonatack> My prios were BIP155, BIP324, and BIP325 implementation PRs, and they seem to be moving forward.
3132020-08-25T15:02:30  <hebasto> just after jon :)
3142020-08-25T15:02:35  <ariard> hi
3152020-08-25T15:02:37  <jonatack> BIP155 addrv2: #19628 has been receiving review from sipa, elichai, ryanofsky, kallewoof, sipsorceryand myself, and now has 4 ACKs; vasild is deferring further (minor) changes to the PR in order to preserve existing review, but there's no reason to not review it
3162020-08-25T15:02:42  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19628 | net: change CNetAddr::ip to have flexible size by vasild · Pull Request #19628 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3172020-08-25T15:02:53  <jonatack> it seems to be close
3182020-08-25T15:02:58  <jonatack> BIP325 signet: #18267 has been through a few more rounds of review and seems to be getting close, with recent review by fjahr, pinheadz, MarcoFalke, instagibbs, and myself
3192020-08-25T15:03:01  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18267 | BIP-325: Signet [consensus] by kallewoof · Pull Request #18267 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3202020-08-25T15:03:09  <jonatack> (sorry if that isn't p2p)
3212020-08-25T15:03:12  <aj> hi
3222020-08-25T15:03:14  <jonatack> BIP324 v2 p2p encrypted message transport protocol: right after the last p2p meeting, jonasschnelli rebased and updated #18242 (changes only used in tests for now) and I've begun re-reviewing it along with the BIP, which has some open questions.
3232020-08-25T15:03:17  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18242 | Add BIP324 encrypted p2p transport de-/serializer (only used in tests) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #18242 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3242020-08-25T15:03:26  <jonatack> The BIP had received no new feedback since mid-June and the latest review by ariard, elichai, and realorrandom, but Lloyd Fournier just wrote a detailed comment yesterday, which I plan to go through asap: https://gist.github.com/jonasschnelli/c530ea8421b8d0e80c51486325587c52#gistcomment-3428675
3252020-08-25T15:03:29  <sipa> unfortunately no; i haven't gotten to rebasing/updating the tx overhaul, by being distracted on taproot and a few generic secp256k1 issues; i did reviews for 19628 though; happy to see that moving along
3262020-08-25T15:03:53  <jonatack> I encourage people to review BIP 324 and the PR 18242.
3272020-08-25T15:04:20  <nehan> hi
3282020-08-25T15:04:23  <jonatack> 19731 was merged yesterday, which allows some interesting possibilities for eviction tests and I have added those columns into my dev branch of cli -netinfo
3292020-08-25T15:04:31  <jonatack> 19643 achieved a pretty massive rough consensus with ~9/10 Concept/Approach ACKs and 6 full tested ACKs by wumpus, 0xB10C, fjahr, vasild, practicalswift and pinheadz.
3302020-08-25T15:04:39  <jonatack> It's an extremely useful tool for anyone rrrrunning a node, particularly developerrrs and p2p reviewerrrs, and is completely encapsulated in a single class in bitcoin-cli.cpp that is both easy to maintain and easy to rrrip out in 2 minutes if no longer wanted
3312020-08-25T15:04:52  <jonatack> finnaly
3322020-08-25T15:04:52  <sipa> jonatack: yeah, i need to respond to llfourn's comments
3332020-08-25T15:04:53  <jonatack> 19610 is a net processing pure refactoring and simplification with jnewbery, that splits AlreadyHave() up into AlreadyHaveTx() and AlreadyHaveBlock() since they are now two totally separate concepts; the block and transaction paths have drifted apart sufficiently that it no longer makes sense to have a common function there. The PR also simplifies CInv::type and INV/TX processing code.
3342020-08-25T15:04:55  <jonatack> Thanks to fjahr, jnewbery, and vasild who have reviewed it so far! Review welcome.
3352020-08-25T15:05:04  <jonatack> that's it for me :p
3362020-08-25T15:05:07  <vasild> hi
3372020-08-25T15:05:46  <ajonas> I've been trying to keep track of the #18044 clean-ups.
3382020-08-25T15:05:51  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18044 | Use wtxid for transaction relay by sdaftuar · Pull Request #18044 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3392020-08-25T15:05:56  <ajonas> I've checked in with jnewbery and amiti on them. sipa has some he's said he's going to do. instagibbs has already pushed a test. jeremy has a few that he's been discussing with amiti as well.
3402020-08-25T15:06:21  <ajonas> and then there are the backports
3412020-08-25T15:07:02  <hebasto> my prios are #17785 and #17428
3422020-08-25T15:07:05  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17785 | p2p: Unify Send and Receive protocol versions by hebasto · Pull Request #17785 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3432020-08-25T15:07:08  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17428 | p2p: Try to preserve outbound block-relay-only connections during restart by hebasto · Pull Request #17428 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3442020-08-25T15:07:17  <fanquake> I don't think there's any rush to do the backports until any followup discussion changes/have been finalized. Might as well backport all that's needed at once.
3452020-08-25T15:07:23  <sipa> ajonas: i think my followup is dome already (#19569)
3462020-08-25T15:07:26  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19569 | Enable fetching of orphan parents from wtxid peers by sipa · Pull Request #19569 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3472020-08-25T15:07:35  <ariard> sipa: what was llfourn main proposal of change for bip324? He didn't propose to MAC the length field, so no BIP change
3482020-08-25T15:07:48  <ajonas> sipa: I'll take a look. Thanks.
3492020-08-25T15:07:56  <MarcoFalke> The one to 0.19 should be ready, right? No other p2p backports are planned for that release and we might as well ship 0.19 after that backport
3502020-08-25T15:07:59  <ariard> and the DoS concern are more theoritical, given you have easier alternatives
3512020-08-25T15:08:11  <sipa> ariard: no changes, just commentary, iirc - but i need to go through it in more detail
3522020-08-25T15:08:58  <sdaftuar> i've been thinking about small topology improvements, specifically picking up the main idea of #16859
3532020-08-25T15:08:59  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16859 | Syncing headers with feeler-peers · Issue #16859 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3542020-08-25T15:09:16  <sdaftuar> well, that's only sort of a topology improvement, depending on implementation, actually
3552020-08-25T15:09:39  <sdaftuar> the main idea is to sync headers with more peers, and potentially replace peers with new ones as well
3562020-08-25T15:09:46  <sdaftuar> hopefully PR to come soon-ish
3572020-08-25T15:10:25  <sipa> are we eventually just going to split up all functionality, and have header-peers, block-peers, tx-peers, addr-peers? :)
3582020-08-25T15:10:46  <ariard> we might learn headers from feelers, but are we going to actively maintain connections to them if we learn about a potential better chain?
3592020-08-25T15:10:55  <aj> sipa: separating addr-peers sounds weird, but all the rest of it...
3602020-08-25T15:11:01  <sdaftuar> i don't know! :)  i have two implementations of that idea that i'm playing with, one where i introduce a new peer type (headers-sync-peer) which gets quickly dropped
3612020-08-25T15:11:05  <ariard> like upgrading them to block-peers and evvicting one in consequence if max outboounds reach
3622020-08-25T15:11:13  <sdaftuar> and the other where i treat it as an extra block-relay-only peer that can evict another block-relay peer
3632020-08-25T15:11:26  <aj> sipa: that segues to what i've been working on which is supporting "regular" peers and "taproot-enabled" (and "anyprevout-enabled") peers for signet, indicated via service flags...
3642020-08-25T15:12:28  <ariard> right, for the headers-sync-peer variant, you can store headers with addrs, and if we stale tip randomly pick up a better-chain-known-addr, open a connection with them
3652020-08-25T15:12:36  <ariard> though likely more compelx of implementation
3662020-08-25T15:13:19  <sipa> aj: just so that txn would propagate well?
3672020-08-25T15:13:30  <amiti> sdaftuar: you had mentioned thinking about a way to distinguish incoming block-relay-only connections. I’m guessing this has something to do with the feature negotiation topic on the mailing list? what are your current thoughts?
3682020-08-25T15:13:48  <ariard> maybe not store headers, just mark them as known-as-useful-peers
3692020-08-25T15:13:57  <aj> sipa: s/well/at all/, yeah
3702020-08-25T15:14:11  <sdaftuar> oh right, now that i have clarity on how to propose new feature negotiation, yeah i'm thinking about a simple way to negotiate block-relay only connections at peer connection time, so that both sides of a connection know they can devote less resources to each other
3712020-08-25T15:14:18  <sdaftuar> which is mostly a per-peer memory savings
3722020-08-25T15:14:51  <sdaftuar> and then hopefully we can increase the number of inbounds (specifically carve out extra inbound slots for block-relay peers)
3732020-08-25T15:15:02  <sdaftuar> and then increase the number of block-relay outbound connections we make too
3742020-08-25T15:15:28  <sdaftuar> so i'm planning to pick that up as well in the near term
3752020-08-25T15:15:46  <jnewbery> > now that i have clarity on how to propose new feature negotiation
3762020-08-25T15:15:50  <jnewbery> ^ it wasn't clear to me what the outcome of the mailing list discussion was. What are you proposing?
3772020-08-25T15:15:52  <sipa> aj: for segwit, this preferential peering was critical, as blocks wouldn't propagate from old modes to new ones... for the things you're talking about it's just about transactions
3782020-08-25T15:15:57  <fanquake> related #19723
3792020-08-25T15:15:59  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19723 | Ignore unknown messages before VERACK by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19723 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3802020-08-25T15:16:00  <sdaftuar> jnewbery: just accompany new features with a protocol version bump
3812020-08-25T15:16:10  <sdaftuar> but otherwise copy what has been done before
3822020-08-25T15:16:33  <sdaftuar> seems to me that path is basically unobjectionable
3832020-08-25T15:17:02  <sipa> it works okayish
3842020-08-25T15:17:10  <jnewbery> forcing protocol changes to be serial seems not as good as being able to opt in to different features
3852020-08-25T15:17:27  <sdaftuar> i think we can deal with that when we actually get protocol version number conflicts?
3862020-08-25T15:17:31  <sdaftuar> seems like it doesn't happen in practce
3872020-08-25T15:17:34  <aj> sipa: yeah, not much fun if your transactions don't propogate though
3882020-08-25T15:17:37  <sipa> sdaftuar: fair
3892020-08-25T15:18:00  <sdaftuar> and i don't think we can force other implementations to adopt anything generic (like i proposed)
3902020-08-25T15:18:06  <sdaftuar> so i think it's easy for now to accommodate those preferences
3912020-08-25T15:18:21  <aj> sipa: atm i'm telling it once you've got 50% peers connected, only add more outbounds if it improves your tx connectivity
3922020-08-25T15:18:48  <sipa> aj: yeah, and with a better separation between block and tx connections (or block-only and full connections) it may be possible to apply such peering only on the tx-carrying ones
3932020-08-25T15:19:10  *** eugene48 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3942020-08-25T15:19:18  <sdaftuar> hm, we've not historically used service bits for tx-relay properties right?
3952020-08-25T15:19:24  <aj> sipa: yep. blocks-only happens after tx-carrying ones atm; which is maybe backwards?
3962020-08-25T15:19:41  <sipa> sdaftuar: indeed
3972020-08-25T15:19:51  <sipa> i'm a bit hesitant about that...
3982020-08-25T15:20:14  <sdaftuar> we don't have a good framework for thinking about transaction propagation imo
3992020-08-25T15:20:44  <ariard> right, and that's something we need for higher layer :)
4002020-08-25T15:21:14  <amiti> sdaftuar: care to elaborate? what would a good framework look like? or, what is something we do have a good framework for thinking about?
4012020-08-25T15:21:15  <aj> is there anything that'd make more sense than service flags? i think you want something that's in addrman, in case there's 5000 nodes, and only 5 of them support the feature you want
4022020-08-25T15:21:17  <sipa> aj: also, this isn'ta actually specific to softforks, but to policy cjangs
4032020-08-25T15:21:27  <sdaftuar> sipa: exactly
4042020-08-25T15:21:38  <aj> sipa: yep
4052020-08-25T15:21:43  <sdaftuar> but i think there is something to be said for splitting up policy issues into things you can deal with, and things that are hopeless?
4062020-08-25T15:21:51  <sipa> so far we haven't assumed we can reasom about peer's tx policies
4072020-08-25T15:21:52  <sdaftuar> i don';t know
4082020-08-25T15:21:54  <ariard> at least there is a difference between propagation validity and ensuring your tx-propagation paths aren't intersected by malicous/buggy peers
4092020-08-25T15:22:02  *** [n1x]_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4102020-08-25T15:22:29  <sipa> arguably, we do already, in the form of feefilter
4112020-08-25T15:22:43  <sipa> that is effectively tellings peer part of our relay policy
4122020-08-25T15:23:22  <sipa> with automatic tx rebroadcast there may be slightly less need for this
4132020-08-25T15:23:26  <sdaftuar> there are so many things that can go wrong with respect to transactions you have not propagating well
4142020-08-25T15:23:28  <aj> perhaps it should be an entirely separate addressbook, and you have to look up via a separate seed, rather than flags in the existing address book?
4152020-08-25T15:24:00  <sipa> aj: i feel it's a can of worms, trying to do this well
4162020-08-25T15:24:01  <ariard> policy has to be hardcoded in higher layers, like minimum transaction size, unless you assume you higher stack to fetch your node to learn peer policies negotiated
4172020-08-25T15:24:03  <sdaftuar> automatic tx rebroadcast + tx-relay-peer rotation might be the most robust thing we can do?
4182020-08-25T15:24:09  <ariard> at least a subset
4192020-08-25T15:25:04  <sipa> plus the philosophical issue that it means assumptions on being to rely on (claimed/standardized) policy
4202020-08-25T15:25:07  <aj> sipa: sure. i only really care about doing it adequately at this point :)
4212020-08-25T15:25:24  <sipa> so, eh
4222020-08-25T15:25:33  <sipa> why hasn't this historically been needed?
4232020-08-25T15:25:39  <sdaftuar> :)
4242020-08-25T15:25:46  <ariard> sipa: I agree that's a philosophical issue but that was implicetely part of any payment channel design with timelocks
4252020-08-25T15:25:54  <aj> sipa: because everyone upgrades before the policy change activates?
4262020-08-25T15:26:06  <sipa> aj: right
4272020-08-25T15:26:07  <aj> sipa: then no one transacts with the changed policy for a while anyway
4282020-08-25T15:26:10  <instagibbs> none of your peers accepting a softfork policy may tell you something too :)
4292020-08-25T15:26:12  <ariard> wait for some LN implementation being broken for forgetting some policy check
4302020-08-25T15:26:25  <sipa> ariard: i feel that's a mistake, tbh
4312020-08-25T15:26:57  <ariard> sipa: ofc but the fact that they are not well-documented contribute to this, like no proper toolchain to test them in separation
4322020-08-25T15:27:49  <ariard> and you have the issue of a time-sensitive A propagating wrt to policy set X but not with policy set Y and your full-node being only connected to peers Y
4332020-08-25T15:27:58  <ariard> time-sensitive tx A
4342020-08-25T15:28:22  <sdaftuar> ariard: that could be addressed by tx-relay-peer rotation, for what it's worth
4352020-08-25T15:28:39  <sdaftuar> but if the miners aren't running your policy you're in trouble!
4362020-08-25T15:28:44  <ariard> I agree assuming you rotate quick enough with regards to security timelocks
4372020-08-25T15:28:45  <sipa> ariard: aren't time sensitive things done on a scale of days/weeks/..., where this should be far less of a problem?
4382020-08-25T15:29:32  <ariard> sdafturar: I know, LN security is in fine dependent of power miners policy, i.e the ones likely to mine a block during the timelock
4392020-08-25T15:29:40  <ariard> and it's kinda a black box :(
4402020-08-25T15:29:58  <aj> sipa: i suppose on mainnet it could be amusing to have a well-known set of nodes that allow rbf-without-pinning (ie, will relay any tx as long as it has the rbf bit set, and pays more than the tx it's replacing, no worries how many it invalidates)
4412020-08-25T15:30:09  <sipa> so you can even do things like warning a user their time-sensitive tx isn't confirming
4422020-08-25T15:30:15  <ariard> sipa: here the tradeoff, we can always pickup higher timelocks, both for punishement and cltv delta but that come at the price in case of channel failure
4432020-08-25T15:30:32  <ariard> you increase the timevalue of locked funds for nothing
4442020-08-25T15:30:45  <aj> sipa: everybody else ignores it as spam, but it still gets to miners so avoids lightning txs getting pinned or whatever
4452020-08-25T15:31:06  <ariard> sipa: you might be under attack in the middle of the night, I lean to assume the same kind of automatic security model we have wrt to block validation
4462020-08-25T15:31:10  <sipa> aj: that seems problematic
4472020-08-25T15:31:42  *** promag has quit IRC
4482020-08-25T15:31:54  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4492020-08-25T15:32:02  <ariard> increasing timelocks on the long-term increase cost of LN routing fees, and thus utility of the overall system
4502020-08-25T15:32:18  <sipa> a node's rational policy should be to try to approximate the network's behavior
4512020-08-25T15:32:41  <ariard> because someone has to pay for the average expected failure, even if right now it's not priced at all by routing nodes
4522020-08-25T15:32:47  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
4532020-08-25T15:33:22  <ariard> sipa: I agree on this, like accept the lower bound to improve your feerate view, and also improve your local fee estimation
4542020-08-25T15:33:30  <ariard> thus lowering your fees, theoritically
4552020-08-25T15:33:55  <jnewbery> sorry, I've lost the thread a bit here. Are we specifically trying to solve a problem for taproot on signet here?
4562020-08-25T15:34:47  <ariard> jnewbery: thanks for the nudge, are p2p meeting for more theoritically discussions too :p ?
4572020-08-25T15:34:47  <troygiorshev> yeah for those of us looking to organize this, anyone want to summarize and/or give this a title?
4582020-08-25T15:35:12  <aj> jnewbery: allocating some service flags on signet seems to solve the problem okay on signet; trying to see if there's a better solution that usefully generalises to something that would be helpful on mainnet?
4592020-08-25T15:35:15  *** Davterra has quit IRC
4602020-08-25T15:35:34  *** Davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4612020-08-25T15:35:39  <sipa> i think we got a bit sidetracked... i don't think we're going to solve all problems with tx relay of time-sensitive transactions in a reliable way today..
4622020-08-25T15:35:49  <sdaftuar> i think the general question is whether it's worth worrying about differing transaction relay policies on our p2p network, and if so, to what extent
4632020-08-25T15:35:57  <sipa> aj: oh, just signet?
4642020-08-25T15:36:07  <jnewbery> it's fine to have theoretical discussions, i'm just a little lost as to what exactly we're discussing
4652020-08-25T15:36:13  <sipa> aj: can't you just create a new signet with taproot from the start?
4662020-08-25T15:36:25  <sipa> as in separate network
4672020-08-25T15:36:28  <aj> sipa: just signet, and only for the period while a soft-fork is in development, retired after it activates on mainnet (or becomes obsolete)
4682020-08-25T15:36:56  <aj> sipa: we're working on having this work in the default signet; having custom signets is definitely an additional/alternative option
4692020-08-25T15:37:16  <sipa> right, makes sense
4702020-08-25T15:37:33  <aj> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19787 has some discussion, maybe missing some context though
4712020-08-25T15:37:48  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4722020-08-25T15:38:04  <jnewbery> aj: do you have any code or a more concrete proposal?
4732020-08-25T15:38:36  <aj> jnewbery: still working on a concrete proposal; code is at https://github.com/ajtowns/bitcoin/commits/signet-tr ; obviously subject to change
4742020-08-25T15:39:00  <ariard> sdaftuar: I'll open an issue resuming conversation, to scope security worries ones might have with tx-relay discrepancies
4752020-08-25T15:39:12  <jnewbery> thanks. Are you asking for review yet?
4762020-08-25T15:39:35  <aj> jnewbery: it allocates service flag 32 to indicate the current version of taproot; will bump to 33 when even-R taproot happens i think
4772020-08-25T15:39:52  <aj> jnewbery: not really; i'm trying to get it to run on a second node of my own first
4782020-08-25T15:40:05  <sipa> aj: so you will do a hardfork in signet?
4792020-08-25T15:40:53  <sdaftuar> amiti: i realized i never answered your question before, but i think that we don't even know exactly what our tx-relay goals are, let alone how to measure our progress against those goals, or how to improve things.
4802020-08-25T15:40:57  <aj> sipa: the idea is if you run "bitcoind -signet -experimental=taproot" then you'll get a hardfork event, and either have to drop the -experimental=taproot or upgrade to continue following the chain
4812020-08-25T15:41:28  <aj> sipa: the upgraded code will have taproot activate at a later mediantime so any prior transactions will just be random garbage that didn't need to be validated
4822020-08-25T15:42:12  <aj> sdaftuar: "that people don't complain on twitter and reddit about their txs not confirming" ? :)
4832020-08-25T15:42:30  * sipa suggests hardforking in paypal support
4842020-08-25T15:42:33  <sdaftuar> aj: haha if that's our only goal we can just get the moderators to filter those complaints out!
4852020-08-25T15:42:47  <aj> sdaftuar: censorship for the win
4862020-08-25T15:42:53  <ariard> aj: if we were binding to twitter-driven developpement why taproot isn't already activated :) ?
4872020-08-25T15:43:08  <sdaftuar> TDD = twitter driven development? TIL
4882020-08-25T15:43:29  <instagibbs> ariard, maybe it is *spooky music*
4892020-08-25T15:43:34  <jnewbery> Did everyone who wanted to have a chance to share what they're working at the start of the meeting?
4902020-08-25T15:43:47  <jnewbery> troygiorshev, amiti, fanquake, gzhao408, MarcoFalke, nehan: did you want to share anything?
4912020-08-25T15:44:00  <troygiorshev> i'll jump in briefly
4922020-08-25T15:44:02  <troygiorshev> since last time, I hosted a PR review club on #19509 per-peer message logging.  thanks to everyone who came!  some changes have been made and a few more will be in in the next few days.
4932020-08-25T15:44:06  <troygiorshev> i also encourage review on 19628 (myself included...)
4942020-08-25T15:44:07  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19509 | Per-Peer Message Logging by troygiorshev · Pull Request #19509 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4952020-08-25T15:44:10  <troygiorshev> if anyone is looking to dive into a relatively tedious net/net_processing unraveling, #19107 is still looking for review!
4962020-08-25T15:44:13  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19107 | p2p: Move all header verification into the network layer, extend logging by troygiorshev · Pull Request #19107 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4972020-08-25T15:44:18  <troygiorshev> that's all :)
4982020-08-25T15:44:24  <jnewbery> thanks troy!
4992020-08-25T15:44:42  <MarcoFalke> jnewbery: thx :). I was mostly working on 100% test coverage for p2p, but then got sidetracked/slowed down. I hope to pick that up soon
5002020-08-25T15:45:04  <amiti> marcofalke: 100%! I like this ambition.
5012020-08-25T15:45:09  <jnewbery> MarcoFalke: any PRs you want to shill, or still WIP?
5022020-08-25T15:45:23  <MarcoFalke> still WIP (or needing rebase)
5032020-08-25T15:45:33  <aj> (btw 50 days / 7 weeks 'til 0.21 feature freeze per 18947)
5042020-08-25T15:45:40  <nehan> jnewbery: thanks! i have a tiny PR to fix the lack of lock around vRecvGetData and orphan_work_set which I will open soon. Other than that, noting things here that need review.
5052020-08-25T15:45:53  <fanquake> I have nothing to share other than I’m trying to merge p2p PRs in some kind of sane order. Sorry if you have to rebase.
5062020-08-25T15:46:06  <jnewbery> MarcoFalke: let me know if there's any interaction/conflict with #19791
5072020-08-25T15:46:08  <sdaftuar> topic suggestion: 0.21 p2p goals?
5082020-08-25T15:46:08  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19791 | [net processing] Move Misbehaving() to PeerManager by jnewbery · Pull Request #19791 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5092020-08-25T15:46:31  <MarcoFalke> jnewbery: Shouldn't be any interaction
5102020-08-25T15:46:58  <jnewbery> sdaftuar: good idea. Let's see if there anyone else wants to share priorities/focus then move on to that
5112020-08-25T15:47:07  <ariard> wrt 0.21, tx-request overhaul? erlay?
5122020-08-25T15:47:11  <amiti> sdaftuar: agreed. I had spent a while trying to distill tx-relay goals, but its definitely tricky. have you seen sipa's description on #19184? it specifies a very clear list of goals
5132020-08-25T15:47:14  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19184 | Overhaul transaction request logic by sipa · Pull Request #19184 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5142020-08-25T15:47:41  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5152020-08-25T15:47:58  <jnewbery> The thing I'd like to see prioritized in the short term are the backports: #19606 #19680 #19681
5162020-08-25T15:48:02  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19606 | Backport wtxid relay to v0.20 by jnewbery · Pull Request #19606 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5172020-08-25T15:48:03  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19680 | 0.20: Add txids with non-standard inputs to reject filter by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19680 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5182020-08-25T15:48:04  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19681 | 0.19: Add txids with non-standard inputs to reject filter by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19681 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5192020-08-25T15:48:14  <sdaftuar> amiti: yes i think sipa's writeup is great for what we want a single node to do, i was referring to what we want overall network behavior to look like -- i think that is a big unknown
5202020-08-25T15:48:23  <amiti> ahhh
5212020-08-25T15:48:24  <jnewbery> and I also need to backport #19569 to v0.20 once 19606 is merged
5222020-08-25T15:48:27  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19569 | Enable fetching of orphan parents from wtxid peers by sipa · Pull Request #19569 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5232020-08-25T15:49:02  <jnewbery> #19680 and #19681 are very easy reviews, even if you didn't review the original PR
5242020-08-25T15:49:03  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19680 | 0.20: Add txids with non-standard inputs to reject filter by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19680 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5252020-08-25T15:49:04  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19681 | 0.19: Add txids with non-standard inputs to reject filter by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19681 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5262020-08-25T15:49:20  <jnewbery> and once 19681 is in, I think we can do a 0.19 release
5272020-08-25T15:49:29  <fanquake> jnewbery: is there any particular rush?
5282020-08-25T15:49:49  <fanquake> I think there’s still a few more things tagged for 0.19 before we cut a release
5292020-08-25T15:49:49  <jnewbery> fanquake: for 0.19 or the other ones?
5302020-08-25T15:49:53  <jnewbery> ah, ok
5312020-08-25T15:49:55  <fanquake> Either
5322020-08-25T15:49:58  <aj> maybe add the non-std input reject to high-pri? i thought there used to be a backports thing on that?
5332020-08-25T15:50:14  <jnewbery> aj: I'll add them
5342020-08-25T15:50:28  <jnewbery> although most of the people who'd review them are here right now :)
5352020-08-25T15:50:55  <jonatack> Is anyone working on overhauling peer misbehavior (e.g. measure resource usage by peers and penalise those peers consuming more of ours?) I think jnewbery is moving it into PeerManager, but besides that?
5362020-08-25T15:50:58  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has quit IRC
5372020-08-25T15:51:06  <jnewbery> #topic 0.21 p2p goals
5382020-08-25T15:51:18  <sdaftuar> so i think #19184 should be a goal for 0.21
5392020-08-25T15:51:20  <jnewbery> sdaftuar: want to start? We only have 9 minutes left
5402020-08-25T15:51:21  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19184 | Overhaul transaction request logic by sipa · Pull Request #19184 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5412020-08-25T15:51:39  <sdaftuar> other than that, i don't feel strongly -- and am curious what other things people would like
5422020-08-25T15:51:43  <troygiorshev> jonatack: i've been working on a pr measuring per peer resource usage
5432020-08-25T15:51:46  <sdaftuar> i'm guessing erlay is too ambitious
5442020-08-25T15:52:13  <jonatack> troygiorshev: great, ty
5452020-08-25T15:52:15  <jnewbery> +1 for 19184. I did a quick review, but I'm holding off doing a full review until sipa says it's ready
5462020-08-25T15:52:21  <sdaftuar> in particular, if there are some concrete features people want added, with 7 weeks to go we should try to round up review effort
5472020-08-25T15:52:35  <sipa> jnewbery: will do actually soon
5482020-08-25T15:52:36  <aj> progress on p2p testing a la amiti/marcofalke would be nice?
5492020-08-25T15:53:06  <jnewbery> 19184 may be ambitious for 0.21 if it's code freeze in 7 weeks?
5502020-08-25T15:53:16  <ariard> especially p2p testing of the eviction logic, if we aim to improve it in the future
5512020-08-25T15:53:21  <sipa> wow, 7 weeks already?
5522020-08-25T15:53:23  <aj> jnewbery: feature freeze, not code freeze
5532020-08-25T15:53:24  <MarcoFalke> aj: no progress from me for now
5542020-08-25T15:53:39  <sipa> well, should be doable i think
5552020-08-25T15:54:32  <sdaftuar> i haven't been following addrv2 very much
5562020-08-25T15:54:35  <jonatack> I think BIP155 addrv2 is a priority, according to vasild the next steps should be smaller and easier
5572020-08-25T15:54:35  <ajonas> this may have been asked elsewhere but is 19184 a requirement for taproot?
5582020-08-25T15:54:38  <sdaftuar> is that something that needs to be on a shorter timetable?
5592020-08-25T15:54:49  <jnewbery> ajonas: no
5602020-08-25T15:54:56  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
5612020-08-25T15:54:57  <amiti> I'd like to see #17428 make progress. reviewers have agreed on the benefits of at least some of the changes, but momentum slowed down on some of the specifics. if anyone wants to review and weigh in :)
5622020-08-25T15:55:00  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17428 | p2p: Try to preserve outbound block-relay-only connections during restart by hebasto · Pull Request #17428 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5632020-08-25T15:55:24  <amiti> ariard: p2p testing of eviction logic would be awesome.
5642020-08-25T15:55:39  <jonatack> Tor v2 deprecation begins Sept 15
5652020-08-25T15:55:53  <sdaftuar> what's the addvr2 roadmap look like?  i don't know where we are at all.
5662020-08-25T15:56:01  <troygiorshev> #19031
5672020-08-25T15:56:03  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19031 | Implement ADDRv2 support (part of BIP155) by vasild · Pull Request #19031 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5682020-08-25T15:56:36  <troygiorshev> we're, say, a bit over half way there?
5692020-08-25T15:56:51  <sdaftuar> are there remaining design considerations at this point, or is it all just implementation?
5702020-08-25T15:57:06  <sipa> sdaftuar: i think it's just implementation work
5712020-08-25T15:57:09  <jonatack> amiti: is anyone working of eviction testing atm?
5722020-08-25T15:57:18  <sdaftuar> thanks
5732020-08-25T15:57:26  <amiti> jonatack: not that I know of
5742020-08-25T15:58:11  <sdaftuar> so should we be aiming to get addrv2 into 0.21, or does that seem aggressive?
5752020-08-25T15:58:31  <jonatack> amiti: ty
5762020-08-25T15:58:58  <ariard> jonatack: I think we're pending on 19315 ? or make it easier with it ? need to review it to be sure
5772020-08-25T15:59:17  <jnewbery> seems doable. I haven't looked closely at the code but I think it's a smaller change than 19184 overhaul tx request logic
5782020-08-25T15:59:19  <sipa> sdaftuar: i think with #19628 we're over halfway there
5792020-08-25T15:59:22  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19628 | net: change CNetAddr::ip to have flexible size by vasild · Pull Request #19628 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5802020-08-25T15:59:34  <troygiorshev> sdaftuar: deprecated sept 15, and gone july 15 2021
5812020-08-25T15:59:41  <jonatack> addrv2 in 0.21 would be v worthwhile and agree, 19628 was probably the biggest chunk and it seems RFM
5822020-08-25T15:59:46  <sdaftuar> that sounds to me like we should prioritize it
5832020-08-25T15:59:50  <aj> troygiorshev: so desirable for 0.21 essential for 0.22?
5842020-08-25T15:59:51  <jnewbery> ok, 1 minute left. Anyone have anything they wanted to share before the end?
5852020-08-25T15:59:57  <ariard> amiti: wrt 17428, I concede gleb last point, too much advanced for now, though that would be great to have a clear map of connection types fingerprints
5862020-08-25T16:00:12  <sipa> #17428
5872020-08-25T16:00:16  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17428 | p2p: Try to preserve outbound block-relay-only connections during restart by hebasto · Pull Request #17428 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5882020-08-25T16:00:18  <jnewbery> #endmeeting
5892020-08-25T16:00:18  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Tue Aug 25 16:00:18 2020 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
5902020-08-25T16:00:18  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-08-25-15.00.html
5912020-08-25T16:00:18  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-08-25-15.00.txt
5922020-08-25T16:00:18  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-08-25-15.00.log.html
5932020-08-25T16:00:18  <troygiorshev> aj: I think that's right!
5942020-08-25T16:00:50  <sipa> sdaftuar: yeah, seems it also picked up a lot of momentum by the impending doom
5952020-08-25T16:00:56  <sdaftuar> thanks all! that was very helpful
5962020-08-25T16:01:04  <troygiorshev> great meeting everyone!
5972020-08-25T16:01:12  <jonatack> ariard: i need to review 19315, idk what's in it yet
5982020-08-25T16:01:15  <sdaftuar> sipa: ok good, i can take a look and try to help get it reviewed too, i have just totally lost track of the issues
5992020-08-25T16:04:51  *** Mercury_Vapor has quit IRC
6002020-08-25T16:05:14  <jonatack> ariard: amiti: if you work on eviction testing, happy to collaborate or look at stuff.
6012020-08-25T16:05:28  *** Mercury_Vapor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6022020-08-25T16:07:24  <aj> sipa, sdaftuar: so sounds like (ab)using some service flags in a signet specific way will be fine for an initial proposal if i can make it work, or at least that you don't have any better ideas yet?
6032020-08-25T16:07:24  *** promag has quit IRC
6042020-08-25T16:08:00  *** eugene48 has quit IRC
6052020-08-25T16:08:08  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6062020-08-25T16:08:10  <sdaftuar> aj: for just signet i don't have a view on what testing makes sense. but i'd be hesitant to do service-flags-for-tx-relay-policy on mainnet
6072020-08-25T16:08:23  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6082020-08-25T16:09:15  <vasild> sdaftuar: I like to think that BIP155 addrv2 is just an implementation at this point (no design decisions to be made). However there are two PRs that are yet to be merged into BIP155: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/907 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/967.
6092020-08-25T16:09:29  <sdaftuar> vasild: thank you, i will take a look at those as well!
6102020-08-25T16:09:34  <vasild> I am doing the implementation as if they are merged
6112020-08-25T16:09:48  <aj> sdaftuar: yes, 100% on not for mainnet (though not sure there's a good reason to do it for mainnet either? we didn't come up with one did we?)
6122020-08-25T16:09:56  <vasild> the commits so far that were merged were agnostic to those PRs
6132020-08-25T16:10:24  <sdaftuar> aj: ok great. can you explain what the motivation is for doing it on signet?
6142020-08-25T16:10:39  <lightlike> jonatack, ariard: are you specifically talking about inbound eviction tests? I don't quite follow how 17428 (although great!) can help with that - doesn't it add new types of outbound connections to the framework?
6152020-08-25T16:10:51  *** promag has quit IRC
6162020-08-25T16:11:27  <sdaftuar> aj: i'm just curious what the testing is aiming for
6172020-08-25T16:11:40  <aj> sdaftuar: so there are two ideas for "testing taproot on signet" -- one is to run a custom signet for taproot, in which case everything is easy. the other is to have the testing happen on the default signet.
6182020-08-25T16:12:17  <aj> sdaftuar: the/my idea is for this testing to be happening at the current stage of the code -- so it should work pretty well, but there's still potential for hard-forking changes, like the even-R change that'll happen soon
6192020-08-25T16:12:44  <vasild> sdaftuar: signaling of addrv2 support was decided to be done via new dedicated message (sendaddrv2), rather than service bits or protocol version bump. But you never know...
6202020-08-25T16:13:11  <aj> sdaftuar: the advantage of doing it on the default signet is that all the infrastructure should keep working -- the faucet, the explorer, and any wallets/lightning-clients/etc that have added support for signet, so you can see how it acts in the ecosystem, not just in purely lab conditions. so i think that's worth the extra effort
6212020-08-25T16:13:28  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6222020-08-25T16:13:30  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f8462a6d2794...8d6224fefe01
6232020-08-25T16:13:30  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1ea57ad Vasil Dimov: net: don't accept non-left-contiguous netmasks
6242020-08-25T16:13:31  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 102867c Vasil Dimov: net: change CNetAddr::ip to have flexible size
6252020-08-25T16:13:32  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8d6224f MarcoFalke: Merge #19628: net: change CNetAddr::ip to have flexible size
6262020-08-25T16:13:34  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
6272020-08-25T16:13:48  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6282020-08-25T16:13:48  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19628: net: change CNetAddr::ip to have flexible size (master...make_CNetAddr_ip_flexible) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19628
6292020-08-25T16:13:49  <vasild> \o/
6302020-08-25T16:13:49  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
6312020-08-25T16:14:07  <aj> sdaftuar: given all that, then we'll ideally have bunches of non-taproot aware nodes on signet, and some handful of taproot-aware nodes as well -- including some/all of the block signers/miners
6322020-08-25T16:15:30  <aj> sdaftuar: the two practical problems are then working out when the soft-fork becomes active, and tx's in blocks can be validated against the rules in a way that copes reasonably cleanly with hardfork changes like even-R; and letting peers connect to each other to relay tx's to the signers (atm, there's < 8 signet nodes, so that's trivial really)
6332020-08-25T16:16:05  <aj> sdaftuar: (this isn't really crucial for taproot; but I think having a live net for testing eltoo operability and attacks will be a big win for making sure anyprevout is sane)
6342020-08-25T16:17:01  <sdaftuar> aj: yeah so i guess is there a tx-relay testing issue you're trying to solve?
6352020-08-25T16:17:12  <sdaftuar> i mean, why not just connect to the signers?
6362020-08-25T16:17:16  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
6372020-08-25T16:17:35  *** rojiro has quit IRC
6382020-08-25T16:18:24  <aj> sdaftuar: (the activation approach i think will work is hardcoding an activation mediantime in the Signet chainparams, requiring the user to say --experimental=$forkname, and having activation happen on a retarget boundary once the mediantime has passed the constant. everyone then just has to upgrade to the new code prior the given mediantime, and everything works; and you don't need to worry about
6392020-08-25T16:18:24  <aj> different custom signets activating soft-forks at different heights. once something goes live on mainnet, set the mediantime to the time it went live on mainnet, and remove the --experimental= requirement)
6402020-08-25T16:18:26  <sdaftuar> it just seems to me like for modeling the network behavior as a whole, we don't have a clear goal for what the topology should look like on mainnet after activation (to my knowledge -- maybe someone can think abotu that and come up with a goal)
6412020-08-25T16:19:15  <aj> sdaftuar: if there's more than 100 taproot nodes, you can't have everyone connect to the signers?
6422020-08-25T16:19:44  <sdaftuar> aj: it's possible i really have no idea what the goals of signet are. :) so apologies if my suggestions are unhelpful.
6432020-08-25T16:20:05  <sdaftuar> but i guess it just seems like modeling the p2p behavior of mainnet isn't something that is necessarily being aimed for?
6442020-08-25T16:20:23  <aj> sdaftuar: i think the goals aren't really clear to anyone yet? :)
6452020-08-25T16:20:31  <sdaftuar> then i feel less bad!
6462020-08-25T16:20:33  <sdaftuar> :)
6472020-08-25T16:20:49  <aj> sdaftuar: certainly the real answer to why not just connect directly to the signers is "i didn't think of it"
6482020-08-25T16:21:13  <sdaftuar> i was just thinking abotu the issues we had with segwit on testnet a few years ago
6492020-08-25T16:21:22  <aj> sdaftuar: story time?
6502020-08-25T16:21:23  <sdaftuar> and there were plenty of p2p connectivity issues that would happen on testnet
6512020-08-25T16:21:41  * aj has no recollection of testnet/segwit things
6522020-08-25T16:21:55  <sdaftuar> well the main issue is that if you were running a testnet node, you might not be connected to anyone with NODE_WITNESS or whatever
6532020-08-25T16:22:14  <sdaftuar> and so someone might relay a block, but the witness would get stripped, and a bunch of nodes would receive it without witness.
6542020-08-25T16:22:26  <sdaftuar> old nodes would think it was valid anyway, and old-miners would build a chain on it
6552020-08-25T16:22:28  <sdaftuar> new nodes would not
6562020-08-25T16:22:34  <sdaftuar> and so there would be these big chain splits periodically
6572020-08-25T16:22:54  <aj> was that with the preferential-connect-to-NODE_WITNESS or before that?
6582020-08-25T16:22:55  <sdaftuar> anyway long story short, it was a sort of disaster, so i can see why having a situation not be as bad as that, is a good thing
6592020-08-25T16:23:48  <sdaftuar> aj: the preferential peering went through a couple iterations, but probably it was done after, yet there were so few NODE_WITNESS nodes at the time of testnet activation that we still ran into problems
6602020-08-25T16:24:23  <aj> right, makes sense
6612020-08-25T16:24:26  <sdaftuar> maybe it was just because segwit was such a big change, i was focused on chain splits more than tx propagaton back then
6622020-08-25T16:25:15  <sdaftuar> and at any rate solving the chain split issue (maintaining a bridge between the old and new networks) also resolved the segwit tx relay concerns, if they had been raised
6632020-08-25T16:25:17  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6642020-08-25T16:25:46  <sdaftuar> (at one point, i coded up a node to guess the coinbase witness (which is usually just a zero, the witness nonce) and resolved a giant fork that way)
6652020-08-25T16:27:50  <sdaftuar> anyway - if you want to preferentially peer with taproot nodes on signet so that you know your transactions are making it to the miners, who would also be running that same preferential peering code, i think that makes sense
6662020-08-25T16:27:53  <sdaftuar> s/miners/signers/
6672020-08-25T16:28:05  <jonatack> lightlike: yes, adding inbound eviction test coverage. it was one of the motivations for #19731 that was merged yesterday.
6682020-08-25T16:28:07  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19731 | net, rpc: expose nLastBlockTime/nLastTXTime as last block/last_transaction in getpeerinfo by jonatack · Pull Request #19731 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6692020-08-25T16:28:26  <sdaftuar> because you're basically deciding that you don't want to test transaction propagation but still be able to test that validation is working as you expect, which i think is reasonable
6702020-08-25T16:29:06  *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
6712020-08-25T16:29:15  <sdaftuar> i mean, you're not trying to simulate mainnet conditions with transaction propagation
6722020-08-25T16:29:21  *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6732020-08-25T16:29:32  <aj> sdaftuar: (atm, kalle's miner is non-taproot aware, while mine is; both refuse nonstd txs)
6742020-08-25T16:29:33  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6752020-08-25T16:29:45  <jonatack> lightlike: see also https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19500 and #19670
6762020-08-25T16:29:47  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19670 | Protect localhost and block-relay-only peers from eviction by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19670 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6772020-08-25T16:30:07  <jonatack> lightlike: and #19728
6782020-08-25T16:30:08  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19728 | Increase the ip address relay branching factor for unreachable networks by sipa · Pull Request #19728 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6792020-08-25T16:30:32  <aj> sdaftuar: it'd be nice if, given a large network of signet peers, tx propogation behaviour was like mainnet, i guess
6802020-08-25T16:30:53  <sdaftuar> aj: i feel like the lesson from testnet has been that is not really possible to achieve?  but i dunno.
6812020-08-25T16:31:09  <sdaftuar> or another way of putting it -- why would signet be any better than testnet?
6822020-08-25T16:31:10  <aj> sdaftuar: testnet is crazy though
6832020-08-25T16:31:39  <sdaftuar> you mean because of the reorgs?
6842020-08-25T16:32:12  <aj> sdaftuar: that and the rate at which blocks are found making CSV/CLTV not really sane
6852020-08-25T16:33:06  <aj> sdaftuar: but yeah, it's an "it'd be nice if", not a "i'm sure it'll work out this way"
6862020-08-25T16:34:17  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6872020-08-25T16:35:30  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
6882020-08-25T16:35:30  <sdaftuar> fair enough
6892020-08-25T16:36:56  <aj> sdaftuar: (i mean, my daydream is along the lines: signet is stable and usable, so people run and actually maintain test services against it, so there's a whole bunch of reliable nodes and web sites and things like LN that have actual uptime on it)
6902020-08-25T16:36:57  *** lnostdal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6912020-08-25T16:39:44  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6922020-08-25T16:39:44  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] vasild opened pull request #19802: doc: elaborate on release notes wrt netmasks (master...elaborate_netmasks_relnotes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19802
6932020-08-25T16:39:45  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
6942020-08-25T16:42:40  <jnewbery> aj: some may say you're a dreamer, but you're not the only one
6952020-08-25T16:42:56  *** promag has quit IRC
6962020-08-25T16:43:37  <aj> jnewbery: someday we'll find it, over a p2p connection, the hodlers, the scammers, and me?
6972020-08-25T16:43:39  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
6982020-08-25T16:44:02  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6992020-08-25T16:44:16  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7002020-08-25T16:44:39  <aj> jnewbery: (i'm in ur earwigs upgradin' your tunez)
7012020-08-25T16:45:34  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
7022020-08-25T16:45:59  *** promag has quit IRC
7032020-08-25T16:46:40  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7042020-08-25T16:48:25  *** promag has quit IRC
7052020-08-25T16:50:01  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7062020-08-25T16:51:28  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7072020-08-25T16:51:29  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #19803: Bugfix: Define and use HAVE_FDATASYNC correctly outside LevelDB (master...fix_fdatasync_check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19803
7082020-08-25T16:51:29  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
7092020-08-25T16:51:48  *** promag has quit IRC
7102020-08-25T16:51:53  <luke-jr> fanquake: removed the no-longer-accurate commit message detail; I still don't see why the rest of #14501 shouldn't get fixed at the same time, but whatever
7112020-08-25T16:51:55  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14501 | Fix possible data race when committing block files by luke-jr · Pull Request #14501 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
7122020-08-25T16:52:38  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7132020-08-25T16:54:25  *** promag has quit IRC
7142020-08-25T16:55:51  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7152020-08-25T16:56:05  *** lightlike has quit IRC
7162020-08-25T16:56:52  *** lightlike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7172020-08-25T16:57:12  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7182020-08-25T16:57:51  *** promag has quit IRC
7192020-08-25T16:59:10  <aj> jnewbery: hmm, it appears to work with two nodes! if i set -maxconnections=2 the second slot gets succesffully reserved for a taproot advertising node. still doesn't have a "-experimental=taproot" flag though
7202020-08-25T16:59:16  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7212020-08-25T17:01:01  *** promag has quit IRC
7222020-08-25T17:01:27  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
7232020-08-25T17:06:04  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7242020-08-25T17:07:50  *** promag has quit IRC
7252020-08-25T17:17:45  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
7262020-08-25T17:19:44  *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
7272020-08-25T17:19:59  *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7282020-08-25T17:20:25  *** yanmaani has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7292020-08-25T17:20:54  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
7302020-08-25T17:22:25  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7312020-08-25T17:22:25  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gzhao408 opened pull request #19804: test: remove confusing p2p property (master...test-p2p-property) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19804
7322020-08-25T17:22:26  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
7332020-08-25T17:28:22  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7342020-08-25T17:28:22  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #19805: wallet: Avoid deserializing unused records when salvaging (master...avoid-salvage-deser) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19805
7352020-08-25T17:28:23  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
7362020-08-25T17:30:26  *** reallll has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7372020-08-25T17:33:41  *** belcher_ has quit IRC
7382020-08-25T17:39:13  *** gribble has quit IRC
7392020-08-25T17:39:29  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7402020-08-25T17:39:49  *** watersnake1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7412020-08-25T17:40:36  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
7422020-08-25T17:43:17  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7432020-08-25T17:44:16  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7442020-08-25T17:45:03  *** promag has quit IRC
7452020-08-25T17:46:17  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
7462020-08-25T17:51:25  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7472020-08-25T17:51:35  <luke-jr> bitcoin-qt up to 218 MB :o
7482020-08-25T17:51:47  <MarcoFalke> ugh why
7492020-08-25T17:51:49  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7502020-08-25T17:52:20  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
7512020-08-25T17:52:40  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7522020-08-25T17:52:58  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
7532020-08-25T17:53:22  <luke-jr> MarcoFalke: guessing it's debugging symbols
7542020-08-25T17:53:33  *** promag has quit IRC
7552020-08-25T17:53:34  <luke-jr> still bleh tho
7562020-08-25T17:54:03  *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7572020-08-25T17:54:35  <aj> luke-jr: 129M for bitcoind, 163M for bitcoin-qt for me?
7582020-08-25T17:54:40  <aj> luke-jr: (clang)
7592020-08-25T17:55:45  <luke-jr> aj: hmm, -ggdb? -fsanitize=undefined ?
7602020-08-25T17:56:32  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7612020-08-25T17:56:34  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7622020-08-25T17:58:06  <aj> luke-jr: just with-debug and with-werror (and incompatible-bdb)
7632020-08-25T17:58:40  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7642020-08-25T17:59:16  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
7652020-08-25T18:00:01  *** [n1x]_ has quit IRC
7662020-08-25T18:00:24  *** promag has quit IRC
7672020-08-25T18:00:55  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
7682020-08-25T18:01:05  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
7692020-08-25T18:02:32  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7702020-08-25T18:02:45  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7712020-08-25T18:04:31  *** promag has quit IRC
7722020-08-25T18:10:59  *** afk11 has quit IRC
7732020-08-25T18:10:59  *** melande has quit IRC
7742020-08-25T18:12:09  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7752020-08-25T18:12:39  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7762020-08-25T18:12:59  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7772020-08-25T18:21:55  *** rlaager has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7782020-08-25T18:22:29  *** promag has quit IRC
7792020-08-25T18:23:02  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7802020-08-25T18:23:18  *** nkuttler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7812020-08-25T18:26:10  *** braydonf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7822020-08-25T18:27:05  *** promag has quit IRC
7832020-08-25T18:29:00  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7842020-08-25T18:30:45  *** melande has quit IRC
7852020-08-25T18:30:46  *** promag has quit IRC
7862020-08-25T18:32:07  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7872020-08-25T18:35:11  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7882020-08-25T18:43:21  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7892020-08-25T18:43:42  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7902020-08-25T18:48:24  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
7912020-08-25T18:48:41  *** promag has quit IRC
7922020-08-25T18:49:13  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7932020-08-25T18:50:05  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7942020-08-25T18:50:05  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jamesob opened pull request #19806: validation: UTXO snapshot activation (master...2020-08-au.activate) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19806
7952020-08-25T18:50:07  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
7962020-08-25T18:50:57  *** wallet42_ has quit IRC
7972020-08-25T18:51:21  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7982020-08-25T18:51:30  *** jakesyl has quit IRC
7992020-08-25T18:51:41  *** promag has quit IRC
8002020-08-25T18:51:54  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8012020-08-25T18:52:56  *** jakesyl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8022020-08-25T18:53:10  *** wallet42_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8032020-08-25T18:53:40  *** promag has quit IRC
8042020-08-25T18:54:57  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8052020-08-25T18:56:43  *** promag has quit IRC
8062020-08-25T18:57:41  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8072020-08-25T18:58:34  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
8082020-08-25T19:01:01  *** melande has quit IRC
8092020-08-25T19:01:33  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
8102020-08-25T19:01:53  *** promag has quit IRC
8112020-08-25T19:01:53  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8122020-08-25T19:03:45  *** troygiorshev has quit IRC
8132020-08-25T19:05:57  *** troygiorshev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8142020-08-25T19:06:30  *** lightlike has quit IRC
8152020-08-25T19:09:30  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8162020-08-25T19:12:42  *** melande has quit IRC
8172020-08-25T19:13:44  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8182020-08-25T19:15:54  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8192020-08-25T19:22:30  *** promag has quit IRC
8202020-08-25T19:23:17  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8212020-08-25T19:27:31  *** promag has quit IRC
8222020-08-25T19:28:15  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8232020-08-25T19:30:28  *** promag has quit IRC
8242020-08-25T19:31:19  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8252020-08-25T19:32:22  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8262020-08-25T19:32:32  *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8272020-08-25T19:33:20  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8282020-08-25T19:33:34  *** promag has quit IRC
8292020-08-25T19:36:28  *** proofofkeags_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8302020-08-25T19:39:03  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8312020-08-25T19:39:03  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8322020-08-25T19:42:48  *** xurzua has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8332020-08-25T19:46:59  *** owowo has quit IRC
8342020-08-25T19:52:07  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8352020-08-25T19:59:38  *** reallll is now known as belcher
8362020-08-25T20:00:42  *** arowser has quit IRC
8372020-08-25T20:00:58  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8382020-08-25T20:01:58  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8392020-08-25T20:02:56  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
8402020-08-25T20:04:40  *** melande has quit IRC
8412020-08-25T20:05:49  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8422020-08-25T20:06:58  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8432020-08-25T20:09:21  *** Talkless has quit IRC
8442020-08-25T20:12:30  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8452020-08-25T20:15:05  *** lnostdal has quit IRC
8462020-08-25T20:26:56  *** Cory has quit IRC
8472020-08-25T20:28:10  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8482020-08-25T20:28:36  *** lnostdal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8492020-08-25T20:30:29  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
8502020-08-25T20:33:28  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8512020-08-25T20:38:01  *** proofofkeags__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8522020-08-25T20:38:06  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8532020-08-25T20:40:52  *** proofofkeags_ has quit IRC
8542020-08-25T20:42:33  *** proofofkeags__ has quit IRC
8552020-08-25T20:42:53  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8562020-08-25T20:46:34  *** proofofk_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8572020-08-25T20:50:50  *** belcher has quit IRC
8582020-08-25T20:50:55  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8592020-08-25T20:50:55  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #19809: log: Prefix log messages with function name if -logfunctionnames is set (master...logfunctionnames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19809
8602020-08-25T20:50:56  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
8612020-08-25T20:50:56  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
8622020-08-25T20:51:28  *** proofofk_ has quit IRC
8632020-08-25T20:53:28  *** filchef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8642020-08-25T20:54:57  *** filchef has quit IRC
8652020-08-25T21:00:02  *** rlaager has quit IRC
8662020-08-25T21:16:39  *** melande has quit IRC
8672020-08-25T21:17:50  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8682020-08-25T21:21:59  *** serAphim has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8692020-08-25T21:33:02  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
8702020-08-25T21:36:54  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
8712020-08-25T21:37:33  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00__ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
8722020-08-25T21:52:43  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8732020-08-25T22:08:42  *** melande has quit IRC
8742020-08-25T22:09:50  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8752020-08-25T22:10:30  *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8762020-08-25T22:10:46  *** Deacyde has quit IRC
8772020-08-25T22:14:41  *** melande has quit IRC
8782020-08-25T22:15:49  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8792020-08-25T22:21:37  *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
8802020-08-25T22:21:38  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8812020-08-25T22:22:53  *** gzhao408 has quit IRC
8822020-08-25T22:42:11  *** xurzua has quit IRC
8832020-08-25T22:54:55  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
8842020-08-25T22:55:51  *** vasild_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8852020-08-25T22:57:19  *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
8862020-08-25T22:58:43  *** vasild has quit IRC
8872020-08-25T22:58:44  *** vasild_ is now known as vasild
8882020-08-25T23:02:38  *** pinheadm_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8892020-08-25T23:05:02  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
8902020-08-25T23:08:04  *** melande has quit IRC
8912020-08-25T23:08:05  *** sr_gi has quit IRC
8922020-08-25T23:08:50  *** sr_gi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8932020-08-25T23:08:52  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8942020-08-25T23:15:00  *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8952020-08-25T23:21:01  *** promag has quit IRC
8962020-08-25T23:30:43  *** melande has quit IRC
8972020-08-25T23:31:57  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8982020-08-25T23:33:32  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8992020-08-25T23:43:35  *** gribble has quit IRC
9002020-08-25T23:44:10  *** arowser has quit IRC
9012020-08-25T23:44:54  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9022020-08-25T23:45:29  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
9032020-08-25T23:52:55  *** promag has quit IRC
9042020-08-25T23:58:04  *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev