1 2020-08-25T00:00:02  *** Avelino has quit IRC
  2 2020-08-25T00:12:11  *** sipa has quit IRC
  3 2020-08-25T00:12:25  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2020-08-25T00:21:59  *** survivor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  5 2020-08-25T01:10:12  *** Livestradamus has quit IRC
  6 2020-08-25T01:20:08  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  7 2020-08-25T01:20:09  <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
  8 2020-08-25T01:20:10  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
  9 2020-08-25T01:38:42  *** Livestradamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 10 2020-08-25T01:59:11  *** arowser has quit IRC
 11 2020-08-25T02:00:04  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 12 2020-08-25T02:09:25  *** spinza has quit IRC
 13 2020-08-25T02:27:11  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2020-08-25T02:27:13  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7f609f68d835...c6b730dbfcbd
 15 2020-08-25T02:27:13  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 079df96 Hennadii Stepanov: build: Drop ZeroMQ patch for Mingw-w64 < 4.0
 16 2020-08-25T02:27:14  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f642b49 Hennadii Stepanov: build: Drop ZeroMQ patch for glibc < 2.12
 17 2020-08-25T02:27:15  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c6b730d fanquake: Merge #18405: build: Drop all of the ZeroMQ patches
 18 2020-08-25T02:27:17  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 19 2020-08-25T02:28:16  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2020-08-25T02:28:16  <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
 21 2020-08-25T02:28:17  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 22 2020-08-25T02:28:51  *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 23 2020-08-25T02:36:06  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 24 2020-08-25T02:38:13  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 25 2020-08-25T02:38:24  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
 26 2020-08-25T02:38:41  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 27 2020-08-25T02:40:38  <fanquake> If someone is bored, that binary compare patches in the maintainer tools repo need updating 🙏
 28 2020-08-25T02:50:08  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 29 2020-08-25T03:00:01  *** survivor has quit IRC
 30 2020-08-25T03:19:11  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
 31 2020-08-25T03:22:11  *** bitprophet1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 32 2020-08-25T03:35:20  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 33 2020-08-25T03:38:24  *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
 34 2020-08-25T03:39:56  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
 35 2020-08-25T03:41:09  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 36 2020-08-25T03:47:15  *** arowser has quit IRC
 37 2020-08-25T03:48:12  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 38 2020-08-25T03:53:26  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 39 2020-08-25T03:53:26  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c6b730dbfcbd...8e0f341779e1
 40 2020-08-25T03:53:27  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1ccb9f3 Luke Dashjr: Move Win32 defines to configure.ac to ensure they are globally defined
 41 2020-08-25T03:53:28  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8e0f341 fanquake: Merge #15704: Move Win32 defines to configure.ac to ensure they are global...
 42 2020-08-25T03:53:29  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 43 2020-08-25T03:55:11  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 44 2020-08-25T03:55:11  <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
 45 2020-08-25T03:55:13  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 46 2020-08-25T04:07:37  *** davec has quit IRC
 47 2020-08-25T04:27:59  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 48 2020-08-25T04:32:25  *** davec has quit IRC
 49 2020-08-25T04:34:26  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 50 2020-08-25T04:38:47  *** davec has quit IRC
 51 2020-08-25T04:48:33  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 52 2020-08-25T04:56:10  <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.
 53 2020-08-25T04:56:12  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19614 | util: use HAVE_FDATASYNC to determine fdatasync() use by fanquake · Pull Request #19614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 54 2020-08-25T04:56:21  <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.
 55 2020-08-25T04:56:31  <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?
 56 2020-08-25T04:56:41  <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.
 57 2020-08-25T04:56:53  <fanquake> Rather than bundling the fix into a in multi-year-old, semi-related PR.
 58 2020-08-25T04:58:46  <luke-jr> fanquake: AC_CHECK_FUNCS defines HAVE_FDATASYNC
 59 2020-08-25T04:59:22  <luke-jr> AC_SUBST only provides it within Makefiles, not as a #define
 60 2020-08-25T05:00:43  <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
 61 2020-08-25T05:01:08  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 62 2020-08-25T05:01:35  <luke-jr> doesn't seem to make sense to split up the fix?
 63 2020-08-25T05:07:25  *** davec has quit IRC
 64 2020-08-25T05:09:11  <fanquake> It makes sense to split up the fix, because fixing this doesn't seem predicated on 14501 being merged.
 65 2020-08-25T05:09:12  *** sipa has quit IRC
 66 2020-08-25T05:09:41  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 67 2020-08-25T05:10:09  <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.
 68 2020-08-25T05:11:04  *** IGHOR has quit IRC
 69 2020-08-25T05:13:39  *** IGHOR has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 70 2020-08-25T05:21:39  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 71 2020-08-25T05:36:07  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 72 2020-08-25T06:00:02  *** bitprophet1 has quit IRC
 73 2020-08-25T06:21:55  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 74 2020-08-25T06:22:20  *** Mister_X1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 75 2020-08-25T06:27:14  *** arowser has quit IRC
 76 2020-08-25T06:28:07  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 77 2020-08-25T06:30:35  *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 78 2020-08-25T06:55:12  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
 79 2020-08-25T06:56:06  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 80 2020-08-25T06:58:24  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 81 2020-08-25T07:03:26  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 82 2020-08-25T07:08:56  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 83 2020-08-25T07:23:30  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 84 2020-08-25T07:23:59  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 85 2020-08-25T07:28:32  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 86 2020-08-25T07:32:48  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 87 2020-08-25T07:34:49  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 88 2020-08-25T07:35:15  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 89 2020-08-25T07:39:19  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 90 2020-08-25T07:40:06  <sipa> my calendar claims there is a p2p meeting in 20 minutez
 91 2020-08-25T07:40:14  <sipa> i assume i just entered that incorrectly
 92 2020-08-25T07:40:18  <fanquake> your calendar is probably  wrong
 93 2020-08-25T07:40:30  <fanquake> as the meetings are never at a convenient time for me
 94 2020-08-25T07:40:41  *** Talkless has quit IRC
 95 2020-08-25T07:40:45  <hebasto> isn't p2p meeting at 15 utc?
 96 2020-08-25T07:40:54  <fanquake> I have the meeting happening in 7hr20m
 97 2020-08-25T07:40:55  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 98 2020-08-25T07:41:31  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2020-08-25T07:42:16  <aj> fanquake: when sipa says there's a p2p meeting in 20 minutes, you say "yes sir!" !
100 2020-08-25T07:42:37  <hebasto> :D
101 2020-08-25T07:43:37  <fanquake> aj: heh. I guess he has already committed
102 2020-08-25T07:44:02  <sipa> if i want to be awake for the *other* p2p meeting in 7h17h, maybe i should skip this one
103 2020-08-25T07:52:04  <aj> dangit
104 2020-08-25T07:54:54  <aj> fanquake: we'll never trick ppl into holding meetings at convenient times at this rate
105 2020-08-25T07:55:31  <kallewoof> haha
106 2020-08-25T08:01:44  <fanquake> aj: sorry. I forgot about that master plan
107 2020-08-25T08:07:23  *** cato_ has quit IRC
108 2020-08-25T08:09:31  *** cato_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
109 2020-08-25T08:09:41  *** ghost43_ has quit IRC
110 2020-08-25T08:10:31  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
111 2020-08-25T08:14:15  <aj> oops, apparently it was sydney socratic in 80 minutes, not p2p in 20 minutes
112 2020-08-25T08:15:16  <fanquake> aj: hah. Thanks for the reminder. I normally forget to listen in
113 2020-08-25T08:17:48  *** bosch has quit IRC
114 2020-08-25T08:22:03  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
115 2020-08-25T08:26:36  <jnewbery> fanquake: if you're still around, #19601 seems RFM. ACKs from me, fjahr, jonatack and instagibbs
116 2020-08-25T08:26:38  <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
117 2020-08-25T08:28:48  <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.
118 2020-08-25T08:30:39  *** andreacab has quit IRC
119 2020-08-25T08:31:17  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2020-08-25T08:31:28  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
121 2020-08-25T08:31:50  *** andreaca_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122 2020-08-25T08:34:22  *** andreaca_ has quit IRC
123 2020-08-25T08:34:57  *** andreaca_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
124 2020-08-25T08:35:38  *** andreacab has quit IRC
125 2020-08-25T08:38:55  *** andreaca_ has quit IRC
126 2020-08-25T08:40:37  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
127 2020-08-25T08:40:37  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
128 2020-08-25T08:43:37  <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
129 2020-08-25T08:43:43  *** tryphe_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
130 2020-08-25T08:43:47  *** tryphe has quit IRC
131 2020-08-25T08:56:39  <fanquake> jnewbery: it’s on my list. Got stuck with sed
132 2020-08-25T08:58:41  <jnewbery> thanks!
133 2020-08-25T09:00:01  *** Mister_X1 has quit IRC
134 2020-08-25T09:02:49  *** kexkey has quit IRC
135 2020-08-25T09:05:51  *** vincenzopalazzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
136 2020-08-25T09:15:42  *** palazzovincenzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
137 2020-08-25T09:16:42  *** vincenzopalazzo has quit IRC
138 2020-08-25T09:18:56  *** palazzovincenzo has quit IRC
139 2020-08-25T09:19:04  *** palazzovincenzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2020-08-25T09:21:54  *** fnichol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
141 2020-08-25T09:22:50  *** palazzovincenzo has quit IRC
142 2020-08-25T09:22:58  *** vincenzopalazzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
143 2020-08-25T09:25:26  *** promag has quit IRC
144 2020-08-25T09:25:35  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
145 2020-08-25T09:27:00  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
146 2020-08-25T09:32:13  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
147 2020-08-25T09:35:45  *** andreacab has quit IRC
148 2020-08-25T09:36:15  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2020-08-25T09:37:55  *** andreaca_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
150 2020-08-25T09:40:44  *** andreacab has quit IRC
151 2020-08-25T09:55:24  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152 2020-08-25T10:00:01  *** shesek has quit IRC
153 2020-08-25T10:00:59  *** andreaca_ has quit IRC
154 2020-08-25T10:01:28  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
155 2020-08-25T10:02:34  *** fuzzing has quit IRC
156 2020-08-25T10:06:02  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
157 2020-08-25T10:06:03  *** andreacab has quit IRC
158 2020-08-25T10:08:06  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
159 2020-08-25T10:12:36  *** andreacab has quit IRC
160 2020-08-25T10:13:29  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
161 2020-08-25T10:14:46  *** eragmus has quit IRC
162 2020-08-25T10:15:10  *** valwal_ has quit IRC
163 2020-08-25T10:15:25  *** eragmus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
164 2020-08-25T10:15:35  *** valwal_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
165 2020-08-25T10:16:08  *** bosma has quit IRC
166 2020-08-25T10:16:08  *** Jackielove4u has quit IRC
167 2020-08-25T10:17:28  *** bosma has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
168 2020-08-25T10:17:33  *** Jackielove4u has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
169 2020-08-25T10:17:50  *** andreacab has quit IRC
170 2020-08-25T10:17:56  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
171 2020-08-25T10:18:32  *** Cary39Cormier has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172 2020-08-25T10:21:43  *** arowser has quit IRC
173 2020-08-25T10:24:21  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
174 2020-08-25T10:28:38  *** cato__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
175 2020-08-25T10:30:03  *** cato_ has quit IRC
176 2020-08-25T10:31:50  *** andreacab has quit IRC
177 2020-08-25T10:32:38  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
178 2020-08-25T10:33:02  *** andreacab has quit IRC
179 2020-08-25T10:33:54  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
180 2020-08-25T10:33:56  *** mol has quit IRC
181 2020-08-25T10:38:32  *** andreacab has quit IRC
182 2020-08-25T10:39:47  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
183 2020-08-25T10:40:25  *** Cary39Cormier has quit IRC
184 2020-08-25T10:43:14  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
185 2020-08-25T10:50:15  *** jakesyl has quit IRC
186 2020-08-25T10:50:29  *** felixweis has quit IRC
187 2020-08-25T10:50:33  *** wallet42_ has quit IRC
188 2020-08-25T10:50:52  *** elichai2 has quit IRC
189 2020-08-25T10:55:52  *** vasild_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
190 2020-08-25T10:58:43  *** vasild has quit IRC
191 2020-08-25T10:58:44  *** vasild_ is now known as vasild
192 2020-08-25T11:00:18  *** felixweis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
193 2020-08-25T11:00:30  *** wallet42_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
194 2020-08-25T11:00:50  *** elichai2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
195 2020-08-25T11:01:38  *** jakesyl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
196 2020-08-25T11:12:55  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
197 2020-08-25T11:13:34  *** kristapsk_ has quit IRC
198 2020-08-25T11:13:48  *** kristapsk_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
199 2020-08-25T11:17:29  *** andreacab has quit IRC
200 2020-08-25T11:30:00  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
201 2020-08-25T11:32:48  *** andreacab has quit IRC
202 2020-08-25T11:33:18  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
203 2020-08-25T11:37:37  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
204 2020-08-25T11:37:39  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
205 2020-08-25T11:37:47  *** andreacab has quit IRC
206 2020-08-25T11:40:55  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has quit IRC
207 2020-08-25T11:41:56  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
208 2020-08-25T12:00:01  *** fnichol has quit IRC
209 2020-08-25T12:05:43  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
210 2020-08-25T12:06:34  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
211 2020-08-25T12:11:03  *** andreacab has quit IRC
212 2020-08-25T12:11:26  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
213 2020-08-25T12:19:05  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
214 2020-08-25T12:19:05  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 4 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8e0f341779e1...f8462a6d2794
215 2020-08-25T12:19:06  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b475d7d Jeremy Rubin: Add single sha256 call to CHashWriter
216 2020-08-25T12:19:06  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6510d0f Jeremy Rubin: Add SHA256Uint256 helper functions
217 2020-08-25T12:19:07  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9ab4caf Jeremy Rubin: Refactor Get{Prevout,Sequence,Outputs}Hash to Get{Prevouts,Sequences,Outpu...
218 2020-08-25T12:19:08  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
219 2020-08-25T12:19:25  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
220 2020-08-25T12:19:25  <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
221 2020-08-25T12:19:26  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
222 2020-08-25T12:22:13  *** ram1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
223 2020-08-25T12:25:27  *** ram1 has quit IRC
224 2020-08-25T12:26:29  <jnewbery> thanks fanquake!
225 2020-08-25T12:28:34  <fanquake> if only that meant the work day was over
226 2020-08-25T12:28:49  <fanquake> odds on me not staying up for the entirety of your p2p meeting
227 2020-08-25T12:30:11  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
228 2020-08-25T12:31:56  *** mol has quit IRC
229 2020-08-25T12:32:10  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
230 2020-08-25T12:33:45  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
231 2020-08-25T12:33:45  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #19800: test: Mockwallet (master...2008-testMiniWallet) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19800
232 2020-08-25T12:33:46  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
233 2020-08-25T12:42:59  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
234 2020-08-25T12:44:34  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
235 2020-08-25T12:47:15  *** andreacab has quit IRC
236 2020-08-25T12:48:43  *** vasild has quit IRC
237 2020-08-25T12:49:03  *** kristapsk_ has quit IRC
238 2020-08-25T12:49:48  *** troygiorshev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
239 2020-08-25T12:54:40  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
240 2020-08-25T12:56:46  *** fancyremarker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
241 2020-08-25T12:59:07  <fanquake> wumpus / sipa: can you block StanislavKlimov95
242 2020-08-25T12:59:19  <fanquake> spamming addresses and nonsense
243 2020-08-25T13:05:48  <wumpus>  fanquake done
244 2020-08-25T13:06:03  <fanquake> wumpus: thanks
245 2020-08-25T13:07:10  *** arowser has quit IRC
246 2020-08-25T13:07:51  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
247 2020-08-25T13:09:12  *** arowser has quit IRC
248 2020-08-25T13:09:54  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
249 2020-08-25T13:09:58  *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
250 2020-08-25T13:10:13  *** arowser has quit IRC
251 2020-08-25T13:10:55  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252 2020-08-25T13:12:09  *** arowser has quit IRC
253 2020-08-25T13:12:35  *** mol has quit IRC
254 2020-08-25T13:12:52  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
255 2020-08-25T13:13:54  *** tralfaz is now known as Davterra
256 2020-08-25T13:16:45  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
257 2020-08-25T13:21:57  *** gzhao408 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
258 2020-08-25T13:22:09  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
259 2020-08-25T13:22:23  *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
260 2020-08-25T13:22:50  *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
261 2020-08-25T13:23:11  *** andreacab has quit IRC
262 2020-08-25T13:27:39  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
263 2020-08-25T13:30:26  *** fancyremarker has quit IRC
264 2020-08-25T13:30:57  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00__ has quit IRC
265 2020-08-25T13:39:18  *** promag has quit IRC
266 2020-08-25T13:39:32  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
267 2020-08-25T13:52:51  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
268 2020-08-25T13:52:51  <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
269 2020-08-25T13:52:52  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
270 2020-08-25T14:02:40  *** disconnected has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
271 2020-08-25T14:06:47  *** promag has quit IRC
272 2020-08-25T14:07:30  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
273 2020-08-25T14:14:39  *** promag has quit IRC
274 2020-08-25T14:14:51  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
275 2020-08-25T14:23:31  *** lightlike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
276 2020-08-25T14:29:34  *** lightlike_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
277 2020-08-25T14:30:07  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
278 2020-08-25T14:30:17  *** lightlike_ has quit IRC
279 2020-08-25T14:32:34  *** lightlike has quit IRC
280 2020-08-25T14:38:12  *** arowser has quit IRC
281 2020-08-25T14:38:54  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
282 2020-08-25T14:44:42  *** promag has quit IRC
283 2020-08-25T14:45:21  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
284 2020-08-25T14:46:37  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
285 2020-08-25T14:46:56  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
286 2020-08-25T14:53:47  <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.
287 2020-08-25T14:56:10  *** lightlike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
288 2020-08-25T14:57:08  <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?
289 2020-08-25T15:00:02  *** disconnected has quit IRC
290 2020-08-25T15:00:13  <jnewbery> #startmeeting
291 2020-08-25T15:00:13  <lightningbot> Meeting started Tue Aug 25 15:00:13 2020 UTC.  The chair is jnewbery. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
292 2020-08-25T15:00:13  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
293 2020-08-25T15:00:21  <jonatack> hi
294 2020-08-25T15:00:23  <hebasto> hi
295 2020-08-25T15:00:24  <sdaftuar> hi
296 2020-08-25T15:00:24  <troygiorshev> hi
297 2020-08-25T15:00:26  <amiti> hi
298 2020-08-25T15:00:28  <ajonas> hi
299 2020-08-25T15:00:29  <fanquake> hi
300 2020-08-25T15:00:41  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
301 2020-08-25T15:00:52  <gzhao408> hi
302 2020-08-25T15:01:05  <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
303 2020-08-25T15:01:11  <MarcoFalke> hi
304 2020-08-25T15:01:11  <jnewbery> amiti fjahr jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55 elichai2
305 2020-08-25T15:01:26  <jnewbery> hi folks. Welcome to p2p meeting 2!
306 2020-08-25T15:01:36  <sipa> hi
307 2020-08-25T15:01:40  <jnewbery> #topic priority/focus
308 2020-08-25T15:01:54  <jnewbery> Does anyone have any updates that they want to share since last week?
309 2020-08-25T15:02:05  <jonatack> y
310 2020-08-25T15:02:08  <jnewbery> feel free to jump in
311 2020-08-25T15:02:24  <jnewbery> s/last week/last meeting/
312 2020-08-25T15:02:27  <jonatack> My prios were BIP155, BIP324, and BIP325 implementation PRs, and they seem to be moving forward.
313 2020-08-25T15:02:30  <hebasto> just after jon :)
314 2020-08-25T15:02:35  <ariard> hi
315 2020-08-25T15:02:37  <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
316 2020-08-25T15:02:42  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19628 | net: change CNetAddr::ip to have flexible size by vasild · Pull Request #19628 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
317 2020-08-25T15:02:53  <jonatack> it seems to be close
318 2020-08-25T15:02:58  <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
319 2020-08-25T15:03:01  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18267 | BIP-325: Signet [consensus] by kallewoof · Pull Request #18267 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
320 2020-08-25T15:03:09  <jonatack> (sorry if that isn't p2p)
321 2020-08-25T15:03:12  <aj> hi
322 2020-08-25T15:03:14  <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.
323 2020-08-25T15:03:17  <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
324 2020-08-25T15:03:26  <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
325 2020-08-25T15:03:29  <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
326 2020-08-25T15:03:53  <jonatack> I encourage people to review BIP 324 and the PR 18242.
327 2020-08-25T15:04:20  <nehan> hi
328 2020-08-25T15:04:23  <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
329 2020-08-25T15:04:31  <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.
330 2020-08-25T15:04:39  <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
331 2020-08-25T15:04:52  <jonatack> finnaly
332 2020-08-25T15:04:52  <sipa> jonatack: yeah, i need to respond to llfourn's comments
333 2020-08-25T15:04:53  <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.
334 2020-08-25T15:04:55  <jonatack> Thanks to fjahr, jnewbery, and vasild who have reviewed it so far! Review welcome.
335 2020-08-25T15:05:04  <jonatack> that's it for me :p
336 2020-08-25T15:05:07  <vasild> hi
337 2020-08-25T15:05:46  <ajonas> I've been trying to keep track of the #18044 clean-ups.
338 2020-08-25T15:05:51  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18044 | Use wtxid for transaction relay by sdaftuar · Pull Request #18044 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
339 2020-08-25T15:05:56  <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.
340 2020-08-25T15:06:21  <ajonas> and then there are the backports
341 2020-08-25T15:07:02  <hebasto> my prios are #17785 and #17428
342 2020-08-25T15:07:05  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17785 | p2p: Unify Send and Receive protocol versions by hebasto · Pull Request #17785 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
343 2020-08-25T15:07:08  <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
344 2020-08-25T15:07:17  <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.
345 2020-08-25T15:07:23  <sipa> ajonas: i think my followup is dome already (#19569)
346 2020-08-25T15:07:26  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19569 | Enable fetching of orphan parents from wtxid peers by sipa · Pull Request #19569 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
347 2020-08-25T15:07:35  <ariard> sipa: what was llfourn main proposal of change for bip324? He didn't propose to MAC the length field, so no BIP change
348 2020-08-25T15:07:48  <ajonas> sipa: I'll take a look. Thanks.
349 2020-08-25T15:07:56  <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
350 2020-08-25T15:07:59  <ariard> and the DoS concern are more theoritical, given you have easier alternatives
351 2020-08-25T15:08:11  <sipa> ariard: no changes, just commentary, iirc - but i need to go through it in more detail
352 2020-08-25T15:08:58  <sdaftuar> i've been thinking about small topology improvements, specifically picking up the main idea of #16859
353 2020-08-25T15:08:59  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16859 | Syncing headers with feeler-peers · Issue #16859 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
354 2020-08-25T15:09:16  <sdaftuar> well, that's only sort of a topology improvement, depending on implementation, actually
355 2020-08-25T15:09:39  <sdaftuar> the main idea is to sync headers with more peers, and potentially replace peers with new ones as well
356 2020-08-25T15:09:46  <sdaftuar> hopefully PR to come soon-ish
357 2020-08-25T15:10:25  <sipa> are we eventually just going to split up all functionality, and have header-peers, block-peers, tx-peers, addr-peers? :)
358 2020-08-25T15:10:46  <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?
359 2020-08-25T15:10:55  <aj> sipa: separating addr-peers sounds weird, but all the rest of it...
360 2020-08-25T15:11:01  <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
361 2020-08-25T15:11:05  <ariard> like upgrading them to block-peers and evvicting one in consequence if max outboounds reach
362 2020-08-25T15:11:13  <sdaftuar> and the other where i treat it as an extra block-relay-only peer that can evict another block-relay peer
363 2020-08-25T15:11:26  <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...
364 2020-08-25T15:12:28  <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
365 2020-08-25T15:12:36  <ariard> though likely more compelx of implementation
366 2020-08-25T15:13:19  <sipa> aj: just so that txn would propagate well?
367 2020-08-25T15:13:30  <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?
368 2020-08-25T15:13:48  <ariard> maybe not store headers, just mark them as known-as-useful-peers
369 2020-08-25T15:13:57  <aj> sipa: s/well/at all/, yeah
370 2020-08-25T15:14:11  <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
371 2020-08-25T15:14:18  <sdaftuar> which is mostly a per-peer memory savings
372 2020-08-25T15:14:51  <sdaftuar> and then hopefully we can increase the number of inbounds (specifically carve out extra inbound slots for block-relay peers)
373 2020-08-25T15:15:02  <sdaftuar> and then increase the number of block-relay outbound connections we make too
374 2020-08-25T15:15:28  <sdaftuar> so i'm planning to pick that up as well in the near term
375 2020-08-25T15:15:46  <jnewbery> > now that i have clarity on how to propose new feature negotiation
376 2020-08-25T15:15:50  <jnewbery> ^ it wasn't clear to me what the outcome of the mailing list discussion was. What are you proposing?
377 2020-08-25T15:15:52  <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
378 2020-08-25T15:15:57  <fanquake> related #19723
379 2020-08-25T15:15:59  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19723 | Ignore unknown messages before VERACK by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19723 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
380 2020-08-25T15:16:00  <sdaftuar> jnewbery: just accompany new features with a protocol version bump
381 2020-08-25T15:16:10  <sdaftuar> but otherwise copy what has been done before
382 2020-08-25T15:16:33  <sdaftuar> seems to me that path is basically unobjectionable
383 2020-08-25T15:17:02  <sipa> it works okayish
384 2020-08-25T15:17:10  <jnewbery> forcing protocol changes to be serial seems not as good as being able to opt in to different features
385 2020-08-25T15:17:27  <sdaftuar> i think we can deal with that when we actually get protocol version number conflicts?
386 2020-08-25T15:17:31  <sdaftuar> seems like it doesn't happen in practce
387 2020-08-25T15:17:34  <aj> sipa: yeah, not much fun if your transactions don't propogate though
388 2020-08-25T15:17:37  <sipa> sdaftuar: fair
389 2020-08-25T15:18:00  <sdaftuar> and i don't think we can force other implementations to adopt anything generic (like i proposed)
390 2020-08-25T15:18:06  <sdaftuar> so i think it's easy for now to accommodate those preferences
391 2020-08-25T15:18:21  <aj> sipa: atm i'm telling it once you've got 50% peers connected, only add more outbounds if it improves your tx connectivity
392 2020-08-25T15:18:48  <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
393 2020-08-25T15:19:10  *** eugene48 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
394 2020-08-25T15:19:18  <sdaftuar> hm, we've not historically used service bits for tx-relay properties right?
395 2020-08-25T15:19:24  <aj> sipa: yep. blocks-only happens after tx-carrying ones atm; which is maybe backwards?
396 2020-08-25T15:19:41  <sipa> sdaftuar: indeed
397 2020-08-25T15:19:51  <sipa> i'm a bit hesitant about that...
398 2020-08-25T15:20:14  <sdaftuar> we don't have a good framework for thinking about transaction propagation imo
399 2020-08-25T15:20:44  <ariard> right, and that's something we need for higher layer :)
400 2020-08-25T15:21:14  <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?
401 2020-08-25T15:21:15  <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
402 2020-08-25T15:21:17  <sipa> aj: also, this isn'ta actually specific to softforks, but to policy cjangs
403 2020-08-25T15:21:27  <sdaftuar> sipa: exactly
404 2020-08-25T15:21:38  <aj> sipa: yep
405 2020-08-25T15:21:43  <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?
406 2020-08-25T15:21:51  <sipa> so far we haven't assumed we can reasom about peer's tx policies
407 2020-08-25T15:21:52  <sdaftuar> i don';t know
408 2020-08-25T15:21:54  <ariard> at least there is a difference between propagation validity and ensuring your tx-propagation paths aren't intersected by malicous/buggy peers
409 2020-08-25T15:22:02  *** [n1x]_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
410 2020-08-25T15:22:29  <sipa> arguably, we do already, in the form of feefilter
411 2020-08-25T15:22:43  <sipa> that is effectively tellings peer part of our relay policy
412 2020-08-25T15:23:22  <sipa> with automatic tx rebroadcast there may be slightly less need for this
413 2020-08-25T15:23:26  <sdaftuar> there are so many things that can go wrong with respect to transactions you have not propagating well
414 2020-08-25T15:23:28  <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?
415 2020-08-25T15:24:00  <sipa> aj: i feel it's a can of worms, trying to do this well
416 2020-08-25T15:24:01  <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
417 2020-08-25T15:24:03  <sdaftuar> automatic tx rebroadcast + tx-relay-peer rotation might be the most robust thing we can do?
418 2020-08-25T15:24:09  <ariard> at least a subset
419 2020-08-25T15:25:04  <sipa> plus the philosophical issue that it means assumptions on being to rely on (claimed/standardized) policy
420 2020-08-25T15:25:07  <aj> sipa: sure. i only really care about doing it adequately at this point :)
421 2020-08-25T15:25:24  <sipa> so, eh
422 2020-08-25T15:25:33  <sipa> why hasn't this historically been needed?
423 2020-08-25T15:25:39  <sdaftuar> :)
424 2020-08-25T15:25:46  <ariard> sipa: I agree that's a philosophical issue but that was implicetely part of any payment channel design with timelocks
425 2020-08-25T15:25:54  <aj> sipa: because everyone upgrades before the policy change activates?
426 2020-08-25T15:26:06  <sipa> aj: right
427 2020-08-25T15:26:07  <aj> sipa: then no one transacts with the changed policy for a while anyway
428 2020-08-25T15:26:10  <instagibbs> none of your peers accepting a softfork policy may tell you something too :)
429 2020-08-25T15:26:12  <ariard> wait for some LN implementation being broken for forgetting some policy check
430 2020-08-25T15:26:25  <sipa> ariard: i feel that's a mistake, tbh
431 2020-08-25T15:26:57  <ariard> sipa: ofc but the fact that they are not well-documented contribute to this, like no proper toolchain to test them in separation
432 2020-08-25T15:27:49  <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
433 2020-08-25T15:27:58  <ariard> time-sensitive tx A
434 2020-08-25T15:28:22  <sdaftuar> ariard: that could be addressed by tx-relay-peer rotation, for what it's worth
435 2020-08-25T15:28:39  <sdaftuar> but if the miners aren't running your policy you're in trouble!
436 2020-08-25T15:28:44  <ariard> I agree assuming you rotate quick enough with regards to security timelocks
437 2020-08-25T15:28:45  <sipa> ariard: aren't time sensitive things done on a scale of days/weeks/..., where this should be far less of a problem?
438 2020-08-25T15:29:32  <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
439 2020-08-25T15:29:40  <ariard> and it's kinda a black box :(
440 2020-08-25T15:29:58  <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)
441 2020-08-25T15:30:09  <sipa> so you can even do things like warning a user their time-sensitive tx isn't confirming
442 2020-08-25T15:30:15  <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
443 2020-08-25T15:30:32  <ariard> you increase the timevalue of locked funds for nothing
444 2020-08-25T15:30:45  <aj> sipa: everybody else ignores it as spam, but it still gets to miners so avoids lightning txs getting pinned or whatever
445 2020-08-25T15:31:06  <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
446 2020-08-25T15:31:10  <sipa> aj: that seems problematic
447 2020-08-25T15:31:42  *** promag has quit IRC
448 2020-08-25T15:31:54  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
449 2020-08-25T15:32:02  <ariard> increasing timelocks on the long-term increase cost of LN routing fees, and thus utility of the overall system
450 2020-08-25T15:32:18  <sipa> a node's rational policy should be to try to approximate the network's behavior
451 2020-08-25T15:32:41  <ariard> because someone has to pay for the average expected failure, even if right now it's not priced at all by routing nodes
452 2020-08-25T15:32:47  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
453 2020-08-25T15:33:22  <ariard> sipa: I agree on this, like accept the lower bound to improve your feerate view, and also improve your local fee estimation
454 2020-08-25T15:33:30  <ariard> thus lowering your fees, theoritically
455 2020-08-25T15:33:55  <jnewbery> sorry, I've lost the thread a bit here. Are we specifically trying to solve a problem for taproot on signet here?
456 2020-08-25T15:34:47  <ariard> jnewbery: thanks for the nudge, are p2p meeting for more theoritically discussions too :p ?
457 2020-08-25T15:34:47  <troygiorshev> yeah for those of us looking to organize this, anyone want to summarize and/or give this a title?
458 2020-08-25T15:35:12  <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?
459 2020-08-25T15:35:15  *** Davterra has quit IRC
460 2020-08-25T15:35:34  *** Davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
461 2020-08-25T15:35:39  <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..
462 2020-08-25T15:35:49  <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
463 2020-08-25T15:35:57  <sipa> aj: oh, just signet?
464 2020-08-25T15:36:07  <jnewbery> it's fine to have theoretical discussions, i'm just a little lost as to what exactly we're discussing
465 2020-08-25T15:36:13  <sipa> aj: can't you just create a new signet with taproot from the start?
466 2020-08-25T15:36:25  <sipa> as in separate network
467 2020-08-25T15:36:28  <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)
468 2020-08-25T15:36:56  <aj> sipa: we're working on having this work in the default signet; having custom signets is definitely an additional/alternative option
469 2020-08-25T15:37:16  <sipa> right, makes sense
470 2020-08-25T15:37:33  <aj> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19787 has some discussion, maybe missing some context though
471 2020-08-25T15:37:48  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
472 2020-08-25T15:38:04  <jnewbery> aj: do you have any code or a more concrete proposal?
473 2020-08-25T15:38:36  <aj> jnewbery: still working on a concrete proposal; code is at https://github.com/ajtowns/bitcoin/commits/signet-tr ; obviously subject to change
474 2020-08-25T15:39:00  <ariard> sdaftuar: I'll open an issue resuming conversation, to scope security worries ones might have with tx-relay discrepancies
475 2020-08-25T15:39:12  <jnewbery> thanks. Are you asking for review yet?
476 2020-08-25T15:39:35  <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
477 2020-08-25T15:39:52  <aj> jnewbery: not really; i'm trying to get it to run on a second node of my own first
478 2020-08-25T15:40:05  <sipa> aj: so you will do a hardfork in signet?
479 2020-08-25T15:40:53  <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.
480 2020-08-25T15:40:57  <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
481 2020-08-25T15:41:28  <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
482 2020-08-25T15:42:12  <aj> sdaftuar: "that people don't complain on twitter and reddit about their txs not confirming" ? :)
483 2020-08-25T15:42:30  * sipa suggests hardforking in paypal support
484 2020-08-25T15:42:33  <sdaftuar> aj: haha if that's our only goal we can just get the moderators to filter those complaints out!
485 2020-08-25T15:42:47  <aj> sdaftuar: censorship for the win
486 2020-08-25T15:42:53  <ariard> aj: if we were binding to twitter-driven developpement why taproot isn't already activated :) ?
487 2020-08-25T15:43:08  <sdaftuar> TDD = twitter driven development? TIL
488 2020-08-25T15:43:29  <instagibbs> ariard, maybe it is *spooky music*
489 2020-08-25T15:43:34  <jnewbery> Did everyone who wanted to have a chance to share what they're working at the start of the meeting?
490 2020-08-25T15:43:47  <jnewbery> troygiorshev, amiti, fanquake, gzhao408, MarcoFalke, nehan: did you want to share anything?
491 2020-08-25T15:44:00  <troygiorshev> i'll jump in briefly
492 2020-08-25T15:44:02  <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.
493 2020-08-25T15:44:06  <troygiorshev> i also encourage review on 19628 (myself included...)
494 2020-08-25T15:44:07  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19509 | Per-Peer Message Logging by troygiorshev · Pull Request #19509 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
495 2020-08-25T15:44:10  <troygiorshev> if anyone is looking to dive into a relatively tedious net/net_processing unraveling, #19107 is still looking for review!
496 2020-08-25T15:44:13  <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
497 2020-08-25T15:44:18  <troygiorshev> that's all :)
498 2020-08-25T15:44:24  <jnewbery> thanks troy!
499 2020-08-25T15:44:42  <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
500 2020-08-25T15:45:04  <amiti> marcofalke: 100%! I like this ambition.
501 2020-08-25T15:45:09  <jnewbery> MarcoFalke: any PRs you want to shill, or still WIP?
502 2020-08-25T15:45:23  <MarcoFalke> still WIP (or needing rebase)
503 2020-08-25T15:45:33  <aj> (btw 50 days / 7 weeks 'til 0.21 feature freeze per 18947)
504 2020-08-25T15:45:40  <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.
505 2020-08-25T15:45:53  <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.
506 2020-08-25T15:46:06  <jnewbery> MarcoFalke: let me know if there's any interaction/conflict with #19791
507 2020-08-25T15:46:08  <sdaftuar> topic suggestion: 0.21 p2p goals?
508 2020-08-25T15:46:08  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19791 | [net processing] Move Misbehaving() to PeerManager by jnewbery · Pull Request #19791 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
509 2020-08-25T15:46:31  <MarcoFalke> jnewbery: Shouldn't be any interaction
510 2020-08-25T15:46:58  <jnewbery> sdaftuar: good idea. Let's see if there anyone else wants to share priorities/focus then move on to that
511 2020-08-25T15:47:07  <ariard> wrt 0.21, tx-request overhaul? erlay?
512 2020-08-25T15:47:11  <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
513 2020-08-25T15:47:14  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19184 | Overhaul transaction request logic by sipa · Pull Request #19184 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
514 2020-08-25T15:47:41  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
515 2020-08-25T15:47:58  <jnewbery> The thing I'd like to see prioritized in the short term are the backports: #19606 #19680 #19681
516 2020-08-25T15:48:02  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19606 | Backport wtxid relay to v0.20 by jnewbery · Pull Request #19606 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
517 2020-08-25T15:48:03  <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
518 2020-08-25T15:48:04  <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
519 2020-08-25T15:48:14  <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
520 2020-08-25T15:48:23  <amiti> ahhh
521 2020-08-25T15:48:24  <jnewbery> and I also need to backport #19569 to v0.20 once 19606 is merged
522 2020-08-25T15:48:27  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19569 | Enable fetching of orphan parents from wtxid peers by sipa · Pull Request #19569 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
523 2020-08-25T15:49:02  <jnewbery> #19680 and #19681 are very easy reviews, even if you didn't review the original PR
524 2020-08-25T15:49:03  <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
525 2020-08-25T15:49:04  <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
526 2020-08-25T15:49:20  <jnewbery> and once 19681 is in, I think we can do a 0.19 release
527 2020-08-25T15:49:29  <fanquake> jnewbery: is there any particular rush?
528 2020-08-25T15:49:49  <fanquake> I think there’s still a few more things tagged for 0.19 before we cut a release
529 2020-08-25T15:49:49  <jnewbery> fanquake: for 0.19 or the other ones?
530 2020-08-25T15:49:53  <jnewbery> ah, ok
531 2020-08-25T15:49:55  <fanquake> Either
532 2020-08-25T15:49:58  <aj> maybe add the non-std input reject to high-pri? i thought there used to be a backports thing on that?
533 2020-08-25T15:50:14  <jnewbery> aj: I'll add them
534 2020-08-25T15:50:28  <jnewbery> although most of the people who'd review them are here right now :)
535 2020-08-25T15:50:55  <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?
536 2020-08-25T15:50:58  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has quit IRC
537 2020-08-25T15:51:06  <jnewbery> #topic 0.21 p2p goals
538 2020-08-25T15:51:18  <sdaftuar> so i think #19184 should be a goal for 0.21
539 2020-08-25T15:51:20  <jnewbery> sdaftuar: want to start? We only have 9 minutes left
540 2020-08-25T15:51:21  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19184 | Overhaul transaction request logic by sipa · Pull Request #19184 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
541 2020-08-25T15:51:39  <sdaftuar> other than that, i don't feel strongly -- and am curious what other things people would like
542 2020-08-25T15:51:43  <troygiorshev> jonatack: i've been working on a pr measuring per peer resource usage
543 2020-08-25T15:51:46  <sdaftuar> i'm guessing erlay is too ambitious
544 2020-08-25T15:52:13  <jonatack> troygiorshev: great, ty
545 2020-08-25T15:52:15  <jnewbery> +1 for 19184. I did a quick review, but I'm holding off doing a full review until sipa says it's ready
546 2020-08-25T15:52:21  <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
547 2020-08-25T15:52:35  <sipa> jnewbery: will do actually soon
548 2020-08-25T15:52:36  <aj> progress on p2p testing a la amiti/marcofalke would be nice?
549 2020-08-25T15:53:06  <jnewbery> 19184 may be ambitious for 0.21 if it's code freeze in 7 weeks?
550 2020-08-25T15:53:16  <ariard> especially p2p testing of the eviction logic, if we aim to improve it in the future
551 2020-08-25T15:53:21  <sipa> wow, 7 weeks already?
552 2020-08-25T15:53:23  <aj> jnewbery: feature freeze, not code freeze
553 2020-08-25T15:53:24  <MarcoFalke> aj: no progress from me for now
554 2020-08-25T15:53:39  <sipa> well, should be doable i think
555 2020-08-25T15:54:32  <sdaftuar> i haven't been following addrv2 very much
556 2020-08-25T15:54:35  <jonatack> I think BIP155 addrv2 is a priority, according to vasild the next steps should be smaller and easier
557 2020-08-25T15:54:35  <ajonas> this may have been asked elsewhere but is 19184 a requirement for taproot?
558 2020-08-25T15:54:38  <sdaftuar> is that something that needs to be on a shorter timetable?
559 2020-08-25T15:54:49  <jnewbery> ajonas: no
560 2020-08-25T15:54:56  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
561 2020-08-25T15:54:57  <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 :)
562 2020-08-25T15:55:00  <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
563 2020-08-25T15:55:24  <amiti> ariard: p2p testing of eviction logic would be awesome.
564 2020-08-25T15:55:39  <jonatack> Tor v2 deprecation begins Sept 15
565 2020-08-25T15:55:53  <sdaftuar> what's the addvr2 roadmap look like?  i don't know where we are at all.
566 2020-08-25T15:56:01  <troygiorshev> #19031
567 2020-08-25T15:56:03  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19031 | Implement ADDRv2 support (part of BIP155) by vasild · Pull Request #19031 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
568 2020-08-25T15:56:36  <troygiorshev> we're, say, a bit over half way there?
569 2020-08-25T15:56:51  <sdaftuar> are there remaining design considerations at this point, or is it all just implementation?
570 2020-08-25T15:57:06  <sipa> sdaftuar: i think it's just implementation work
571 2020-08-25T15:57:09  <jonatack> amiti: is anyone working of eviction testing atm?
572 2020-08-25T15:57:18  <sdaftuar> thanks
573 2020-08-25T15:57:26  <amiti> jonatack: not that I know of
574 2020-08-25T15:58:11  <sdaftuar> so should we be aiming to get addrv2 into 0.21, or does that seem aggressive?
575 2020-08-25T15:58:31  <jonatack> amiti: ty
576 2020-08-25T15:58:58  <ariard> jonatack: I think we're pending on 19315 ? or make it easier with it ? need to review it to be sure
577 2020-08-25T15:59:17  <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
578 2020-08-25T15:59:19  <sipa> sdaftuar: i think with #19628 we're over halfway there
579 2020-08-25T15:59:22  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19628 | net: change CNetAddr::ip to have flexible size by vasild · Pull Request #19628 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
580 2020-08-25T15:59:34  <troygiorshev> sdaftuar: deprecated sept 15, and gone july 15 2021
581 2020-08-25T15:59:41  <jonatack> addrv2 in 0.21 would be v worthwhile and agree, 19628 was probably the biggest chunk and it seems RFM
582 2020-08-25T15:59:46  <sdaftuar> that sounds to me like we should prioritize it
583 2020-08-25T15:59:50  <aj> troygiorshev: so desirable for 0.21 essential for 0.22?
584 2020-08-25T15:59:51  <jnewbery> ok, 1 minute left. Anyone have anything they wanted to share before the end?
585 2020-08-25T15:59:57  <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
586 2020-08-25T16:00:12  <sipa> #17428
587 2020-08-25T16:00:16  <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
588 2020-08-25T16:00:18  <jnewbery> #endmeeting
589 2020-08-25T16:00:18  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Tue Aug 25 16:00:18 2020 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
590 2020-08-25T16:00:18  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-08-25-15.00.html
591 2020-08-25T16:00:18  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-08-25-15.00.txt
592 2020-08-25T16:00:18  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-08-25-15.00.log.html
593 2020-08-25T16:00:18  <troygiorshev> aj: I think that's right!
594 2020-08-25T16:00:50  <sipa> sdaftuar: yeah, seems it also picked up a lot of momentum by the impending doom
595 2020-08-25T16:00:56  <sdaftuar> thanks all! that was very helpful
596 2020-08-25T16:01:04  <troygiorshev> great meeting everyone!
597 2020-08-25T16:01:12  <jonatack> ariard: i need to review 19315, idk what's in it yet
598 2020-08-25T16:01:15  <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
599 2020-08-25T16:04:51  *** Mercury_Vapor has quit IRC
600 2020-08-25T16:05:14  <jonatack> ariard: amiti: if you work on eviction testing, happy to collaborate or look at stuff.
601 2020-08-25T16:05:28  *** Mercury_Vapor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
602 2020-08-25T16:07:24  <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?
603 2020-08-25T16:07:24  *** promag has quit IRC
604 2020-08-25T16:08:00  *** eugene48 has quit IRC
605 2020-08-25T16:08:08  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
606 2020-08-25T16:08:10  <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
607 2020-08-25T16:08:23  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
608 2020-08-25T16:09:15  <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.
609 2020-08-25T16:09:29  <sdaftuar> vasild: thank you, i will take a look at those as well!
610 2020-08-25T16:09:34  <vasild> I am doing the implementation as if they are merged
611 2020-08-25T16:09:48  <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?)
612 2020-08-25T16:09:56  <vasild> the commits so far that were merged were agnostic to those PRs
613 2020-08-25T16:10:24  <sdaftuar> aj: ok great. can you explain what the motivation is for doing it on signet?
614 2020-08-25T16:10:39  <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?
615 2020-08-25T16:10:51  *** promag has quit IRC
616 2020-08-25T16:11:27  <sdaftuar> aj: i'm just curious what the testing is aiming for
617 2020-08-25T16:11:40  <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.
618 2020-08-25T16:12:17  <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
619 2020-08-25T16:12:44  <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...
620 2020-08-25T16:13:11  <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
621 2020-08-25T16:13:28  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
622 2020-08-25T16:13:30  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f8462a6d2794...8d6224fefe01
623 2020-08-25T16:13:30  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1ea57ad Vasil Dimov: net: don't accept non-left-contiguous netmasks
624 2020-08-25T16:13:31  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 102867c Vasil Dimov: net: change CNetAddr::ip to have flexible size
625 2020-08-25T16:13:32  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8d6224f MarcoFalke: Merge #19628: net: change CNetAddr::ip to have flexible size
626 2020-08-25T16:13:34  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
627 2020-08-25T16:13:48  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
628 2020-08-25T16:13:48  <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
629 2020-08-25T16:13:49  <vasild> \o/
630 2020-08-25T16:13:49  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
631 2020-08-25T16:14:07  <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
632 2020-08-25T16:15:30  <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)
633 2020-08-25T16:16:05  <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)
634 2020-08-25T16:17:01  <sdaftuar> aj: yeah so i guess is there a tx-relay testing issue you're trying to solve?
635 2020-08-25T16:17:12  <sdaftuar> i mean, why not just connect to the signers?
636 2020-08-25T16:17:16  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
637 2020-08-25T16:17:35  *** rojiro has quit IRC
638 2020-08-25T16:18:24  <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
639 2020-08-25T16:18:24  <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)
640 2020-08-25T16:18:26  <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)
641 2020-08-25T16:19:15  <aj> sdaftuar: if there's more than 100 taproot nodes, you can't have everyone connect to the signers?
642 2020-08-25T16:19:44  <sdaftuar> aj: it's possible i really have no idea what the goals of signet are. :) so apologies if my suggestions are unhelpful.
643 2020-08-25T16:20:05  <sdaftuar> but i guess it just seems like modeling the p2p behavior of mainnet isn't something that is necessarily being aimed for?
644 2020-08-25T16:20:23  <aj> sdaftuar: i think the goals aren't really clear to anyone yet? :)
645 2020-08-25T16:20:31  <sdaftuar> then i feel less bad!
646 2020-08-25T16:20:33  <sdaftuar> :)
647 2020-08-25T16:20:49  <aj> sdaftuar: certainly the real answer to why not just connect directly to the signers is "i didn't think of it"
648 2020-08-25T16:21:13  <sdaftuar> i was just thinking abotu the issues we had with segwit on testnet a few years ago
649 2020-08-25T16:21:22  <aj> sdaftuar: story time?
650 2020-08-25T16:21:23  <sdaftuar> and there were plenty of p2p connectivity issues that would happen on testnet
651 2020-08-25T16:21:41  * aj has no recollection of testnet/segwit things
652 2020-08-25T16:21:55  <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
653 2020-08-25T16:22:14  <sdaftuar> and so someone might relay a block, but the witness would get stripped, and a bunch of nodes would receive it without witness.
654 2020-08-25T16:22:26  <sdaftuar> old nodes would think it was valid anyway, and old-miners would build a chain on it
655 2020-08-25T16:22:28  <sdaftuar> new nodes would not
656 2020-08-25T16:22:34  <sdaftuar> and so there would be these big chain splits periodically
657 2020-08-25T16:22:54  <aj> was that with the preferential-connect-to-NODE_WITNESS or before that?
658 2020-08-25T16:22:55  <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
659 2020-08-25T16:23:48  <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
660 2020-08-25T16:24:23  <aj> right, makes sense
661 2020-08-25T16:24:26  <sdaftuar> maybe it was just because segwit was such a big change, i was focused on chain splits more than tx propagaton back then
662 2020-08-25T16:25:15  <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
663 2020-08-25T16:25:17  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
664 2020-08-25T16:25:46  <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)
665 2020-08-25T16:27:50  <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
666 2020-08-25T16:27:53  <sdaftuar> s/miners/signers/
667 2020-08-25T16:28:05  <jonatack> lightlike: yes, adding inbound eviction test coverage. it was one of the motivations for #19731 that was merged yesterday.
668 2020-08-25T16:28:07  <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
669 2020-08-25T16:28:26  <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
670 2020-08-25T16:29:06  *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
671 2020-08-25T16:29:15  <sdaftuar> i mean, you're not trying to simulate mainnet conditions with transaction propagation
672 2020-08-25T16:29:21  *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
673 2020-08-25T16:29:32  <aj> sdaftuar: (atm, kalle's miner is non-taproot aware, while mine is; both refuse nonstd txs)
674 2020-08-25T16:29:33  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
675 2020-08-25T16:29:45  <jonatack> lightlike: see also https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19500 and #19670
676 2020-08-25T16:29:47  <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
677 2020-08-25T16:30:07  <jonatack> lightlike: and #19728
678 2020-08-25T16:30:08  <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
679 2020-08-25T16:30:32  <aj> sdaftuar: it'd be nice if, given a large network of signet peers, tx propogation behaviour was like mainnet, i guess
680 2020-08-25T16:30:53  <sdaftuar> aj: i feel like the lesson from testnet has been that is not really possible to achieve?  but i dunno.
681 2020-08-25T16:31:09  <sdaftuar> or another way of putting it -- why would signet be any better than testnet?
682 2020-08-25T16:31:10  <aj> sdaftuar: testnet is crazy though
683 2020-08-25T16:31:39  <sdaftuar> you mean because of the reorgs?
684 2020-08-25T16:32:12  <aj> sdaftuar: that and the rate at which blocks are found making CSV/CLTV not really sane
685 2020-08-25T16:33:06  <aj> sdaftuar: but yeah, it's an "it'd be nice if", not a "i'm sure it'll work out this way"
686 2020-08-25T16:34:17  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
687 2020-08-25T16:35:30  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
688 2020-08-25T16:35:30  <sdaftuar> fair enough
689 2020-08-25T16:36:56  <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)
690 2020-08-25T16:36:57  *** lnostdal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
691 2020-08-25T16:39:44  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
692 2020-08-25T16:39:44  <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
693 2020-08-25T16:39:45  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
694 2020-08-25T16:42:40  <jnewbery> aj: some may say you're a dreamer, but you're not the only one
695 2020-08-25T16:42:56  *** promag has quit IRC
696 2020-08-25T16:43:37  <aj> jnewbery: someday we'll find it, over a p2p connection, the hodlers, the scammers, and me?
697 2020-08-25T16:43:39  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
698 2020-08-25T16:44:02  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
699 2020-08-25T16:44:16  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
700 2020-08-25T16:44:39  <aj> jnewbery: (i'm in ur earwigs upgradin' your tunez)
701 2020-08-25T16:45:34  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
702 2020-08-25T16:45:59  *** promag has quit IRC
703 2020-08-25T16:46:40  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
704 2020-08-25T16:48:25  *** promag has quit IRC
705 2020-08-25T16:50:01  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
706 2020-08-25T16:51:28  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
707 2020-08-25T16:51:29  <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
708 2020-08-25T16:51:29  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
709 2020-08-25T16:51:48  *** promag has quit IRC
710 2020-08-25T16:51:53  <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
711 2020-08-25T16:51:55  <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
712 2020-08-25T16:52:38  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
713 2020-08-25T16:54:25  *** promag has quit IRC
714 2020-08-25T16:55:51  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
715 2020-08-25T16:56:05  *** lightlike has quit IRC
716 2020-08-25T16:56:52  *** lightlike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
717 2020-08-25T16:57:12  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
718 2020-08-25T16:57:51  *** promag has quit IRC
719 2020-08-25T16:59:10  <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
720 2020-08-25T16:59:16  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
721 2020-08-25T17:01:01  *** promag has quit IRC
722 2020-08-25T17:01:27  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
723 2020-08-25T17:06:04  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
724 2020-08-25T17:07:50  *** promag has quit IRC
725 2020-08-25T17:17:45  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
726 2020-08-25T17:19:44  *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
727 2020-08-25T17:19:59  *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
728 2020-08-25T17:20:25  *** yanmaani has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
729 2020-08-25T17:20:54  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
730 2020-08-25T17:22:25  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
731 2020-08-25T17:22:25  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gzhao408 opened pull request #19804: test: remove confusing p2p property (master...test-p2p-property) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19804
732 2020-08-25T17:22:26  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
733 2020-08-25T17:28:22  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
734 2020-08-25T17:28:22  <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
735 2020-08-25T17:28:23  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
736 2020-08-25T17:30:26  *** reallll has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
737 2020-08-25T17:33:41  *** belcher_ has quit IRC
738 2020-08-25T17:39:13  *** gribble has quit IRC
739 2020-08-25T17:39:29  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
740 2020-08-25T17:39:49  *** watersnake1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
741 2020-08-25T17:40:36  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
742 2020-08-25T17:43:17  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
743 2020-08-25T17:44:16  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
744 2020-08-25T17:45:03  *** promag has quit IRC
745 2020-08-25T17:46:17  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
746 2020-08-25T17:51:25  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
747 2020-08-25T17:51:35  <luke-jr> bitcoin-qt up to 218 MB :o
748 2020-08-25T17:51:47  <MarcoFalke> ugh why
749 2020-08-25T17:51:49  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
750 2020-08-25T17:52:20  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
751 2020-08-25T17:52:40  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
752 2020-08-25T17:52:58  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
753 2020-08-25T17:53:22  <luke-jr> MarcoFalke: guessing it's debugging symbols
754 2020-08-25T17:53:33  *** promag has quit IRC
755 2020-08-25T17:53:34  <luke-jr> still bleh tho
756 2020-08-25T17:54:03  *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
757 2020-08-25T17:54:35  <aj> luke-jr: 129M for bitcoind, 163M for bitcoin-qt for me?
758 2020-08-25T17:54:40  <aj> luke-jr: (clang)
759 2020-08-25T17:55:45  <luke-jr> aj: hmm, -ggdb? -fsanitize=undefined ?
760 2020-08-25T17:56:32  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
761 2020-08-25T17:56:34  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
762 2020-08-25T17:58:06  <aj> luke-jr: just with-debug and with-werror (and incompatible-bdb)
763 2020-08-25T17:58:40  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
764 2020-08-25T17:59:16  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
765 2020-08-25T18:00:01  *** [n1x]_ has quit IRC
766 2020-08-25T18:00:24  *** promag has quit IRC
767 2020-08-25T18:00:55  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
768 2020-08-25T18:01:05  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
769 2020-08-25T18:02:32  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
770 2020-08-25T18:02:45  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
771 2020-08-25T18:04:31  *** promag has quit IRC
772 2020-08-25T18:10:59  *** afk11 has quit IRC
773 2020-08-25T18:10:59  *** melande has quit IRC
774 2020-08-25T18:12:09  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
775 2020-08-25T18:12:39  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
776 2020-08-25T18:12:59  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
777 2020-08-25T18:21:55  *** rlaager has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
778 2020-08-25T18:22:29  *** promag has quit IRC
779 2020-08-25T18:23:02  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
780 2020-08-25T18:23:18  *** nkuttler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
781 2020-08-25T18:26:10  *** braydonf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
782 2020-08-25T18:27:05  *** promag has quit IRC
783 2020-08-25T18:29:00  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
784 2020-08-25T18:30:45  *** melande has quit IRC
785 2020-08-25T18:30:46  *** promag has quit IRC
786 2020-08-25T18:32:07  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
787 2020-08-25T18:35:11  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
788 2020-08-25T18:43:21  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
789 2020-08-25T18:43:42  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
790 2020-08-25T18:48:24  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
791 2020-08-25T18:48:41  *** promag has quit IRC
792 2020-08-25T18:49:13  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
793 2020-08-25T18:50:05  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
794 2020-08-25T18:50:05  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jamesob opened pull request #19806: validation: UTXO snapshot activation (master...2020-08-au.activate) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19806
795 2020-08-25T18:50:07  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
796 2020-08-25T18:50:57  *** wallet42_ has quit IRC
797 2020-08-25T18:51:21  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
798 2020-08-25T18:51:30  *** jakesyl has quit IRC
799 2020-08-25T18:51:41  *** promag has quit IRC
800 2020-08-25T18:51:54  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
801 2020-08-25T18:52:56  *** jakesyl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
802 2020-08-25T18:53:10  *** wallet42_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
803 2020-08-25T18:53:40  *** promag has quit IRC
804 2020-08-25T18:54:57  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
805 2020-08-25T18:56:43  *** promag has quit IRC
806 2020-08-25T18:57:41  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
807 2020-08-25T18:58:34  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
808 2020-08-25T19:01:01  *** melande has quit IRC
809 2020-08-25T19:01:33  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
810 2020-08-25T19:01:53  *** promag has quit IRC
811 2020-08-25T19:01:53  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
812 2020-08-25T19:03:45  *** troygiorshev has quit IRC
813 2020-08-25T19:05:57  *** troygiorshev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
814 2020-08-25T19:06:30  *** lightlike has quit IRC
815 2020-08-25T19:09:30  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
816 2020-08-25T19:12:42  *** melande has quit IRC
817 2020-08-25T19:13:44  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
818 2020-08-25T19:15:54  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
819 2020-08-25T19:22:30  *** promag has quit IRC
820 2020-08-25T19:23:17  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
821 2020-08-25T19:27:31  *** promag has quit IRC
822 2020-08-25T19:28:15  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
823 2020-08-25T19:30:28  *** promag has quit IRC
824 2020-08-25T19:31:19  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
825 2020-08-25T19:32:22  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
826 2020-08-25T19:32:32  *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
827 2020-08-25T19:33:20  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
828 2020-08-25T19:33:34  *** promag has quit IRC
829 2020-08-25T19:36:28  *** proofofkeags_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
830 2020-08-25T19:39:03  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
831 2020-08-25T19:39:03  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
832 2020-08-25T19:42:48  *** xurzua has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
833 2020-08-25T19:46:59  *** owowo has quit IRC
834 2020-08-25T19:52:07  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
835 2020-08-25T19:59:38  *** reallll is now known as belcher
836 2020-08-25T20:00:42  *** arowser has quit IRC
837 2020-08-25T20:00:58  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
838 2020-08-25T20:01:58  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
839 2020-08-25T20:02:56  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
840 2020-08-25T20:04:40  *** melande has quit IRC
841 2020-08-25T20:05:49  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
842 2020-08-25T20:06:58  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
843 2020-08-25T20:09:21  *** Talkless has quit IRC
844 2020-08-25T20:12:30  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
845 2020-08-25T20:15:05  *** lnostdal has quit IRC
846 2020-08-25T20:26:56  *** Cory has quit IRC
847 2020-08-25T20:28:10  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
848 2020-08-25T20:28:36  *** lnostdal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
849 2020-08-25T20:30:29  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
850 2020-08-25T20:33:28  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
851 2020-08-25T20:38:01  *** proofofkeags__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
852 2020-08-25T20:38:06  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
853 2020-08-25T20:40:52  *** proofofkeags_ has quit IRC
854 2020-08-25T20:42:33  *** proofofkeags__ has quit IRC
855 2020-08-25T20:42:53  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
856 2020-08-25T20:46:34  *** proofofk_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
857 2020-08-25T20:50:50  *** belcher has quit IRC
858 2020-08-25T20:50:55  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
859 2020-08-25T20:50:55  <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
860 2020-08-25T20:50:56  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
861 2020-08-25T20:50:56  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
862 2020-08-25T20:51:28  *** proofofk_ has quit IRC
863 2020-08-25T20:53:28  *** filchef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
864 2020-08-25T20:54:57  *** filchef has quit IRC
865 2020-08-25T21:00:02  *** rlaager has quit IRC
866 2020-08-25T21:16:39  *** melande has quit IRC
867 2020-08-25T21:17:50  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
868 2020-08-25T21:21:59  *** serAphim has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
869 2020-08-25T21:33:02  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
870 2020-08-25T21:36:54  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
871 2020-08-25T21:37:33  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00__ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
872 2020-08-25T21:52:43  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
873 2020-08-25T22:08:42  *** melande has quit IRC
874 2020-08-25T22:09:50  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
875 2020-08-25T22:10:30  *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
876 2020-08-25T22:10:46  *** Deacyde has quit IRC
877 2020-08-25T22:14:41  *** melande has quit IRC
878 2020-08-25T22:15:49  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
879 2020-08-25T22:21:37  *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
880 2020-08-25T22:21:38  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
881 2020-08-25T22:22:53  *** gzhao408 has quit IRC
882 2020-08-25T22:42:11  *** xurzua has quit IRC
883 2020-08-25T22:54:55  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
884 2020-08-25T22:55:51  *** vasild_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
885 2020-08-25T22:57:19  *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
886 2020-08-25T22:58:43  *** vasild has quit IRC
887 2020-08-25T22:58:44  *** vasild_ is now known as vasild
888 2020-08-25T23:02:38  *** pinheadm_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
889 2020-08-25T23:05:02  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
890 2020-08-25T23:08:04  *** melande has quit IRC
891 2020-08-25T23:08:05  *** sr_gi has quit IRC
892 2020-08-25T23:08:50  *** sr_gi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
893 2020-08-25T23:08:52  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
894 2020-08-25T23:15:00  *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
895 2020-08-25T23:21:01  *** promag has quit IRC
896 2020-08-25T23:30:43  *** melande has quit IRC
897 2020-08-25T23:31:57  *** melande has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
898 2020-08-25T23:33:32  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
899 2020-08-25T23:43:35  *** gribble has quit IRC
900 2020-08-25T23:44:10  *** arowser has quit IRC
901 2020-08-25T23:44:54  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
902 2020-08-25T23:45:29  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
903 2020-08-25T23:52:55  *** promag has quit IRC
904 2020-08-25T23:58:04  *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev