1 2020-09-22T00:00:01  *** FredC has quit IRC
  2 2020-09-22T00:09:40  *** promag has quit IRC
  3 2020-09-22T00:10:50  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2020-09-22T00:13:09  *** tsdgeos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  5 2020-09-22T00:17:40  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  6 2020-09-22T00:35:31  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  7 2020-09-22T00:35:31  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ariard closed pull request #19871: doc: Clarify scope of eviction protection of outbound block-relay peers (master...2020-09-clarify-eviction-block-relay) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19871
  8 2020-09-22T00:35:32  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
  9 2020-09-22T00:35:46  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 10 2020-09-22T00:35:46  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ariard reopened pull request #19871: doc: Clarify scope of eviction protection of outbound block-relay peers (master...2020-09-clarify-eviction-block-relay) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19871
 11 2020-09-22T00:35:47  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 12 2020-09-22T00:38:05  *** arowser has quit IRC
 13 2020-09-22T00:39:30  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2020-09-22T00:43:42  *** promag has quit IRC
 15 2020-09-22T00:49:47  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 16 2020-09-22T00:54:03  *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 17 2020-09-22T00:57:19  *** molz_ has quit IRC
 18 2020-09-22T01:06:38  *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
 19 2020-09-22T01:42:05  *** arowser has quit IRC
 20 2020-09-22T01:42:25  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 21 2020-09-22T01:45:06  *** Eagle[TM] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 22 2020-09-22T01:47:26  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
 23 2020-09-22T01:57:05  *** arowser has quit IRC
 24 2020-09-22T01:57:24  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 25 2020-09-22T02:02:05  *** arowser has quit IRC
 26 2020-09-22T02:02:24  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 27 2020-09-22T02:02:30  *** tsdgeos has quit IRC
 28 2020-09-22T02:03:05  *** arowser has quit IRC
 29 2020-09-22T02:03:23  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 30 2020-09-22T02:11:23  *** arowser has quit IRC
 31 2020-09-22T02:20:49  *** Livestradamus has quit IRC
 32 2020-09-22T02:21:53  *** IPGlider has quit IRC
 33 2020-09-22T02:23:27  *** IPGlider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 34 2020-09-22T02:24:34  *** Livestradamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 35 2020-09-22T02:27:46  *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 36 2020-09-22T02:28:44  *** grawity1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 37 2020-09-22T02:30:35  *** mol_ has quit IRC
 38 2020-09-22T02:51:59  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 39 2020-09-22T02:56:18  *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 40 2020-09-22T03:00:02  *** grawity1 has quit IRC
 41 2020-09-22T03:01:38  *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
 42 2020-09-22T03:02:33  *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 43 2020-09-22T03:20:31  *** alxgnon1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 44 2020-09-22T03:20:46  *** molz_ has quit IRC
 45 2020-09-22T03:50:06  <aj> signet merged, taproot in high-priority for review
 46 2020-09-22T03:57:13  *** tryphe has quit IRC
 47 2020-09-22T03:57:20  *** tryphe_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 48 2020-09-22T04:07:59  *** takinbo_ has quit IRC
 49 2020-09-22T04:08:58  <sipa> #addtoajsqueue #19988
 50 2020-09-22T04:09:00  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19988 | Overhaul transaction request logic by sipa · Pull Request #19988 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 51 2020-09-22T04:09:15  *** takinbo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 52 2020-09-22T04:09:15  *** takinbo has quit IRC
 53 2020-09-22T04:09:15  *** takinbo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 54 2020-09-22T04:10:55  <aj> sipa: yeahyeah, it's on the top of a list
 55 2020-09-22T04:45:49  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 56 2020-09-22T05:00:44  <kallewoof> i'm surprised taproot PR is not in conflict with signet merge. I recall it not being trivial to merge the two when I did it myself.
 57 2020-09-22T05:04:30  <aj> kallewoof: some of it might have been the CheckSig changes that we got rid of?
 58 2020-09-22T05:04:48  <kallewoof> that's probably it yeah!
 59 2020-09-22T05:07:56  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 60 2020-09-22T05:16:30  *** mol has quit IRC
 61 2020-09-22T05:17:27  *** alxgnon1 has quit IRC
 62 2020-09-22T05:23:38  * sipa tries
 63 2020-09-22T05:30:29  *** maxfragg1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 64 2020-09-22T05:32:36  <sipa> works fine
 65 2020-09-22T05:33:38  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 66 2020-09-22T05:36:37  <aj> aggh, gmaxwell is commenting in the factorio subreddit
 67 2020-09-22T06:00:01  *** maxfragg1 has quit IRC
 68 2020-09-22T06:03:32  *** kljasdfvv has quit IRC
 69 2020-09-22T06:03:41  *** kljasdfvv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 70 2020-09-22T06:04:12  <kallewoof> sipa: yeah i tried it too and it worked without conflicts.
 71 2020-09-22T06:21:31  *** leolein1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 72 2020-09-22T06:22:22  *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 73 2020-09-22T06:22:46  *** tryphe_ has quit IRC
 74 2020-09-22T06:33:03  *** yanmaani has quit IRC
 75 2020-09-22T06:37:23  *** mol has quit IRC
 76 2020-09-22T06:40:00  *** reallll has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 77 2020-09-22T06:43:25  *** belcher_ has quit IRC
 78 2020-09-22T06:46:45  *** yanmaani has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 79 2020-09-22T06:53:21  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 80 2020-09-22T06:54:23  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
 81 2020-09-22T06:59:23  *** reallll is now known as belcher
 82 2020-09-22T07:18:11  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 83 2020-09-22T07:18:36  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 84 2020-09-22T07:21:39  *** yanmaani has quit IRC
 85 2020-09-22T07:22:29  *** yanmaani has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 86 2020-09-22T07:26:26  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 87 2020-09-22T07:29:13  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 88 2020-09-22T07:29:39  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 89 2020-09-22T07:33:47  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 90 2020-09-22T07:56:44  *** kljasdfvv has quit IRC
 91 2020-09-22T07:56:45  *** sr_gi has quit IRC
 92 2020-09-22T07:57:15  *** sr_gi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 93 2020-09-22T07:57:43  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 94 2020-09-22T07:58:22  *** kljasdfvv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 95 2020-09-22T08:03:17  *** dermoth_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 96 2020-09-22T08:03:35  *** dermoth has quit IRC
 97 2020-09-22T08:03:37  *** dermoth_ is now known as dermoth
 98 2020-09-22T08:04:19  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
 99 2020-09-22T08:22:16  *** Kiminuo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
100 2020-09-22T08:26:47  *** gribble has quit IRC
101 2020-09-22T08:29:11  *** andreacab has quit IRC
102 2020-09-22T08:29:40  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
103 2020-09-22T08:33:47  *** jonatack has quit IRC
104 2020-09-22T08:34:03  *** andreacab has quit IRC
105 2020-09-22T08:35:46  *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
106 2020-09-22T09:00:02  *** leolein1 has quit IRC
107 2020-09-22T09:04:20  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
108 2020-09-22T09:04:59  *** kexkey has quit IRC
109 2020-09-22T09:06:22  *** andreaca_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2020-09-22T09:07:43  *** andreacab has quit IRC
111 2020-09-22T09:11:40  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112 2020-09-22T09:13:42  *** shesek has quit IRC
113 2020-09-22T09:21:04  *** Cros1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
114 2020-09-22T09:44:12  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
115 2020-09-22T09:48:12  *** promag has quit IRC
116 2020-09-22T09:48:45  *** jonatack has quit IRC
117 2020-09-22T09:49:11  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
118 2020-09-22T09:50:23  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
119 2020-09-22T09:51:00  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2020-09-22T10:00:53  *** andreaca_ has quit IRC
121 2020-09-22T10:01:20  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122 2020-09-22T10:05:57  *** andreacab has quit IRC
123 2020-09-22T10:10:03  *** vasild has quit IRC
124 2020-09-22T10:19:19  *** dr-orlovsky has quit IRC
125 2020-09-22T10:20:28  *** Terry81Kohler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
126 2020-09-22T10:21:02  *** provoostenator has quit IRC
127 2020-09-22T10:21:46  *** provoostenator has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
128 2020-09-22T10:28:06  *** Terry81Kohler has quit IRC
129 2020-09-22T10:29:29  *** promag has quit IRC
130 2020-09-22T10:31:55  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
131 2020-09-22T10:34:55  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132 2020-09-22T10:45:58  *** vasild has quit IRC
133 2020-09-22T10:49:22  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
134 2020-09-22T11:17:10  *** promag has quit IRC
135 2020-09-22T11:44:43  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
136 2020-09-22T11:44:43  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #19991: net: Use alternative port for incoming Tor connections (master...200922-tor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19991
137 2020-09-22T11:44:44  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
138 2020-09-22T11:51:53  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
139 2020-09-22T12:00:02  *** Cros1 has quit IRC
140 2020-09-22T12:24:59  *** mol has quit IRC
141 2020-09-22T12:33:45  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142 2020-09-22T12:52:59  *** jonatack has quit IRC
143 2020-09-22T12:55:28  *** nhandler1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
144 2020-09-22T13:12:10  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
145 2020-09-22T13:21:02  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
146 2020-09-22T13:27:20  *** mol has quit IRC
147 2020-09-22T13:28:03  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
148 2020-09-22T13:31:38  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2020-09-22T13:38:45  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
150 2020-09-22T13:57:06  *** mol has quit IRC
151 2020-09-22T14:00:01  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152 2020-09-22T14:00:01  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #19993: refactor: Signet fixups (master...2009-signetFixups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19993
153 2020-09-22T14:00:01  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
154 2020-09-22T14:01:25  *** Highway61 has quit IRC
155 2020-09-22T14:01:50  *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
156 2020-09-22T14:03:57  <jnewbery> Hi folks. There's a P2P meeting today in an hour. We have one proposed topic: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/P2P-IRC-meetings#22-sept-2020. Feel free to propose more in the next hour.
157 2020-09-22T14:04:00  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22 | Update the list of hard-coded node IP addresses · Issue #22 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
158 2020-09-22T14:04:11  <jnewbery> bad bot
159 2020-09-22T14:05:38  <jnewbery> sipa: perhaps a brief overview of #19988 would be of interest to the meeting attendees (motivation/design philosphy rather than technical details that can be found in the PR)
160 2020-09-22T14:05:40  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19988 | Overhaul transaction request logic by sipa · Pull Request #19988 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
161 2020-09-22T14:08:10  *** promag has quit IRC
162 2020-09-22T14:23:21  *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
163 2020-09-22T14:30:29  *** Kiminuo has quit IRC
164 2020-09-22T14:41:04  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
165 2020-09-22T14:58:17  <gleb> jnewbery: I have this PR #19958. I would just make a little announcement during the meeting, not planning to actually discuss it, because I think the trade-off is simple and already known.
166 2020-09-22T14:58:20  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19958 | Rename feelers to probes by naumenkogs · Pull Request #19958 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
167 2020-09-22T14:58:56  <sipa> jnewbery: happy to do that
168 2020-09-22T14:59:28  *** ajonas_ has quit IRC
169 2020-09-22T14:59:59  *** ajonas has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
170 2020-09-22T15:00:02  *** nhandler1 has quit IRC
171 2020-09-22T15:00:27  <sdaftuar> hello
172 2020-09-22T15:00:35  <jnewbery> #startmeeting
173 2020-09-22T15:00:35  <lightningbot> Meeting started Tue Sep 22 15:00:35 2020 UTC.  The chair is jnewbery. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
174 2020-09-22T15:00:35  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
175 2020-09-22T15:00:41  <hebasto> hi
176 2020-09-22T15:00:44  <gzhao408> hi
177 2020-09-22T15:00:44  <jnewbery> #bitcoin-core-dev P2P Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator aj Chris_Stewart_5 dongcarl gwillen jamesob ken281221 ryanofsky gleb moneyball kvaciral ariard digi_james
178 2020-09-22T15:00:50  <jnewbery> amiti fjahr jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55 elichai2
179 2020-09-22T15:00:57  <ajonas> hi
180 2020-09-22T15:01:00  <ariard> hi
181 2020-09-22T15:01:00  <aj> holla
182 2020-09-22T15:01:06  <amiti> hi
183 2020-09-22T15:01:09  <gleb> hi
184 2020-09-22T15:01:22  <jnewbery> Hi folks. Two proposed topics today: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/P2P-IRC-meetings#22-sept-2020
185 2020-09-22T15:01:24  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22 | Update the list of hard-coded node IP addresses · Issue #22 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
186 2020-09-22T15:01:29  <fanquake>  hi
187 2020-09-22T15:01:39  <jnewbery> - Follow-up on "What would a good transaction propagation framework look like? See a first draw Transactions propagation design goals #19820 (ariard)
188 2020-09-22T15:01:40  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19820 | Transactions propagation design goals · Issue #19820 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
189 2020-09-22T15:01:45  <jnewbery> - Overview of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19988 (motivation/design philosphy rather than technical details that can be found in the PR)
190 2020-09-22T15:02:13  <jnewbery> Before we get to those, are there any other proposed topics, or does anyone have any short announcements to make?
191 2020-09-22T15:02:19  <gleb> Yeah, I have one.
192 2020-09-22T15:02:41  <vasild> hi
193 2020-09-22T15:02:49  <gleb> I suggested to rename "feeler" connection to "probe" all along the codebase, because feelers currently capture two distinct features: feelers and test-before-evict.
194 2020-09-22T15:02:50  <jnewbery> gleb: feelers -> probes ?
195 2020-09-22T15:03:06  <jnewbery> ok. Let's do that first (and not spend 50 minutes on it :)
196 2020-09-22T15:03:17  <jnewbery> #topic feelers -> probes (gleb)
197 2020-09-22T15:03:25  <gleb> There's some support of renaming, but also couple hesitations and wladimir said we would rather not, because of rebase conflicts etc
198 2020-09-22T15:03:37  <gleb> So I'm planning to drop this idea for now, and just improve the documentation.
199 2020-09-22T15:04:12  <gleb> If someone is strongly in favor of renaming feelers to probes, please comment in the PR sometime soon :)
200 2020-09-22T15:04:17  <sipa> fixing documentation is always good
201 2020-09-22T15:04:19  <gleb> #19958
202 2020-09-22T15:04:22  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19958 | Rename feelers to probes by naumenkogs · Pull Request #19958 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
203 2020-09-22T15:04:27  <sipa> or at least, making it less confusing
204 2020-09-22T15:05:03  <gleb> That's it, we now can discuss other topics, unless someone have something to say right now :)
205 2020-09-22T15:05:17  <amiti> thanks for the doc fix :)
206 2020-09-22T15:05:51  <jnewbery> I'm generally in favour of making names more meaningful. If we're going to make this name change, I think it's preferable to do it before connection types are exposed in the RPC
207 2020-09-22T15:06:07  <jnewbery> But I haven't looked at the specifics here, and don't have an opinion on this change
208 2020-09-22T15:06:43  <jnewbery> ok, next topic?
209 2020-09-22T15:06:50  <gleb> Good point wrt RPC
210 2020-09-22T15:06:57  <gleb> yeah, we can move on i guess
211 2020-09-22T15:07:00  <jnewbery> #topic Follow-up on "What would a good transaction propagation framework look like? See a first draw Transactions propagation design goals #19820 (ariard)
212 2020-09-22T15:07:01  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19820 | Transactions propagation design goals · Issue #19820 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
213 2020-09-22T15:07:29  <ariard> I think we have a problem ecosystem-wise as we have protocols being designed and deployed
214 2020-09-22T15:07:57  <ariard> which are completely insecure because of implicit assumptions on the tx-relay network and mempools behavior which are false
215 2020-09-22T15:08:19  <sipa> anything that relies on specific properies of tx relay being guaranteed is broken
216 2020-09-22T15:09:04  <gleb> how should we approach this problem? :)
217 2020-09-22T15:09:14  <ariard> yes and I was aiming to synchronize people's model to suggest some kind of join IRC meeting
218 2020-09-22T15:09:25  <ariard> with the LN devs, rusty, cdecker & all were down
219 2020-09-22T15:09:27  <sipa> i think it's a good idea to work towards better analysing and documenting the design goals for transactions, but that's not going to result in any guarantees
220 2020-09-22T15:09:35  <sdaftuar> i think tx relay works pretty well for transactions whose inputs are all confirmed?
221 2020-09-22T15:10:35  <aj> sdaftuar: not if the transaction is RBF'ing something else that was previously relayed?
222 2020-09-22T15:10:52  <ariard> sipa: I agree it's more how do we establish a common mental model ecosystem-wise ?
223 2020-09-22T15:10:52  <sdaftuar> aj: agreed that we can continue to make improvements there!
224 2020-09-22T15:11:05  <sdaftuar> aj: but i think we have something that is pretty reliable right now
225 2020-09-22T15:11:07  <ariard> like either modifiyng second-layer protocols or tx-relay but not staying in-between
226 2020-09-22T15:12:11  <gleb> The problem can be at least split into several
227 2020-09-22T15:12:17  <vasild> Some LN protocol or implementation relies on a transaction propagating to every node?
228 2020-09-22T15:12:17  <sipa> ariard: to me, the only solution if you need things that must confirm within a fixed amount of time is loudly yelling at the user if the timeout runs close
229 2020-09-22T15:12:29  <gleb> For example, "assuming I can pay whatever fee, can I guarantee that my transaction will reach miners"?
230 2020-09-22T15:12:51  <sdaftuar> guarantee is a very hard word to use
231 2020-09-22T15:13:11  <ariard> sipa: I think we should dissociate propagation guarantee from confirmation guarantee, ofc you can't promise confirmation
232 2020-09-22T15:13:13  <sipa> ariard: that's independent of potential improvements to tx relay that can make it more reliable in more varied scenarios - but if your security assumption is that relay (and confirmation!) are guaranteed, nothing can provide that
233 2020-09-22T15:13:55  <ariard> sipa: yes I think we agree on the confirmation part, it's more the relay one which can be exploited by a malicious counterparty
234 2020-09-22T15:13:59  <sipa> ariard: and i feel that framing this as "we need better tx relay because higher level protocols rely on some of its assumptions" is kind of missing the point
235 2020-09-22T15:14:05  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
236 2020-09-22T15:14:06  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/77376034d4ab...d692d192cda3
237 2020-09-22T15:14:06  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa80c81 MarcoFalke: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (blockchain)
238 2020-09-22T15:14:06  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa6bb0c MarcoFalke: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (rawtransaction)
239 2020-09-22T15:14:07  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d692d19 MarcoFalke: Merge #19849: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (bloc...
240 2020-09-22T15:14:08  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
241 2020-09-22T15:14:30  <gleb> sipa: so you're suggestion it should be users' responsibility?
242 2020-09-22T15:14:30  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
243 2020-09-22T15:14:31  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19849: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (blockchain,rawtransaction) (master...2008-rpcAssertNames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19849
244 2020-09-22T15:14:31  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
245 2020-09-22T15:14:45  <gleb> To act when the timeout is too close. Go to a miner, or use other software, or whatelse
246 2020-09-22T15:15:26  <sipa> i don't see what else you can do
247 2020-09-22T15:15:44  <ariard> sipa: if I understand your point correctly we can deterministically guarantee propagation it's more a probabilistic issue
248 2020-09-22T15:15:52  <ariard> *we can't
249 2020-09-22T15:16:26  <gleb> I'm not even sure about probabilistic, facing an incentivised attacker.
250 2020-09-22T15:16:30  <instagibbs> of course you can't, otherwise we wouldn't need PoW
251 2020-09-22T15:16:31  <sipa> indeed
252 2020-09-22T15:17:19  <sipa> so we should look at what features are useful for common cases in higher-level protocols, and to what extent those can be improved upon
253 2020-09-22T15:17:23  <gleb> Random idea: a node could probe random nodes in the network to see how many of them knows about a tx.
254 2020-09-22T15:17:42  <sipa> but if you frame this as "otherwise higher-level protocols are insecure", that's besides the point - if they were before, they'll still be insecure after
255 2020-09-22T15:18:57  <vasild> if improved from 90% to 95% that is better but still not guaranteed (100%)
256 2020-09-22T15:19:11  <ariard> I think the changes I'm proposing are more feature-wise than "making better tx relay"
257 2020-09-22T15:20:05  <aj> sipa: i think it's more "spam prevention should be hard to use as an attack vector to prevent relay" when currently it's fairly easy to use it as an attack vector? (i consider rbf rules as spam prevention, adjust the wording if you disagree i guess)
258 2020-09-22T15:20:07  <sdaftuar> is there a concrete set of proposed changes to consider?
259 2020-09-22T15:20:23  <ariard> sipa: what do you understood by "we need better tx relay" ?
260 2020-09-22T15:20:38  <gleb> I would propose to be more clear that "tx relay is not reliable no matter how much fees you pay"?
261 2020-09-22T15:20:55  *** tomatopotato has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
262 2020-09-22T15:21:09  <ariard> sdaftuar: a) better documentation of policy to avoid someone hitting them for lack of testing b) something like package relay or consorts
263 2020-09-22T15:21:36  <aj> gleb: there's reliable as in works 99% of the time, and reliable as in it's secure even in the face of a state-level attacker
264 2020-09-22T15:22:06  <sdaftuar> ariard: i don't know what consorts means, but i don't think "package relay" is sufficiently fleshed out yet, unless there's a proposal i've missed?
265 2020-09-22T15:22:12  <gleb> aj: "not guaranteed" perhaps. I'm not pushing the exact wording right now :)_
266 2020-09-22T15:22:26  <ariard> sdaftuar: but there is a more philosophical question, "what if we tighten a policy rule and someone has built on it being liberal"
267 2020-09-22T15:22:33  <ariard> lik increasing the mininal transaction size
268 2020-09-22T15:23:01  <sipa> ariard: basically, my problem is with the word "need" - i don't know that we need anything, but that doesn't mean there can't be improvements
269 2020-09-22T15:23:33  <sdaftuar> ariard: i agree that is a good question
270 2020-09-22T15:24:17  <ariard> sipa: right, my wording is bad, it's more how we define clear rules a la BIP 125, and that's it don't make assumptions outside
271 2020-09-22T15:25:21  <ariard> AFAIK, BIP 125 is the only standard on a mempool policy aiming to offer an interface usable by wallets/applications?
272 2020-09-22T15:25:51  <sdaftuar> i think it's reasonable to ask whether policy changes to Bitcoin Core should always be documented in a BIP so that wallet authors can take those changes into account
273 2020-09-22T15:26:17  <ariard> sdaftuar: voila, that's what I've in mind :)
274 2020-09-22T15:26:20  <ariard> or protocol authors
275 2020-09-22T15:26:21  <sdaftuar> that was exactly why i had asked for BIP 125 to be drafted in the first place, fwiw
276 2020-09-22T15:26:37  <sipa> ariard: documenting the relay policy more accurate definitely sounds like a good idea
277 2020-09-22T15:26:55  <sdaftuar> unfortunately we're starting from a place where none of it (except for bip 125) is documented
278 2020-09-22T15:27:27  <ariard> sdaftuar: yes like we didn't have a bip for carve-out and some folks are trying to reuse it beyond LN
279 2020-09-22T15:27:30  <ariard> sadly insecurely
280 2020-09-22T15:28:38  <jnewbery> I don't think p2p policy belongs in BIPs. https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki seems like a more appropriate place for it
281 2020-09-22T15:28:53  <sdaftuar> jnewbery: thanks i was just going to say that it's not clear to me that BIPs are the right place either
282 2020-09-22T15:29:08  <sdaftuar> on one hand, policy changes may have effects on other software, so a BIP might seem the right place
283 2020-09-22T15:29:17  <ariard> I agree not necessarily a BIP as far it's documented somewhere
284 2020-09-22T15:29:25  <luke-jr> strict policy, no, but things that coordinate yes
285 2020-09-22T15:29:27  <ariard> though we have the example of BIP 125
286 2020-09-22T15:29:41  <luke-jr> BIP 125 gives meaning to particular sequence values
287 2020-09-22T15:29:52  <sdaftuar> however there is also a sense that we make implementation-specific changes frequently enough that it woulnd't make sense to always publish things in the BIP repo to reflect them
288 2020-09-22T15:30:18  <ariard> sdaftuar: I agree that's too heavy to update anytime we change the rejection filter
289 2020-09-22T15:30:23  <luke-jr> ariard: it's a bug for software to rely on node policies
290 2020-09-22T15:30:57  <ariard> luke-jr: how do you frame BIP 125, it's a node policy ?
291 2020-09-22T15:31:39  <luke-jr> ariard: it's not a node policy, it's a definition of sequence values; implementations can honour or ignore the request
292 2020-09-22T15:31:49  <luke-jr> the latter decision is the policy
293 2020-09-22T15:31:58  <jnewbery> I feel like we're getting into the semantic weeds here. The important thing is that policy is documented somewhere, not what you call it.
294 2020-09-22T15:32:01  <luke-jr> (text aside)
295 2020-09-22T15:32:30  <sdaftuar> jnewbery: i don't think that's exactly true. i think the point luke is making (or at least making me consider harder) is whether there are some aspects of node policy that are different from others
296 2020-09-22T15:32:32  <jnewbery> and to me, the wiki feels like the obvious place. This is information about Bitcoin Core's policy that is being communicated to external developers
297 2020-09-22T15:33:54  <luke-jr> stuff external developers should design around, makes sense to have in a BIP; but generally, that should not include most node policy
298 2020-09-22T15:34:06  <luke-jr> (we can still document policy of course)
299 2020-09-22T15:34:09  <ariard> luke-jr: okay if I follow your semantic BIP 125 define a request mechanism ; choosing to implement this mechanism is a policy decision
300 2020-09-22T15:34:37  <luke-jr> ariard: yes, basically
301 2020-09-22T15:34:50  *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
302 2020-09-22T15:34:59  <ariard> luke-jr: and I agree with you we can't enforce that node operators are effectively deploying this policy
303 2020-09-22T15:35:12  <sdaftuar> luke-jr: in general, though, external developers are desiging around the policy already
304 2020-09-22T15:35:22  <luke-jr> sdaftuar: that's a bug in their design IMO
305 2020-09-22T15:35:23  <ariard> luke-jr: no more we can guarantee that everyone isn't running with blocksonly
306 2020-09-22T15:35:24  <sdaftuar> and in fact that is the source of this whole discussion
307 2020-09-22T15:35:34  <luke-jr> and not something we should encourage
308 2020-09-22T15:35:47  *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
309 2020-09-22T15:36:52  <ariard> what was the thinking when bloom filters where turn off by default ?
310 2020-09-22T15:37:11  <ariard> it's this kind of software setting default which encourage/discourage network-wise behaviors?
311 2020-09-22T15:37:18  <ariard> *were
312 2020-09-22T15:38:13  <jnewbery> we have one more topic, so I suggest we move on to that soon
313 2020-09-22T15:38:30  <sipa> ariard: it was turned off because there is an obvious resource usage attack enabled by them (high disk I/O and CPU usage, barely any bandwidth for the attacker), and discussed quite widely before done so
314 2020-09-22T15:38:34  <sdaftuar> luke-jr: perhaps the right way to think about this is that wallet authors should use their best understanding of what policy rules are deployed on the network to generate transactions that will propagate well, but the bug is in relying on that for security?
315 2020-09-22T15:39:41  <ariard> security isn't binary, it's more how do you diminish the risk of transactions not propagating well
316 2020-09-22T15:40:12  <vasild> rely on relay is bad :)
317 2020-09-22T15:40:14  <sdaftuar> security is also not probabilistic
318 2020-09-22T15:41:13  <aj> (20min left)
319 2020-09-22T15:41:23  <jnewbery> thanks aj, let's move on to the next topic
320 2020-09-22T15:41:27  <ariard> sdaftuar: I think we're going to switch off-topic but it sounds like second layers have somehow to have this probabilistic model
321 2020-09-22T15:41:37  <jnewbery> #topic Overview of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19988 (motivation/design philosphy rather than technical details that can be found in the PR)
322 2020-09-22T15:41:49  <jnewbery> over to you, sipa
323 2020-09-22T15:41:53  <sipa> hi!
324 2020-09-22T15:41:53  <ariard> jnewbery: wait before to switch do people would like to coordinate an IRC meeting with LN devs to talk about those issues ?
325 2020-09-22T15:42:20  <ariard> or anyone else interested by those propagation issues
326 2020-09-22T15:42:54  <gleb> ariard: The only common understanding we currently have here seem to be "need more docs". I don't see how talking to LN devs helps here?
327 2020-09-22T15:42:57  <luke-jr> sdaftuar: wallets should use standards, and node policies ideally will allow standard transactions
328 2020-09-22T15:43:40  <ariard> gleb: because they have implemented most of the content which could be in those "need more docs" :)
329 2020-09-22T15:44:15  <jnewbery> ariard: can you co-ordinate your next meeting after this meeting? Let's move on to 19988!
330 2020-09-22T15:44:32  <gzhao408> woo 19988!
331 2020-09-22T15:44:33  <ariard> jnewbery: sure let's move on
332 2020-09-22T15:44:38  <jnewbery> thanks!
333 2020-09-22T15:44:41  <sipa> hi!
334 2020-09-22T15:45:18  <sipa> so i recently PR'ed #19988, which is a rebase of 19184
335 2020-09-22T15:45:20  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19988 | Overhaul transaction request logic by sipa · Pull Request #19988 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
336 2020-09-22T15:45:52  <sipa> the idea is that our tx fetching logic has really grown over time
337 2020-09-22T15:46:17  <sipa> with various data structures needed for coordination, and unclear specification of what they actually implement
338 2020-09-22T15:46:50  <sipa> there are biases in favor/against fetching from certain nodes, but they're all implemented indirectly through random delays and insertions/lookups in maps, that are hard to reason about
339 2020-09-22T15:47:40  <sipa> so instead, my idea was to create a clear specification of what should be fetched from what, or at least something that can be defined in function of a simple data structure
340 2020-09-22T15:47:58  <sipa> and then have one class that encapsulates a very efficient implementation of that
341 2020-09-22T15:48:51  <sipa> 19988 does that
342 2020-09-22T15:49:34  <sipa> to test that, i wrote a fuzz tester which contains a naive reimplementation with the exact same behavior, and which tries to find sequences of operations that makes them diverge
343 2020-09-22T15:50:33  <sipa> (which, it turns out, found a lot of them... but all within ~minutes - it has now run for several weeks altogether...)
344 2020-09-22T15:51:09  <vasild> what does it mean if the naive implementation differs from the real one?
345 2020-09-22T15:51:29  <instagibbs> sorry naive version of what?
346 2020-09-22T15:51:38  <jnewbery> vasild: probably that there's a bug in the real one :)
347 2020-09-22T15:51:48  <instagibbs> like, legacy logic, vs, your encapsulation, vs another implementation?
348 2020-09-22T15:51:51  <vasild> jnewbery: or in the naive one :)
349 2020-09-22T15:52:10  <sipa> instagibbs: difference between the efficient boost::multi_index based implementation, and the naive one in the fuzzer
350 2020-09-22T15:52:21  <instagibbs> ah!
351 2020-09-22T15:52:29  <sdaftuar> concept ACK from me... feature freeze is oct 15, do people have thoughts on getting this in for 0.21?
352 2020-09-22T15:52:29  <instagibbs> naive efficiency-wise
353 2020-09-22T15:52:53  <instagibbs> sdaftuar, don't mean to touch the third rail, but taproot implementation?
354 2020-09-22T15:53:07  <instagibbs> I guess that doesn't intersect aside from PR author
355 2020-09-22T15:53:30  <jnewbery> instagibbs: taproot wouldn't be merged before 0.21, so I think this is the priority
356 2020-09-22T15:53:38  <jnewbery> (in terms of sequencing)
357 2020-09-22T15:53:39  <sdaftuar> yeah i don't know what one has to do with the other, i'd just like to make our review time be efficient
358 2020-09-22T15:53:58  <instagibbs> jnewbery, mmmm ok I guess I hadn't heard that decision
359 2020-09-22T15:54:15  <instagibbs> sdaftuar, same author means limited reaction bandwidth, just noting
360 2020-09-22T15:54:16  <sipa> i was hoping for both :)
361 2020-09-22T15:54:37  <jnewbery> This is +2000/-450 LOC, so reviewing and being comfortable to merge in three weeks seems ... ambitious
362 2020-09-22T15:54:44  <instagibbs> it's not new code.
363 2020-09-22T15:55:06  <sipa> jnewbery: most is in tests
364 2020-09-22T15:55:14  <sipa> (but the non-test code is quite hairy, i admit)
365 2020-09-22T15:55:51  <instagibbs> vast majority of changes were test changes recnetly
366 2020-09-22T15:55:58  <sipa> i'd encourage reviewers to really look at the fuzz test first - even ignoring the fuzzing aspect, the naive reimplementation probably gives a pretty good idea of what the thing *should* do
367 2020-09-22T15:56:07  <instagibbs> (sorry, stopping)
368 2020-09-22T15:56:30  <ajonas> I'd be happy to try some organized nagging if people want to give it a shot to get this in
369 2020-09-22T15:56:52  <instagibbs> concept ACK the actual topic
370 2020-09-22T15:57:15  <jnewbery> it might be better to wait until after 0.21 to merge, so that it has more soak time before being in a release?
371 2020-09-22T15:57:41  <jnewbery> it's not like ADDRv2, where we have some external dependency driving deadlines (torv2 deprecation)
372 2020-09-22T15:58:42  <ajonas> with two min to go can we check in on those 0.21 priorities?
373 2020-09-22T15:58:43  <sipa> well, it depends on reviewer time of coursew
374 2020-09-22T15:58:43  <aj> seems like putting it in early in a cycle would make backporting other p2p things (ie from 0.22pre to 0.21) harder, and there's some reasonable soak time between feature freeze and rc?
375 2020-09-22T15:59:01  <sipa> aj: yeah
376 2020-09-22T15:59:09  <sdaftuar> release date is december 3 right now
377 2020-09-22T15:59:12  <sdaftuar> so that is a fair point
378 2020-09-22T15:59:21  <sdaftuar> (estimated i guess)
379 2020-09-22T15:59:22  <jnewbery> one minute left!
380 2020-09-22T15:59:38  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
381 2020-09-22T15:59:38  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #19994: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (net, rpcwallet) (master...2009-rpcAssertNames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19994
382 2020-09-22T15:59:39  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
383 2020-09-22T16:00:11  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
384 2020-09-22T16:00:19  <ajonas> The other two priorities mentioned were:
385 2020-09-22T16:00:19  <ajonas> - ADDRv2 - #19031 (next in sequence is 19845, which is close)
386 2020-09-22T16:00:19  <ajonas> - outbound & block-relay-only connections in functional tests (#19315)
387 2020-09-22T16:00:22  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19031 | Implement ADDRv2 support (part of BIP155) by vasild · Pull Request #19031 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
388 2020-09-22T16:00:25  <jnewbery> #endmeeting
389 2020-09-22T16:00:25  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Tue Sep 22 16:00:25 2020 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
390 2020-09-22T16:00:25  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-09-22-15.00.html
391 2020-09-22T16:00:25  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-09-22-15.00.txt
392 2020-09-22T16:00:25  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-09-22-15.00.log.html
393 2020-09-22T16:00:26  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19315 | [tests] Allow outbound & block-relay-only connections in functional tests. by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #19315 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
394 2020-09-22T16:00:51  <instagibbs> sdaftuar, which is a good point? there was a flurry of convo there
395 2020-09-22T16:01:14  <sdaftuar> oh i meant that feature freeze -> release was a good bit more time than i had initially realized at least
396 2020-09-22T16:01:29  <instagibbs> ah, +1
397 2020-09-22T16:01:43  <sdaftuar> i guess you'd think i'd remember these things by now, oops
398 2020-09-22T16:02:06  <aj> sdaftuar: why remember anything you can lookup? bandwidth is cheap
399 2020-09-22T16:02:33  <sipa> aj: latency hit, though
400 2020-09-22T16:06:06  <aj> sipa: just do it while configure is running and it's fine
401 2020-09-22T16:08:58  *** IGHOR has quit IRC
402 2020-09-22T16:11:06  *** IGHOR has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
403 2020-09-22T16:25:24  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
404 2020-09-22T16:25:47  *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
405 2020-09-22T16:38:58  <sipa> bizarre discovery: memcmp in some GCC9 and GCC10 versions are broken, if passed a constant array input that starts with a 0 byte
406 2020-09-22T16:39:26  <sipa> discovered here https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/822, bug is https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
407 2020-09-22T16:39:31  <sipa> which is fixed in GCC 10.2
408 2020-09-22T16:39:58  <sipa> i suspect some of bitcoin core's unit tests may be affected too
409 2020-09-22T16:40:23  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
410 2020-09-22T16:40:55  <sdaftuar> whoa
411 2020-09-22T16:40:59  <sipa> i don't immediately see any other uses that would be affected
412 2020-09-22T16:41:14  *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
413 2020-09-22T16:43:02  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
414 2020-09-22T16:44:02  *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
415 2020-09-22T16:44:58  *** mol has quit IRC
416 2020-09-22T16:48:09  <roconnor> Not fixed in GCC 10.2.  Fixed in master.
417 2020-09-22T16:49:59  *** kristapsk has quit IRC
418 2020-09-22T16:52:39  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
419 2020-09-22T16:52:39  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
420 2020-09-22T16:53:12  <sipa> roconnor: oh yes, i misread the report
421 2020-09-22T16:53:37  <sipa> i confirm the bug exists in the 10.0.1 that's in ubuntu'
422 2020-09-22T16:53:44  <sipa> i can't reproduce it with gcc 9.3
423 2020-09-22T16:56:22  <sipa> i also see the problem with std::lexicographical_compare in C++
424 2020-09-22T16:56:45  <roconnor> weird, I have trouble with gcc 9.3.
425 2020-09-22T16:57:11  <roconnor> Are you using -O2?
426 2020-09-22T16:58:41  <sipa> huh, in C++ i also see it with 9.3
427 2020-09-22T16:58:44  <sipa> but not in C
428 2020-09-22T16:58:48  <sipa> yes, using -O2
429 2020-09-22T17:07:50  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
430 2020-09-22T17:27:19  *** belcher has quit IRC
431 2020-09-22T17:30:21  <jonatack> Sorry for missing the p2p meeting. The implementations of addrv2, taproot, and PR19988 are probably the top 3 priorities to review for me.
432 2020-09-22T17:40:01  *** tryphe has quit IRC
433 2020-09-22T17:40:42  *** Kiminuo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
434 2020-09-22T17:40:47  *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
435 2020-09-22T17:41:56  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
436 2020-09-22T17:47:40  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
437 2020-09-22T17:47:41  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #19995: log: Mitigate disk filling attacks by rate limiting LogPrintf(…) (master...mitigate-log-disk-filling-attacks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19995
438 2020-09-22T17:47:41  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
439 2020-09-22T17:55:24  *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
440 2020-09-22T17:58:39  *** mol_ has quit IRC
441 2020-09-22T18:00:02  *** tomatopotato has quit IRC
442 2020-09-22T18:00:03  *** mrostecki has quit IRC
443 2020-09-22T18:22:07  *** kcomandich1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
444 2020-09-22T18:37:27  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
445 2020-09-22T18:39:50  *** molz_ has quit IRC
446 2020-09-22T18:43:03  *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
447 2020-09-22T18:46:32  *** mol has quit IRC
448 2020-09-22T18:47:41  *** Seaver has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
449 2020-09-22T19:14:03  *** Talkless has quit IRC
450 2020-09-22T19:16:37  *** Seaver has quit IRC
451 2020-09-22T19:24:16  *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
452 2020-09-22T19:24:46  *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
453 2020-09-22T19:47:21  *** jonatack has quit IRC
454 2020-09-22T19:50:51  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
455 2020-09-22T20:03:12  *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
456 2020-09-22T20:15:24  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
457 2020-09-22T20:16:15  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
458 2020-09-22T20:32:21  *** MrPaz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
459 2020-09-22T20:37:26  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
460 2020-09-22T20:37:27  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d692d192cda3...c7eb85d00593
461 2020-09-22T20:37:27  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f07fb5a fanquake: build: patch qt libpng to fix powerpc build
462 2020-09-22T20:37:28  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c7eb85d MarcoFalke: Merge #19959: build: patch qt libpng to fix powerpc build
463 2020-09-22T20:37:30  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
464 2020-09-22T20:37:46  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
465 2020-09-22T20:37:46  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19959: build: patch qt libpng to fix powerpc build (master...powerpc_libpng_qt) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19959
466 2020-09-22T20:37:47  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
467 2020-09-22T20:44:36  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
468 2020-09-22T20:44:52  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
469 2020-09-22T20:46:02  *** rh0nj has quit IRC
470 2020-09-22T20:46:17  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
471 2020-09-22T20:46:18  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c7eb85d00593...b1291b2e8fc3
472 2020-09-22T20:46:18  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e153448 t-bast: Clarify blocksonly whitelistforcerelay test
473 2020-09-22T20:46:19  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b1291b2 MarcoFalke: Merge #19963: Clarify blocksonly whitelistforcerelay test
474 2020-09-22T20:46:21  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
475 2020-09-22T20:46:37  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
476 2020-09-22T20:46:37  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19963: Clarify blocksonly whitelistforcerelay test (master...clarify-whitelist-force-relay-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19963
477 2020-09-22T20:46:38  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
478 2020-09-22T20:47:07  *** rh0nj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
479 2020-09-22T21:00:01  *** kcomandich1 has quit IRC
480 2020-09-22T21:01:50  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
481 2020-09-22T21:01:50  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #19997: History for Taproot PR #19953 (master...taproot-history) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19997
482 2020-09-22T21:01:51  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
483 2020-09-22T21:08:25  *** Kiminuo has quit IRC
484 2020-09-22T21:10:45  *** kristapsk has quit IRC
485 2020-09-22T21:10:47  *** kristapsk_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
486 2020-09-22T21:11:52  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
487 2020-09-22T21:17:53  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
488 2020-09-22T21:17:53  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #19998: rpc: Add `via_tor` to `getpeerinfo` output (master...200922-istor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19998
489 2020-09-22T21:17:54  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
490 2020-09-22T21:21:29  *** gzhao408 is now known as gloriazhao
491 2020-09-22T21:22:01  *** Shabbypenguin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
492 2020-09-22T22:04:07  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
493 2020-09-22T22:04:10  *** gloriazhao has quit IRC
494 2020-09-22T22:04:28  *** gertjaap_ has quit IRC
495 2020-09-22T22:04:31  *** dergoegge has quit IRC
496 2020-09-22T22:04:49  *** dergoegge has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
497 2020-09-22T22:04:49  *** gloriazhao has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
498 2020-09-22T22:04:57  *** elichai2 has quit IRC
499 2020-09-22T22:05:06  *** gertjaap_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
500 2020-09-22T22:05:28  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
501 2020-09-22T22:05:41  *** elichai2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
502 2020-09-22T22:05:44  *** kexkey has quit IRC
503 2020-09-22T22:07:23  *** afk11 has quit IRC
504 2020-09-22T22:07:59  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
505 2020-09-22T22:09:33  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
506 2020-09-22T22:10:43  *** vasild has quit IRC
507 2020-09-22T22:12:47  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
508 2020-09-22T22:17:10  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
509 2020-09-22T22:25:37  *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
510 2020-09-22T22:32:05  *** Eagle[TM] has quit IRC
511 2020-09-22T22:33:31  *** dr-orlovsky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
512 2020-09-22T22:37:23  *** shesek has quit IRC
513 2020-09-22T22:43:23  *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
514 2020-09-22T22:46:35  *** mol_ has quit IRC
515 2020-09-22T22:55:52  *** kexkey has quit IRC
516 2020-09-22T23:13:43  *** molz_ has quit IRC
517 2020-09-22T23:24:30  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
518 2020-09-22T23:30:27  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
519 2020-09-22T23:39:24  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
520 2020-09-22T23:41:36  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
521 2020-09-22T23:41:36  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #19751: depends: Split libpng out of Qt (master...depends_libpng) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19751
522 2020-09-22T23:41:37  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
523 2020-09-22T23:45:44  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
524 2020-09-22T23:46:00  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
525 2020-09-22T23:49:26  *** afk11 has quit IRC
526 2020-09-22T23:49:51  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
527 2020-09-22T23:50:26  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
528 2020-09-22T23:52:03  *** jb55 has quit IRC
529 2020-09-22T23:54:08  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
530 2020-09-22T23:54:11  *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
531 2020-09-22T23:54:48  *** pinheadm_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
532 2020-09-22T23:57:00  *** yanmaani has quit IRC
533 2020-09-22T23:57:53  *** yanmaani has joined #bitcoin-core-dev