1 2020-10-15T00:00:02  *** ermau has quit IRC
   2 2020-10-15T00:00:17  *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
   3 2020-10-15T00:00:28  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
   4 2020-10-15T00:00:28  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c2c4dbaebd95...661fe5d65cc6
   5 2020-10-15T00:00:29  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa1f6f2 MarcoFalke: net: Send post-verack handshake messages at most once
   6 2020-10-15T00:00:29  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 661fe5d fanquake: Merge #20146: net: Send post-verack handshake messages at most once
   7 2020-10-15T00:00:31  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
   8 2020-10-15T00:00:45  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
   9 2020-10-15T00:00:45  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #20146: net: Send post-verack handshake messages at most once (master...2010-netPostVerackHandshake) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20146
  10 2020-10-15T00:00:46  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
  11 2020-10-15T00:03:56  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
  12 2020-10-15T00:05:34  *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  13 2020-10-15T00:15:22  *** murray_ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
  14 2020-10-15T00:15:48  *** murrayn has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  15 2020-10-15T00:17:08  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  16 2020-10-15T00:22:09  *** zyga has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  17 2020-10-15T00:23:14  *** promag has quit IRC
  18 2020-10-15T00:23:26  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  19 2020-10-15T00:39:16  *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  20 2020-10-15T00:39:44  *** molz_ has quit IRC
  21 2020-10-15T00:41:00  *** gleb has quit IRC
  22 2020-10-15T00:43:25  *** S3RK has quit IRC
  23 2020-10-15T00:44:18  *** gleb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  24 2020-10-15T00:44:53  *** promag has quit IRC
  25 2020-10-15T00:45:29  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  26 2020-10-15T00:49:25  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
  27 2020-10-15T00:53:09  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  28 2020-10-15T01:07:59  *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  29 2020-10-15T01:11:25  *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  30 2020-10-15T01:15:13  *** mol has quit IRC
  31 2020-10-15T01:19:28  *** S3RK has quit IRC
  32 2020-10-15T01:22:22  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  33 2020-10-15T01:22:22  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #20150: [0.19] Backports (0.19...more_019_backports) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20150
  34 2020-10-15T01:22:23  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
  35 2020-10-15T01:23:36  *** mol_ has quit IRC
  36 2020-10-15T01:30:02  *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
  37 2020-10-15T01:34:23  *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
  38 2020-10-15T01:41:20  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  39 2020-10-15T01:43:26  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
  40 2020-10-15T01:45:02  *** Eagle[TM] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  41 2020-10-15T01:47:00  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
  42 2020-10-15T02:03:10  *** Livestradamus has quit IRC
  43 2020-10-15T02:03:26  *** IPGlider has quit IRC
  44 2020-10-15T02:15:39  *** IPGlider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  45 2020-10-15T02:19:10  *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  46 2020-10-15T02:27:06  *** Livestradamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  47 2020-10-15T02:32:44  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  48 2020-10-15T02:37:03  *** andreacab has quit IRC
  49 2020-10-15T02:37:05  *** glozow has quit IRC
  50 2020-10-15T02:41:49  *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has quit IRC
  51 2020-10-15T02:45:42  *** troygiorshev has quit IRC
  52 2020-10-15T02:46:30  *** troygiorshev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  53 2020-10-15T02:46:47  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  54 2020-10-15T02:50:17  *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  55 2020-10-15T02:55:04  *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has quit IRC
  56 2020-10-15T03:00:01  *** zyga has quit IRC
  57 2020-10-15T03:16:00  <fanquake> ☃️ feature freeze day ☃️
  58 2020-10-15T03:17:14  <sipa> NOT YET
  59 2020-10-15T03:18:57  <aj> sipa: it's thursday even in Honolulu, so i think fanquake is right
  60 2020-10-15T03:19:32  <fanquake> meshcollider will surely tell us it's nearly over
  61 2020-10-15T03:19:34  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
  62 2020-10-15T03:22:07  <meshcollider> T minus 7hours
  63 2020-10-15T03:22:15  <meshcollider> It's not over til I merge sqlite wallets!
  64 2020-10-15T03:22:25  *** mol has quit IRC
  65 2020-10-15T03:22:28  <meshcollider> And don't take that satisfaction away from me ;)
  66 2020-10-15T03:23:52  <fanquake> heh. As long as you don't merge it in the next few minutes  💥
  67 2020-10-15T03:24:17  <meshcollider> Nah don't worry I don't have my key with me, it'll be a few hours til I'm home
  68 2020-10-15T03:24:59  <meshcollider> I could just click the github "Merge" button and break everything though...
  69 2020-10-15T03:25:23  <fanquake> 🤙 I'm about to rip out some non-endomorphison
  70 2020-10-15T03:25:46  <meshcollider> 🎉
  71 2020-10-15T03:26:24  <fanquake> Gotta love patents on multiplication
  72 2020-10-15T03:29:15  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  73 2020-10-15T03:29:16  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/661fe5d65cc6...f2e6d1443013
  74 2020-10-15T03:29:17  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 52380bf Pieter Wuille: Squashed 'src/secp256k1/' changes from 8ab24e8dad..c6b6b8f1bb
  75 2020-10-15T03:29:18  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9e5626d Pieter Wuille: Update libsecp256k1 subtree to latest master
  76 2020-10-15T03:29:19  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f2e6d14 fanquake: Merge #20147: Update libsecp256k1 (endomorphism, test improvements)
  77 2020-10-15T03:29:20  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
  78 2020-10-15T03:29:35  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  79 2020-10-15T03:29:36  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #20147: Update libsecp256k1 (endomorphism, test improvements) (master...202010_secp256k1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20147
  80 2020-10-15T03:29:36  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  81 2020-10-15T03:29:37  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
  82 2020-10-15T03:30:24  <sipa> \o/
  83 2020-10-15T03:48:13  *** promag has quit IRC
  84 2020-10-15T03:48:30  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  85 2020-10-15T03:53:10  *** promag has quit IRC
  86 2020-10-15T03:53:45  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  87 2020-10-15T03:55:20  *** ferringb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  88 2020-10-15T04:01:16  *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  89 2020-10-15T04:10:13  *** balbirs has quit IRC
  90 2020-10-15T04:10:45  *** balbirs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  91 2020-10-15T04:14:15  *** sr_gi has quit IRC
  92 2020-10-15T04:14:45  *** sr_gi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  93 2020-10-15T04:18:53  <meshcollider> \o/
  94 2020-10-15T04:32:09  *** dermoth_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  95 2020-10-15T04:32:28  *** dermoth has quit IRC
  96 2020-10-15T04:32:30  *** dermoth_ is now known as dermoth
  97 2020-10-15T04:38:03  *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  98 2020-10-15T04:42:13  *** mol has quit IRC
  99 2020-10-15T04:44:11  *** flag has quit IRC
 100 2020-10-15T04:50:55  *** flag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 101 2020-10-15T04:55:46  *** rc_423_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 102 2020-10-15T04:56:05  *** rc_423 has quit IRC
 103 2020-10-15T05:16:26  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 104 2020-10-15T05:21:46  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 105 2020-10-15T05:22:03  *** mol_ has quit IRC
 106 2020-10-15T05:50:04  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 107 2020-10-15T05:56:38  *** S3RK has quit IRC
 108 2020-10-15T05:56:55  *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
 109 2020-10-15T05:57:10  *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 110 2020-10-15T05:57:12  *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 111 2020-10-15T06:00:02  *** ferringb has quit IRC
 112 2020-10-15T06:02:55  *** S3RK has quit IRC
 113 2020-10-15T06:22:48  *** larsivi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 114 2020-10-15T06:26:01  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 115 2020-10-15T06:30:39  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 116 2020-10-15T06:34:38  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 117 2020-10-15T06:38:54  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 118 2020-10-15T06:46:34  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 119 2020-10-15T06:49:16  *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 120 2020-10-15T06:59:15  *** promag has quit IRC
 121 2020-10-15T06:59:29  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 122 2020-10-15T07:02:57  *** mrostecki has quit IRC
 123 2020-10-15T07:11:27  *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 124 2020-10-15T07:11:35  *** promag has quit IRC
 125 2020-10-15T07:12:10  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 126 2020-10-15T07:13:19  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 127 2020-10-15T07:13:19  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] meshcollider pushed 27 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f2e6d1443013...8ed37f6c8497
 128 2020-10-15T07:13:20  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 54729f3 Andrew Chow: Add libsqlite3
 129 2020-10-15T07:13:20  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e87df82 Andrew Chow: Add sqlite to travis and depends
 130 2020-10-15T07:13:21  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7577b6e Andrew Chow: Add SQLiteDatabase and SQLiteBatch dummy classes
 131 2020-10-15T07:13:22  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 132 2020-10-15T07:14:14  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 133 2020-10-15T07:14:14  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] meshcollider merged pull request #19077: wallet: Add sqlite as an alternative wallet database and use it for new descriptor wallets (master...sqlite-wallet) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19077
 134 2020-10-15T07:14:15  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 135 2020-10-15T07:14:23  <aj> \o/
 136 2020-10-15T07:14:35  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 137 2020-10-15T07:15:13  *** jesseposner has quit IRC
 138 2020-10-15T07:15:30  <meshcollider> achow101: 🥳
 139 2020-10-15T07:16:53  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has quit IRC
 140 2020-10-15T07:45:49  *** vincenzopalazzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 141 2020-10-15T07:46:40  *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142 2020-10-15T07:47:03  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 143 2020-10-15T07:48:54  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 144 2020-10-15T07:56:20  *** promag has quit IRC
 145 2020-10-15T07:57:13  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 146 2020-10-15T07:57:50  *** jouke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 147 2020-10-15T08:03:36  *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 148 2020-10-15T08:07:36  *** S3RK has quit IRC
 149 2020-10-15T08:08:05  *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 150 2020-10-15T08:13:23  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 151 2020-10-15T08:19:25  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 152 2020-10-15T08:23:19  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 153 2020-10-15T08:23:19  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 20 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8ed37f6c8497...3caee1694657
 154 2020-10-15T08:23:20  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f8c099e Pieter Wuille: --- [TAPROOT] Refactors ---
 155 2020-10-15T08:23:21  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 107b57d Pieter Wuille: scripted-diff: put ECDSA in name of signature functions
 156 2020-10-15T08:23:21  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8bd2b4e Pieter Wuille: refactor: rename scriptPubKey in VerifyWitnessProgram to exec_script
 157 2020-10-15T08:23:23  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 158 2020-10-15T08:23:38  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 159 2020-10-15T08:23:38  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #19953: Implement BIP 340-342 validation (Schnorr/taproot/tapscript) (master...taproot) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19953
 160 2020-10-15T08:23:40  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 161 2020-10-15T08:24:08  <sipa> \\\o///
 162 2020-10-15T08:25:06  <jonatack> boom \o/
 163 2020-10-15T08:30:29  <wumpus> \o/
 164 2020-10-15T08:30:57  * sipa does the tapdance
 165 2020-10-15T08:31:01  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 166 2020-10-15T08:31:06  <sipa> actually wait no, i can't dance
 167 2020-10-15T08:31:11  *** sdaftuar has quit IRC
 168 2020-10-15T08:31:36  *** sdaftuar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 169 2020-10-15T08:35:11  <wumpus> (don't let it being merged stop you from reviewing further if you were still in progress)
 170 2020-10-15T08:35:14  * wumpus neither
 171 2020-10-15T08:37:01  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 172 2020-10-15T08:37:01  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #20152: doc: Update wallet files in files.md (master...201015-sqlite) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20152
 173 2020-10-15T08:37:02  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 174 2020-10-15T08:37:21  *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 175 2020-10-15T08:42:25  <sipa> what is the meeting topic command?
 176 2020-10-15T08:42:44  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 177 2020-10-15T08:43:06  <MarcoFalke> #proposedmeetingtopic
 178 2020-10-15T08:43:26  <MarcoFalke> Is there anything left to discuss, now that everything is merged?
 179 2020-10-15T08:44:19  <sipa> #proposedmeetingtopic taproot relay policy / activation on testnet/signet
 180 2020-10-15T08:47:01  *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
 181 2020-10-15T08:47:14  <wumpus> also wanted to get it merged so that other pre-0.21 PRs don't make it require rebase
 182 2020-10-15T08:47:26  <wumpus> with that many ACKs
 183 2020-10-15T08:51:53  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
 184 2020-10-15T08:52:43  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 185 2020-10-15T08:53:53  <MarcoFalke> Makes sense, and as the code is not active yet, it can still be changed freely
 186 2020-10-15T08:56:41  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 187 2020-10-15T08:56:42  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3caee1694657...3956165903cf
 188 2020-10-15T08:56:42  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6020ce3 Gregory Sanders: DecodeHexTx: Try case where txn has inputs first
 189 2020-10-15T08:56:43  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 27fc6a3 Gregory Sanders: DecodeHexTx: Break out transaction decoding logic into own function
 190 2020-10-15T08:56:43  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3956165 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #17775: DecodeHexTx: Try case where txn has inputs first
 191 2020-10-15T08:56:45  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 192 2020-10-15T08:58:11  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 193 2020-10-15T08:58:11  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #17775: DecodeHexTx: Try case where txn has inputs first (master...decode_wit_first) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17775
 194 2020-10-15T08:58:12  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 195 2020-10-15T09:00:02  *** larsivi has quit IRC
 196 2020-10-15T09:07:45  *** jesseposner has quit IRC
 197 2020-10-15T09:10:13  <kallewoof> Won't be at meeting but my 2 sats on signet and taproot activation: I don't think there's a reason to delay activation. My suggestion is to set activation for a week or so from now (long enough for a trivial pull request to get ACKs and be merged + to update the servers issuing blocks). I guess the question is whether this is affected by feature freeze or not. If it is, I suggest we activate it after 0.21 branch split in
 198 2020-10-15T09:10:14  <kallewoof> master only.
 199 2020-10-15T09:11:29  <kallewoof> If people want to try out the actual real taproot activation mechanism for activation on signet, the story changes I guess.
 200 2020-10-15T09:12:10  <sipa> kallewoof: the nice thing about signet is that really consensus rules are decided by the signers - even if the rest of the network doesn't enforce
 201 2020-10-15T09:12:49  *** belcher has quit IRC
 202 2020-10-15T09:13:16  <sipa> the reason i brought it up is that i realize that master will now relay (valid) taproot spends... which may be unexpected, and feels wrong without activation plan
 203 2020-10-15T09:13:37  <kallewoof> sipa: yeah, but p2p layer is affected... propagation can be delayed or fail unless one peer is a miner
 204 2020-10-15T09:14:13  <kallewoof> sipa: in pre-activation? i thought it policy-rejected
 205 2020-10-15T09:14:19  <sipa> kallewoof: no
 206 2020-10-15T09:15:01  <sipa> i think segwit had special rules about relay before activation, because it was also a p2p change
 207 2020-10-15T09:15:18  <kallewoof> ohh! i didn't realize that.
 208 2020-10-15T09:15:22  <aj> sipa: (if the network enforces rules prior to "real" activation, and there's a hard-fork, you need more than just signers to fix things up)
 209 2020-10-15T09:15:46  <aj> sipa: (probably no need for hard-forks in the taproot implementation now though so, whatevs)
 210 2020-10-15T09:15:52  *** S3RK has quit IRC
 211 2020-10-15T09:16:03  *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 212 2020-10-15T09:17:42  <sipa> the last softfork before that, CSV, was implemented & activated in the same release, 0.12.1
 213 2020-10-15T09:18:28  <sipa> but i think we should disable relay for networks which have no activation defined (i.e., all but regtest and maybe signet)
 214 2020-10-15T09:20:16  <kallewoof> sipa: my vote is to keep it enabled on signet, as that means we can just flip it on whenever and it will just work™️
 215 2020-10-15T09:21:32  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 216 2020-10-15T09:22:37  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 217 2020-10-15T09:27:43  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 218 2020-10-15T09:27:43  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack closed pull request #19874: cli, bugfix: degrade -getinfo gracefully for older servers (master...getinfo-handle-older-servers-gracefully) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19874
 219 2020-10-15T09:27:44  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 220 2020-10-15T09:28:03  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 221 2020-10-15T09:28:03  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack reopened pull request #19874: cli, bugfix: degrade -getinfo gracefully for older servers (master...getinfo-handle-older-servers-gracefully) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19874
 222 2020-10-15T09:28:04  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 223 2020-10-15T09:28:52  <kallewoof> I get the sneaky suspicion that enum class with bit fiddling is... not the way to go. Tempted to just do const uint8_t's and skip the enum part altogether..
 224 2020-10-15T09:30:27  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 225 2020-10-15T09:30:27  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #19997: History for Taproot PR #19953 (master...taproot-history) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19997
 226 2020-10-15T09:30:28  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 227 2020-10-15T09:32:29  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
 228 2020-10-15T09:33:37  *** S3RK has quit IRC
 229 2020-10-15T09:33:56  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 230 2020-10-15T09:37:37  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 231 2020-10-15T09:38:16  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 232 2020-10-15T09:38:58  *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has quit IRC
 233 2020-10-15T09:40:39  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 234 2020-10-15T09:43:46  *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 235 2020-10-15T09:45:02  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 236 2020-10-15T09:45:03  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3956165903cf...e3b474c54866
 237 2020-10-15T09:45:03  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 883cea7 Pieter Wuille: Restore compatibility with old CSubNet serialization
 238 2020-10-15T09:45:04  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 886be97 Pieter Wuille: Ignore incorrectly-serialized banlist.dat entries
 239 2020-10-15T09:45:04  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e3b474c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20140: Restore compatibility with old CSubNet serialization
 240 2020-10-15T09:45:05  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 241 2020-10-15T09:45:06  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 242 2020-10-15T09:45:22  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 243 2020-10-15T09:45:22  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20140: Restore compatibility with old CSubNet serialization (master...202010_subnet_ser_compact) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20140
 244 2020-10-15T09:45:23  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 245 2020-10-15T09:46:56  *** mol has quit IRC
 246 2020-10-15T09:47:32  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
 247 2020-10-15T09:47:45  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 248 2020-10-15T09:50:03  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 249 2020-10-15T09:51:56  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 250 2020-10-15T09:51:56  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e3b474c54866...560dea9b26f7
 251 2020-10-15T09:51:57  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d681a28 Luke Dashjr: RPC: getpeerinfo: Deprecate "whitelisted" field (replaced by "permissions")
 252 2020-10-15T09:51:57  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5b57dc5 Luke Dashjr: RPC: getpeerinfo: Wrap long help line for bytesrecv_per_msg
 253 2020-10-15T09:51:58  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 560dea9 MarcoFalke: Merge #19770: RPC: getpeerinfo: Deprecate "whitelisted" field (replaced by...
 254 2020-10-15T09:51:59  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 255 2020-10-15T09:52:26  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 256 2020-10-15T09:52:26  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19770: RPC: getpeerinfo: Deprecate "whitelisted" field (replaced by "permissions") (master...deprecate_whitelisted) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19770
 257 2020-10-15T09:52:27  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 258 2020-10-15T09:56:03  *** BjarniRunar1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 259 2020-10-15T09:58:48  *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 260 2020-10-15T10:01:42  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 261 2020-10-15T10:01:43  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/560dea9b26f7...711ddce94377
 262 2020-10-15T10:01:43  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master faad92f MarcoFalke: test: Remove unused nVersion=1 in p2p tests
 263 2020-10-15T10:01:44  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 711ddce Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20131: test: Remove unused nVersion=1 in p2p tests
 264 2020-10-15T10:01:46  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 265 2020-10-15T10:02:02  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 266 2020-10-15T10:02:02  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20131: test: Remove unused nVersion=1 in p2p tests (master...2010-testnVersion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20131
 267 2020-10-15T10:02:03  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 268 2020-10-15T10:10:23  *** vasild has quit IRC
 269 2020-10-15T10:12:23  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 270 2020-10-15T10:14:23  *** shesek has quit IRC
 271 2020-10-15T10:18:33  *** Coralie12Moscisk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 272 2020-10-15T10:23:50  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 273 2020-10-15T10:23:56  *** S3RK has quit IRC
 274 2020-10-15T10:24:29  *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 275 2020-10-15T10:25:56  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 276 2020-10-15T10:27:57  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 277 2020-10-15T10:28:24  *** csknk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 278 2020-10-15T11:31:23  *** lightningbot has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 279 2020-10-15T11:32:32  *** tralfaz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 280 2020-10-15T11:32:37  *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
 281 2020-10-15T11:32:37  *** davterra has quit IRC
 282 2020-10-15T11:32:49  *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 283 2020-10-15T11:33:35  *** S3RK has quit IRC
 284 2020-10-15T11:34:03  *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 285 2020-10-15T11:35:38  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 286 2020-10-15T11:35:55  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00 has quit IRC
 287 2020-10-15T11:37:53  *** Eagle[TM] has quit IRC
 288 2020-10-15T11:38:11  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 289 2020-10-15T11:42:04  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 290 2020-10-15T11:42:15  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has quit IRC
 291 2020-10-15T11:54:56  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 292 2020-10-15T11:55:33  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00 has quit IRC
 293 2020-10-15T11:59:59  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has quit IRC
 294 2020-10-15T12:00:01  *** BjarniRunar1 has quit IRC
 295 2020-10-15T12:04:07  *** kristapsk___ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 296 2020-10-15T12:04:31  *** kristapsk_ has quit IRC
 297 2020-10-15T12:08:48  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 298 2020-10-15T12:22:30  *** kerbyu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 299 2020-10-15T12:33:07  <jamesob> wow, big merge day. congrats sipa, achow101!
 300 2020-10-15T12:35:25  <elichai2> 🥳🥳🥳🥳
 301 2020-10-15T12:38:22  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 302 2020-10-15T12:39:53  *** Ga1aCt1Cz00 has quit IRC
 303 2020-10-15T12:46:35  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 304 2020-10-15T12:49:27  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 305 2020-10-15T12:49:27  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kallewoof opened pull request #20154: BIP-322 support (master...202010-bip322) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20154
 306 2020-10-15T12:49:28  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 307 2020-10-15T12:50:22  <kallewoof> andytoshi: hope you didn't spend too much time on your implementation. I have begun working on a rough implementation of BIP 322 support here, FYI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20154
 308 2020-10-15T12:52:07  *** willcl_ark is now known as [github-bot]
 309 2020-10-15T12:53:15  <hebasto> is #20120 rtm?
 310 2020-10-15T12:53:17  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20120 | net, rpc, test, bugfix: update GetNetworkName, GetNetworksInfo, regression tests by jonatack · Pull Request #20120 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 311 2020-10-15T12:54:59  <andytoshi> kallewoof: no, i spent about 30 minutes on it :) the old spec was super straightforward (at least, with the existing rust-bitcoin/miniscript infrastructure i have)
 312 2020-10-15T12:55:16  <andytoshi> the new spec is bigger but i think will integrate much better with my descriptors library
 313 2020-10-15T12:55:30  *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 314 2020-10-15T12:56:00  <kallewoof> andytoshi: it seems to integrate really well with bitcoin core, from what i can tell so far. the old code was a split out thing of its own
 315 2020-10-15T12:56:22  <kallewoof> andytoshi: cool to hear you're working on it. feedback and such super welcome :)
 316 2020-10-15T12:57:06  *** molz_ has quit IRC
 317 2020-10-15T12:57:16  <andytoshi> right, that's also what was going to happen with the rust-miniscript implementation ... de/serialization was easy but then providing a usable sign/verify API seemed pretty unnatural. i think this one will be better because i can write a function that takes a descriptor + message and converts it to a to_spend transaction
 318 2020-10-15T12:57:25  *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 319 2020-10-15T12:57:36  <andytoshi> (and i guess now, will also take a value ... i'm curious why you changed this this morning...i don't have strong feelings either way, i just don't understand it)
 320 2020-10-15T12:57:43  *** [github-bot] is now known as wilcl_ark
 321 2020-10-15T12:58:45  *** mol_ has quit IRC
 322 2020-10-15T13:00:34  <kallewoof> andytoshi: uh... i somehow thought the sum of amounts was required in the signature, but now that you mention it, i think i was confused..
 323 2020-10-15T13:01:29  <kallewoof> andytoshi: I'll revert that one now. Thanks for pointing it out
 324 2020-10-15T13:03:55  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 325 2020-10-15T13:05:03  <andytoshi> cool :) the value made it a little harder, API-wise, because it means that you need to know upfront whether you're going to use the to_spend purely as a dummy input when proving funds, or not (and you have to konw how many funds you're planning to prove)
 326 2020-10-15T13:05:18  <andytoshi> you sorta have to know this now, in choosing whether to use an OP_TRUE descriptor or a "real" one
 327 2020-10-15T13:05:40  *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 328 2020-10-15T13:06:12  <kallewoof> andytoshi: that makes sense -- yeah, i think i managed to convince myself that the signatures commit to the amounts, so we need to have those available and why not just stuff them in the virtual to_sign tx... but that's not how it works at all.
 329 2020-10-15T13:06:58  <luke-jr> oh blah, sqlite isn't optional? :/
 330 2020-10-15T13:07:25  *** Exho has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 331 2020-10-15T13:08:41  * MarcoFalke updates all build scripts to install sqlite-dev
 332 2020-10-15T13:09:17  <MarcoFalke> This is probably the first time a dependecy has been added in years. Others were only removals.
 333 2020-10-15T13:09:52  * luke-jr begins on a PR to fix it optional
 334 2020-10-15T13:10:37  *** jesseposner has quit IRC
 335 2020-10-15T13:18:44  * kallewoof calls it a day at "checker.CheckECDSASignature(vchSig, vchPubKey, scriptCode, sigversion)" returning false. :) Will compare sighashes tomorrow. Maybe I should've implemented this in btcdeb first.
 336 2020-10-15T13:20:56  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
 337 2020-10-15T13:21:18  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 338 2020-10-15T13:26:51  *** tralfaz is now known as davterra
 339 2020-10-15T13:28:58  <andytoshi> kallewoof: sounds good, hopefully i'll have some test vectors in the next 6-8 hours we can compare
 340 2020-10-15T13:29:28  <kallewoof> andytoshi: nice!
 341 2020-10-15T13:29:44  *** harrigan has quit IRC
 342 2020-10-15T13:30:26  *** kerbyu has quit IRC
 343 2020-10-15T13:31:32  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 344 2020-10-15T13:31:38  *** doomas has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 345 2020-10-15T13:31:39  *** harrigan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 346 2020-10-15T13:33:00  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 347 2020-10-15T13:33:00  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 348 2020-10-15T13:33:34  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 349 2020-10-15T13:36:03  *** molz_ has quit IRC
 350 2020-10-15T13:38:55  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 351 2020-10-15T13:45:51  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 352 2020-10-15T13:45:52  *** glozow has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 353 2020-10-15T13:53:46  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 354 2020-10-15T13:53:46  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #20156: Make sqlite support optional (compile-time) (master...opt_sqlite) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20156
 355 2020-10-15T13:53:47  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 356 2020-10-15T14:06:16  *** vincenzopalazzo has quit IRC
 357 2020-10-15T14:11:32  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 358 2020-10-15T14:12:46  *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
 359 2020-10-15T14:16:14  *** promag has quit IRC
 360 2020-10-15T14:16:18  <jamesob> anyone ever seen "/usr/bin/ld: error: [...]: <corrupt x86 property (0xc0000002) size: 0x8>" during compilation before? I'm getting a truckload of them, but compilation seems to succeed anyway. Think it has to do with having installed the debian gcc-9 package, but not sure. Google turns up nothing.
 361 2020-10-15T14:16:30  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 362 2020-10-15T14:16:44  *** davterra has quit IRC
 363 2020-10-15T14:16:57  *** davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 364 2020-10-15T14:18:03  <jamesob> s/compilation/link & ar time
 365 2020-10-15T14:24:14  *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 366 2020-10-15T14:31:27  *** promag has quit IRC
 367 2020-10-15T14:32:03  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 368 2020-10-15T14:34:30  *** promag has quit IRC
 369 2020-10-15T14:34:31  <yanmaani> jamesob: yeah, me too
 370 2020-10-15T14:34:34  <yanmaani> what OS?
 371 2020-10-15T14:34:43  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 372 2020-10-15T14:34:59  <jamesob> Linux slug 4.19.0-10-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.19.132-1 (2020-07-24) x86_64 GNU/Linux
 373 2020-10-15T14:35:00  <yanmaani> I use gcc 8.3.0 @ debian (devuan)
 374 2020-10-15T14:35:02  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1 | JSON-RPC support for mobile devices ("ultra-lightweight" clients) · Issue #1 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 375 2020-10-15T14:35:19  <jamesob> I get it when compiling with gcc or clang; I think it's an issue with ld/ar
 376 2020-10-15T14:35:50  <yanmaani> Linux hostname 4.19.0-10-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.19.132-1 (2020-07-24) x86_64 GNU/Linux
 377 2020-10-15T14:35:52  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1 | JSON-RPC support for mobile devices ("ultra-lightweight" clients) · Issue #1 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 378 2020-10-15T14:35:55  <promag> does it make sense to support multiple -blocksdir where one is rw but the others are ro? so that older blocks can be kept on a slower disk?
 379 2020-10-15T14:36:13  <yanmaani> promag: you may be interested in overlayfs
 380 2020-10-15T14:36:22  <yanmaani> or just some caching setup
 381 2020-10-15T14:37:13  <luke-jr> promag: probably
 382 2020-10-15T14:37:22  <promag> yanmaani: yes, I though about that, but then in instead of prunning it would move blocks the the other place
 383 2020-10-15T14:37:28  <luke-jr> promag: needs some thought, though, as it also makes sense to move them automatically
 384 2020-10-15T14:37:38  <promag> luke-jr: right
 385 2020-10-15T14:37:59  <yanmaani> uh, how are you going to automatically move blocks to a RO fs?
 386 2020-10-15T14:38:04  <luke-jr> FWIW Signet may be broken on master since it lacks Taproot activation params
 387 2020-10-15T14:38:40  <promag> yanmaani: no, I mean RO as in bitcoind doesn't writes new blocks there
 388 2020-10-15T14:38:44  <yanmaani> the simple solution is to have a cronjob that checks mtime/ctime and moves+symlinks them
 389 2020-10-15T14:38:48  <yanmaani> oh, not a RO fs
 390 2020-10-15T14:38:56  <yanmaani> just do overlayfs or something IMO
 391 2020-10-15T14:39:04  <promag> not ro fs, "RO" -blocksdir
 392 2020-10-15T14:40:04  <promag> yanmaani: I understand this can be overcome out of bitcoind, but the idea would be to add a -prunestrategy=archive for instance
 393 2020-10-15T14:40:27  <luke-jr> yanmaani: for example, it can be an external drive you unplug when you leave home
 394 2020-10-15T14:40:28  <promag> just a thought..
 395 2020-10-15T14:41:01  <luke-jr> and blocks would just not prune-to-slow-storage while you're away from home
 396 2020-10-15T14:41:05  <luke-jr> when you get back, then they move
 397 2020-10-15T14:41:12  <yanmaani> luke-jr: But then you have a problem when you start bitcoind in such cases, no?
 398 2020-10-15T14:41:17  <promag> luke-jr: exactly
 399 2020-10-15T14:41:23  <luke-jr> and if you need to use (eg) a rescan RPC, you plug in the drive
 400 2020-10-15T14:41:30  <promag> it can be copy first, then delete old
 401 2020-10-15T14:41:31  <luke-jr> yanmaani: that's exactly what this would avoid
 402 2020-10-15T14:42:01  <yanmaani> I guess if you have the DB, yeah. Couldn't it just ignore missing blocks until they're needed?
 403 2020-10-15T14:42:13  <promag> yup
 404 2020-10-15T14:42:14  <yanmaani> so you can do whatever you want and bitcoind will just deal with it
 405 2020-10-15T14:42:24  <promag> this might interact with assumeutxo cc jamesob
 406 2020-10-15T14:42:26  <yanmaani> instead of re-implementing overlayfs in bitcoin core
 407 2020-10-15T14:43:08  <promag> yanmaani: overlayfs is cool if you dont care where each file is stored
 408 2020-10-15T14:43:27  <promag> and it's platform dependant
 409 2020-10-15T14:43:36  <yanmaani> you can move them around by yourself though
 410 2020-10-15T14:43:45  <yanmaani> or just set a cronjob to move+symlink
 411 2020-10-15T14:44:09  <promag> yes I could
 412 2020-10-15T14:44:28  <promag> or have it automatic
 413 2020-10-15T14:44:34  <jamesob> promag: should be compatible with assumeutxo since blocksdir access is largely unchanged; blocks have always come out of order anyway
 414 2020-10-15T14:45:00  <jamesob> well... not always, but for a while :)
 415 2020-10-15T14:45:39  *** Mercury_Vapor has quit IRC
 416 2020-10-15T14:45:43  <promag> jamesob: but what happens if you have to validate and a block isn't there?
 417 2020-10-15T14:46:44  <jamesob> promag: validation doesn't require access to blockfiles per se because all the data you're relying on is stored in (i) the headers chain and (ii) the utxo set
 418 2020-10-15T14:47:10  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 419 2020-10-15T14:47:10  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #20157: Bugfix: chainparams: Add missing (disabled) Taproot deployment for Signet (master...signet_taproot_fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20157
 420 2020-10-15T14:47:12  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 421 2020-10-15T14:47:59  <provoostenator> I'd like to nominate https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/96 for v0.21 too
 422 2020-10-15T14:48:26  <provoostenator> Also note it's impossible to create an unnamed wallet with the GUI atm
 423 2020-10-15T14:49:10  <promag> jamesob: https://github.com/jamesob/assumeutxo-docs/tree/2019-04-proposal/proposal#do-you-perform-any-extra-validation-on-a-loaded-snapshot-besides-comparing-its-hash-to-the-assumeutxo-value
 424 2020-10-15T14:49:48  <promag> jamesob: but if blocks are available locally then this is not required right?
 425 2020-10-15T14:50:06  <promag> "this" as in ibd
 426 2020-10-15T14:50:38  <jamesob> promag: ibd is still required to make sure that the blocks on disk render into the utxo set that you expect
 427 2020-10-15T14:51:13  <jamesob> I guess that'd be more like a reindex
 428 2020-10-15T14:52:22  <promag> thanks jamesob
 429 2020-10-15T14:52:53  <jamesob> sure thing
 430 2020-10-15T14:52:57  *** Mercury_Vapor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 431 2020-10-15T15:00:01  *** doomas has quit IRC
 432 2020-10-15T15:01:56  <jamesob> man it is now amazingly hard to replicate the slew of CI errors locally
 433 2020-10-15T15:03:39  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 434 2020-10-15T15:04:06  <sdaftuar> i thought it was a video game where you keep clicking the re-run button til it passes?
 435 2020-10-15T15:04:11  * sdaftuar ducks
 436 2020-10-15T15:05:01  <promag> sdaftuar: like go away pls
 437 2020-10-15T15:06:02  <promag> luke-jr: another approach would be -prunedir which if set it would move there instead of deleting
 438 2020-10-15T15:06:46  *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 439 2020-10-15T15:06:59  <luke-jr> promag: keep in mind it may be desirable to actually prune too
 440 2020-10-15T15:07:11  <luke-jr> promag: eg, keep blocks with your own txs in them in storage, but prune everything else
 441 2020-10-15T15:08:15  <promag> that requires to have wallets loaded
 442 2020-10-15T15:08:39  <luke-jr> not necessarily (see prune locks)
 443 2020-10-15T15:09:41  <promag> ah you mean #19463
 444 2020-10-15T15:09:44  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19463 | Prune locks by luke-jr · Pull Request #19463 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 445 2020-10-15T15:10:13  <luke-jr> promag: anyway, my point is it probably shouldn't literally hijack the pruning logic
 446 2020-10-15T15:10:21  <luke-jr> it is fundamentally different
 447 2020-10-15T15:10:35  <promag> don't want to change the logic
 448 2020-10-15T15:10:46  <promag> just want to s/delete/move
 449 2020-10-15T15:12:00  *** jesseposner has quit IRC
 450 2020-10-15T15:14:22  *** Emcy has quit IRC
 451 2020-10-15T15:15:03  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 452 2020-10-15T15:22:25  *** gonemad3 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 453 2020-10-15T15:28:05  <luke-jr> #proposedmeetingtopic Getting BIP 8 logic in before freeze
 454 2020-10-15T15:28:05  <yanmaani> https://travis-ci.org/github/namecoin/namecoin-core/jobs/736047101 What could cause this Travis failure? It seems to relate to #11394 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/6e4e98ee8ce2da3cca2e2fd210e9e8dbc9b1c936
 455 2020-10-15T15:28:07  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11394 | Perform a weaker subtree check in Travis by sipa · Pull Request #11394 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 456 2020-10-15T15:29:50  *** kabaum has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 457 2020-10-15T15:44:48  *** kristapsk___ is now known as kristapsk
 458 2020-10-15T15:45:22  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 459 2020-10-15T15:45:22  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 6 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/711ddce94377...0d2248235375
 460 2020-10-15T15:45:23  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6df7882 Jon Atack: net: add peer network to CNodeStats
 461 2020-10-15T15:45:23  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4938a10 Jon Atack: rpc, test: expose CNodeStats network in RPC getpeerinfo
 462 2020-10-15T15:45:24  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5133fab Jon Atack: cli: simplify -netinfo using getpeerinfo network field
 463 2020-10-15T15:45:25  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 464 2020-10-15T15:45:42  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 465 2020-10-15T15:45:42  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20002: net, rpc, cli: expose peer network in getpeerinfo; simplify/improve -netinfo (master...getpeerinfo-GetNetClass) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20002
 466 2020-10-15T15:45:44  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 467 2020-10-15T15:51:03  *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 468 2020-10-15T15:51:44  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 469 2020-10-15T15:52:18  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 470 2020-10-15T15:55:06  *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 471 2020-10-15T16:04:10  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 472 2020-10-15T16:04:35  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 473 2020-10-15T16:13:27  *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 474 2020-10-15T16:15:24  *** jesseposner has quit IRC
 475 2020-10-15T16:17:47  *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has quit IRC
 476 2020-10-15T16:21:20  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 477 2020-10-15T16:22:11  <hebasto> provoostenator: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/96
 478 2020-10-15T16:22:29  <hebasto> provoostenator: agree about 0.21
 479 2020-10-15T16:47:04  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 480 2020-10-15T16:47:30  *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 481 2020-10-15T16:50:16  *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 482 2020-10-15T16:51:40  *** andreacab has quit IRC
 483 2020-10-15T16:52:27  *** ossifrage has quit IRC
 484 2020-10-15T17:15:30  <yanmaani> Do you get my posts to the bitcoin-dev list? I can see them online, but I get the "your message awaits approval" message
 485 2020-10-15T17:38:01  *** davec has quit IRC
 486 2020-10-15T17:42:06  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 487 2020-10-15T17:57:43  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
 488 2020-10-15T17:58:28  <provoostenator> #16546 can be dropped from the high priority list: it won't make it into 0.21 and hardware wallets already have a project
 489 2020-10-15T17:58:30  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16546 | External signer support - Wallet Box edition by Sjors · Pull Request #16546 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 490 2020-10-15T17:58:55  <provoostenator> That said, it now works with Sqlite!
 491 2020-10-15T17:59:07  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 492 2020-10-15T18:00:02  *** gonemad3 has quit IRC
 493 2020-10-15T18:02:09  *** Cory has quit IRC
 494 2020-10-15T18:05:47  *** kristapsk has quit IRC
 495 2020-10-15T18:06:10  *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 496 2020-10-15T18:06:44  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 497 2020-10-15T18:09:21  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 498 2020-10-15T18:16:36  *** joerodgers has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 499 2020-10-15T18:20:30  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 500 2020-10-15T18:20:30  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 8 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0d2248235375...9855422e65ca
 501 2020-10-15T18:20:30  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 567008d Hennadii Stepanov: p2p: Add DumpAnchors()
 502 2020-10-15T18:20:31  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c29272a Hennadii Stepanov: p2p: Add ReadAnchors()
 503 2020-10-15T18:20:31  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bad16af Hennadii Stepanov: p2p: Add CConnman::GetCurrentBlockRelayOnlyConns()
 504 2020-10-15T18:20:32  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 505 2020-10-15T18:21:38  *** Lthere has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 506 2020-10-15T18:22:15  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 507 2020-10-15T18:22:15  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #17428: p2p: Try to preserve outbound block-relay-only connections during restart (master...20191109-anchors) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17428
 508 2020-10-15T18:22:16  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 509 2020-10-15T18:26:48  <phantomcircuit> sipa, can an attacker with access to the private key generate two signatures from the same private key for the same message?
 510 2020-10-15T18:26:53  <phantomcircuit> with schnorr signatures?
 511 2020-10-15T18:27:21  <phantomcircuit> i assume so
 512 2020-10-15T18:27:26  <sipa> generally you don't call someone with a private key an attacker ;)
 513 2020-10-15T18:27:43  <sdaftuar> "signer"
 514 2020-10-15T18:27:44  <sipa> but yes - the term you're looking for (i think) is a "unique signature", and no EC based signature schemes are
 515 2020-10-15T18:27:51  <phantomcircuit> sipa, if they're trying to abuse poorly written wallet software they are :P
 516 2020-10-15T18:27:59  <sdaftuar> "user"
 517 2020-10-15T18:28:07  <phantomcircuit> that's what i thought
 518 2020-10-15T18:28:23  <phantomcircuit> it's still an attacker... just not of the signature scheme itself
 519 2020-10-15T18:28:26  <jeremyrubin> I think phantomcircuit is more asking if a signing oracle will ever generate different signatures for same msg
 520 2020-10-15T18:28:52  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 521 2020-10-15T18:28:52  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dongcarl opened pull request #20158: tree-wide: De-globalize ChainstateManager (master...2020-06-libbitcoinruntime) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20158
 522 2020-10-15T18:28:53  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 523 2020-10-15T18:28:58  <sipa> phantomcircuit: to be clear, the bip340 signing algorithm is deterministic if no auxiliary randomness is used
 524 2020-10-15T18:29:08  <phantomcircuit> jeremyrubin, not if they will, but if they can, which sipa has answered
 525 2020-10-15T18:29:17  <sipa> but nobody is required (or can be verified to) follow that algorithm
 526 2020-10-15T18:29:35  <phantomcircuit> sipa, yeah i understand now, i was confused by the bip340 language about malleability
 527 2020-10-15T18:30:02  <sipa> there is one context where we actually treat someone with a private key as an attacker in BIP340, and it's a rather unusual requirement: nobody (even those with private keys) should be able to construct a signature for which the single-sig validation and batch-validation algorithm produce a different result (with more than negligible probability)
 528 2020-10-15T18:30:03  <phantomcircuit> i thought that my original reading was unlikely so im here asking :)
 529 2020-10-15T18:30:31  <sipa> well, i don't think it should be an unusual requirement - but in practice it seems it's not part of the standard attack model for signatures
 530 2020-10-15T18:30:57  <phantomcircuit> sipa, indeed cause then you could validate a transaction that is then rejected by block validation, would be a nasty issue
 531 2020-10-15T18:32:37  <sipa> in ed25519 land, this property clearly does not hold: https://hdevalence.ca/blog/2020-10-04-its-25519am
 532 2020-10-15T18:33:12  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 533 2020-10-15T18:33:13  <sipa> and it's trivial to make signatures (with private key) that validate in some implementations and not others, with tons of variants
 534 2020-10-15T18:34:55  <phantomcircuit> sipa, for most signature scheme use the cost of rejecting a signature that would be valid elsewhere is typically zero
 535 2020-10-15T18:35:11  <phantomcircuit> this is a sort of unique case in which everybody has to actually 100% agree
 536 2020-10-15T18:37:55  <phantomcircuit> sipa, do you know ballpark how many signatures are in a typical 'full' block right now?
 537 2020-10-15T18:40:28  <sipa> around 6000 txins per block, and i assume only a fraction have more than one signature
 538 2020-10-15T18:42:09  <jeremyrubin> #proposedmeetingtopic small announcement on behalf of BGIN
 539 2020-10-15T18:46:36  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 540 2020-10-15T18:46:37  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9855422e65ca...9ad7cd2887ab
 541 2020-10-15T18:46:37  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3069b56 Amiti Uttarwar: [doc] Improve help for getpeerinfo connection_type field.
 542 2020-10-15T18:46:38  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 41dca08 Amiti Uttarwar: [trivial] Extract connection type doc into file where it is used.
 543 2020-10-15T18:46:39  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9ad7cd2 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20090: [doc] Tiny followups to new getpeerinfo connection type fiel...
 544 2020-10-15T18:46:40  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 545 2020-10-15T18:46:56  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 546 2020-10-15T18:46:56  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20090: [doc] Tiny followups to new getpeerinfo connection type field  (master...2020-09-getpeerinfo-conn-type-release-notes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20090
 547 2020-10-15T18:46:57  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 548 2020-10-15T18:49:40  *** lightlike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 549 2020-10-15T18:50:57  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
 550 2020-10-15T18:58:10  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 551 2020-10-15T18:59:32  *** promag_ has quit IRC
 552 2020-10-15T19:00:15  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 553 2020-10-15T19:00:27  <wumpus> #startmeeting
 554 2020-10-15T19:00:27  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Oct 15 19:00:27 2020 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
 555 2020-10-15T19:00:27  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
 556 2020-10-15T19:00:28  <provoostenator> hi
 557 2020-10-15T19:00:30  *** promag has quit IRC
 558 2020-10-15T19:00:32  <emzy> hi
 559 2020-10-15T19:00:37  <hebasto> hi
 560 2020-10-15T19:00:39  <jnewbery> hi
 561 2020-10-15T19:00:49  <luke-jr> hi
 562 2020-10-15T19:00:54  <kanzure> hi
 563 2020-10-15T19:00:57  *** promag_ is now known as promag
 564 2020-10-15T19:01:05  <promag> hi
 565 2020-10-15T19:01:06  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 566 2020-10-15T19:01:10  <wumpus> two proposed topics taproot relay policy / activation on testnet/signet (sipa),  Getting BIP 8 logic in before freeze (luke-jr)
 567 2020-10-15T19:01:26  <luke-jr> wumpus: there was a third by jeremyrubin O.o
 568 2020-10-15T19:01:33  <luke-jr> [18:42:09] <jeremyrubin> #proposedmeetingtopic small announcement on behalf of BGIN
 569 2020-10-15T19:01:33  <jonatack> hi
 570 2020-10-15T19:02:03  <elichai2> hi
 571 2020-10-15T19:02:06  <wumpus> PSA today is the feature freeze for 0.21, it seems we managed to merge all the features on the milestone
 572 2020-10-15T19:02:12  <wumpus> luke-jr: strange, didn't see it in http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/proposedmeetingtopics.txt
 573 2020-10-15T19:02:18  <luke-jr> wumpus: thought it was tomorrow? :x
 574 2020-10-15T19:02:20  <provoostenator> Note that the GUI repo doesn't have a milestone
 575 2020-10-15T19:02:43  <MarcoFalke> provoostenator: Right. Is there any feature we missed from the GUI?
 576 2020-10-15T19:02:52  <MarcoFalke> bugfixes can go in any time
 577 2020-10-15T19:02:57  <luke-jr> [16:22:11] <hebasto> provoostenator: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/96
 578 2020-10-15T19:02:59  <wumpus> there are some PRs left of course, but nothing that can be labeled feature imo https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A0.21.0
 579 2020-10-15T19:03:19  <wumpus> provoostenator: good point, didn't look at the gui repo at all
 580 2020-10-15T19:03:24  <luke-jr> wumpus: would be nice to get some of BIP 8 in, so there's less backported with activation
 581 2020-10-15T19:03:24  <MarcoFalke> We still have 14 days to find and fix all bugs
 582 2020-10-15T19:04:01  <luke-jr> but I'll save that for the dedicated topic
 583 2020-10-15T19:04:08  <wumpus> luke-jr: well 10-15 is today here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18947 , but does it matter, everything tagged as feature was merged
 584 2020-10-15T19:04:26  <wumpus> (except for the GUI one apparently, if it's ready for merge it should go in)
 585 2020-10-15T19:04:38  <luke-jr> wumpus: doesn't mean much when only a few people can edit tags :/
 586 2020-10-15T19:05:00  <wumpus> luke-jr: the idea is that things get proposed for the milestone in meetings, or in the channel at least
 587 2020-10-15T19:05:08  <dongcarl> hi
 588 2020-10-15T19:05:30  <luke-jr> oh well, BIP 8 isn't strictly feature anyway
 589 2020-10-15T19:05:33  <fjahr_> hi
 590 2020-10-15T19:06:01  <wumpus> #topic Pending bugfixes for 0.21
 591 2020-10-15T19:06:47  <wumpus> any bugfixes that we should get in for the release missing on the milestone?
 592 2020-10-15T19:07:14  <jonatack> i'd propose 20120, 20115, 19961, and maybe 19874
 593 2020-10-15T19:07:15  <luke-jr> I found #20157,  not sure how important it is
 594 2020-10-15T19:07:16  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20157 | Bugfix: chainparams: Add missing (disabled) Taproot deployment for Signet by luke-jr · Pull Request #20157 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 595 2020-10-15T19:07:37  <sipa> luke-jr: should definitely be fixed before release
 596 2020-10-15T19:07:42  <sipa> #20120
 597 2020-10-15T19:07:44  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20120 | net, rpc, test, bugfix: update GetNetworkName, GetNetworksInfo, regression tests by jonatack · Pull Request #20120 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 598 2020-10-15T19:07:45  <luke-jr> > #20120, #20115, #19961, and maybe #19874
 599 2020-10-15T19:07:45  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20120 | net, rpc, test, bugfix: update GetNetworkName, GetNetworksInfo, regression tests by jonatack · Pull Request #20120 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 600 2020-10-15T19:07:46  <jonatack> plus the upcoming fix for #19543
 601 2020-10-15T19:07:47  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20115 | cli: -netinfo quick updates/fixups and release note by jonatack · Pull Request #20115 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 602 2020-10-15T19:07:49  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19961 | doc: tor.md updates by jonatack · Pull Request #19961 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 603 2020-10-15T19:07:50  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19874 | cli, bugfix: degrade -getinfo gracefully for older servers by jonatack · Pull Request #19874 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 604 2020-10-15T19:07:51  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19543 | Normalize fee units for RPC ("BTC/kB" and "sat/B) · Issue #19543 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 605 2020-10-15T19:08:09  <hebasto> #20080 or #19933
 606 2020-10-15T19:08:11  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20080 | Strip any trailing `/` in -datadir path by hebasto · Pull Request #20080 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 607 2020-10-15T19:08:14  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19933 | wallet: bugfix; if datadir has a trailing / listwalletdir would strip lead char of walletname by Saibato · Pull Request #19933 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 608 2020-10-15T19:08:41  <luke-jr> oh yes, one of those are important to get in ☺
 609 2020-10-15T19:08:51  <wumpus> jonatack: i'm not convinced  #19874 is really a bugfix
 610 2020-10-15T19:08:53  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19874 | cli, bugfix: degrade -getinfo gracefully for older servers by jonatack · Pull Request #19874 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 611 2020-10-15T19:09:17  <luke-jr> afaik -getinfo has never worked with old servers gracefully
 612 2020-10-15T19:09:21  <ariard> hi
 613 2020-10-15T19:09:23  <jonatack> agree that it's optional. the doc/tor.md is still in draft but will open v soon
 614 2020-10-15T19:09:47  <sipa> i think documentation improvements can be done after feature freeze
 615 2020-10-15T19:09:58  <MarcoFalke> tests and docs can go in any time
 616 2020-10-15T19:10:07  <jonatack> sipa: agree, i held off on those to get the features in
 617 2020-10-15T19:11:31  <provoostenator> #18788 would be good tests to add
 618 2020-10-15T19:11:34  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18788 | tests: Update more tests to work with descriptor wallets by achow101 · Pull Request #18788 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 619 2020-10-15T19:11:56  <wumpus> 19543 was already tagged
 620 2020-10-15T19:12:18  <luke-jr> oh, did achow101 want to make descriptor wallets tied to sqlite? where does that stand?
 621 2020-10-15T19:12:28  <luke-jr> #20156 is IMO a bugfix
 622 2020-10-15T19:12:30  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20156 | Make sqlite support optional (compile-time) by luke-jr · Pull Request #20156 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 623 2020-10-15T19:12:37  <provoostenator> luke-jr: that's already merged
 624 2020-10-15T19:12:40  <wumpus> yes, that was his plan, to make it clearer that those are two different wallet formats
 625 2020-10-15T19:12:57  <meshcollider> Please can we decide which of 19933 and 20080 we want to keep and which one to close?
 626 2020-10-15T19:13:03  <luke-jr> provoostenator: tying the two together is?
 627 2020-10-15T19:13:07  <wumpus> luke-jr: i think 'return a null in a field' is graceful enough, it just shouldn't crash
 628 2020-10-15T19:13:09  <MarcoFalke> I like #20080
 629 2020-10-15T19:13:11  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20080 | Strip any trailing `/` in -datadir path by hebasto · Pull Request #20080 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 630 2020-10-15T19:13:20  <provoostenator> luke-jr: descriptor == sqlite for new wallet yes
 631 2020-10-15T19:13:25  <provoostenator> see my comment as well
 632 2020-10-15T19:13:33  <promag> +1 #20080
 633 2020-10-15T19:13:35  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20080 | Strip any trailing `/` in -datadir path by hebasto · Pull Request #20080 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 634 2020-10-15T19:13:42  <provoostenator> Unless achow101 changed his mind about that, but I think that was the point of getting it in before release
 635 2020-10-15T19:13:44  <wumpus> 20080 was already tagged right
 636 2020-10-15T19:13:46  <MarcoFalke> I promise to test 20080 soon
 637 2020-10-15T19:13:51  <wumpus> please don't repeat things
 638 2020-10-15T19:13:56  <luke-jr> wumpus: 'return a null in a field' ?
 639 2020-10-15T19:14:16  <wumpus> I'm having a lot of trouble keeping track of PRs mentioned here to add them to the milestone
 640 2020-10-15T19:14:21  <luke-jr> oh, for -getinfo; sure; or just an error even
 641 2020-10-15T19:14:25  <wumpus> luke-jr: yes
 642 2020-10-15T19:14:37  <meshcollider> Alright 20080 it is, I'll close 19933
 643 2020-10-15T19:15:09  <wumpus> meshcollider: yes makes sense
 644 2020-10-15T19:16:14  <wumpus> I think I've tagged everything mentioned, if not, please let me know
 645 2020-10-15T19:16:57  <promag> wumpus: maybe #20125
 646 2020-10-15T19:16:59  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20125 | rpc, wallet: Expose database format in getwalletinfo by promag · Pull Request #20125 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 647 2020-10-15T19:17:26  <luke-jr> 20080 should get 0.19.x and 0.20.x tags too I think
 648 2020-10-15T19:17:30  <wumpus> promag: sounds like a feature to me
 649 2020-10-15T19:17:49  <MarcoFalke> luke-jr: It already has
 650 2020-10-15T19:17:55  <wumpus> (though maybe a necessary one, I don't' know)
 651 2020-10-15T19:17:57  <luke-jr> o
 652 2020-10-15T19:17:57  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 653 2020-10-15T19:17:58  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] meshcollider closed pull request #19933: wallet: bugfix; if datadir has a trailing '/'  listwalletdir would strip lead char of walletname (master...wallet-fix-missing-chars-boost-1.47) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19933
 654 2020-10-15T19:18:08  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 655 2020-10-15T19:18:14  <jonatack> agree with promag about 20125
 656 2020-10-15T19:18:18  <wumpus> luke-jr: let's discuss the 0.21 milestone now not other ones
 657 2020-10-15T19:18:36  *** belcher has quit IRC
 658 2020-10-15T19:19:09  <wumpus> ok adding 20125...
 659 2020-10-15T19:19:14  <promag> wumpus: not really... just adds "format" key to the rpc response
 660 2020-10-15T19:19:27  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 661 2020-10-15T19:19:28  <wumpus> well it's not a bugfix at least
 662 2020-10-15T19:19:36  <wumpus> but I don't care it seems minimal enough
 663 2020-10-15T19:19:52  <promag> wumpus: right
 664 2020-10-15T19:20:43  <wumpus> that concludes the topic I guess
 665 2020-10-15T19:20:53  <luke-jr> I'm not sure it makes sense to expose that detail, but meh
 666 2020-10-15T19:21:06  <wumpus> #topic taproot relay policy / activation on testnet/signet (sipa)
 667 2020-10-15T19:21:18  <sipa> hi
 668 2020-10-15T19:21:31  <wumpus> luke-jr: especially if it's linked to descriptor wallets it seems a bit redundant, but yeah...
 669 2020-10-15T19:21:32  <promag> luke-jr: could still be rejected ;)
 670 2020-10-15T19:21:41  <sipa> there are a few aspects here
 671 2020-10-15T19:21:50  <wumpus> if it's useful for troubleshooting/diagnosis it should be in
 672 2020-10-15T19:22:12  <sipa> one is relay of v1 transaction outputs; bitcoin core will do that since #15846
 673 2020-10-15T19:22:15  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15846 | [POLICY] Make sending to future native witness outputs standard by sipa · Pull Request #15846 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 674 2020-10-15T19:22:54  <sipa> but since the merge of #19953, we'll also relay spends of (valid) taproot outputs
 675 2020-10-15T19:22:57  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19953 | Implement BIP 340-342 validation (Schnorr/taproot/tapscript) by sipa · Pull Request #19953 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 676 2020-10-15T19:23:09  <sipa> i think that's undesirable, at least until activation is defined, or even until actually activated
 677 2020-10-15T19:23:44  * luke-jr did suggest splitting that out of the PR a few months ago :P
 678 2020-10-15T19:24:07  <sipa> luke-jr: well, we do want it on regtest
 679 2020-10-15T19:24:24  <luke-jr> regtest supports acceptnonstdtxn, but ok
 680 2020-10-15T19:26:03  <sipa> talking to sdaftuar a bit, i think we should just reject creation and spending of v1 outputs until taproot is _active_
 681 2020-10-15T19:26:17  <sipa> as a policy rule (not through script validation, which is more invasive)
 682 2020-10-15T19:27:16  <sipa> or at least creation as soon as an activation is defined
 683 2020-10-15T19:27:36  <sipa> (so that the behavior on mainnet before an activation is defined is essentially as if it didn't exist at all)
 684 2020-10-15T19:28:06  <sipa> i can open a PR/issue and discuss further there
 685 2020-10-15T19:28:30  <sipa> but i wanted to bring this up, as it may be unexpected that master is now doing taproot validation on the mempool
 686 2020-10-15T19:28:43  <wumpus> I think that makes sense, to do that as a policy rule
 687 2020-10-15T19:28:59  <MarcoFalke> so the spends would be valid taproot spends (with witness) only?
 688 2020-10-15T19:29:28  <sipa> so right now: all v1 creation is relayed, v1 spends are relayed only if valid according to taproot rules
 689 2020-10-15T19:29:52  <ariard> is there any disadvantage of doing this?
 690 2020-10-15T19:30:20  <sipa> my proposal: v1 creation is not relayed while taproot activation is defined but not yet active; v1 spending is only relayed after being actually active
 691 2020-10-15T19:30:23  *** ossifrage has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 692 2020-10-15T19:30:40  <provoostenator> Why not always relay?
 693 2020-10-15T19:31:02  <MarcoFalke> provoostenator: Someone will give away their coins, surely
 694 2020-10-15T19:31:03  <provoostenator> Doesn't seem ideal to have a bunch of nodes out there not relaying v1 transactions.
 695 2020-10-15T19:31:23  <sipa> provoostenator: they'd all start relaying as soon as activation happens
 696 2020-10-15T19:31:31  <sipa> before that point, we don't care
 697 2020-10-15T19:31:59  *** jesseposner has quit IRC
 698 2020-10-15T19:32:03  <ariard> sipa: so you want to hardcode the loosening policy change based on the consensus activation IIRC ?
 699 2020-10-15T19:32:07  <luke-jr> well, activation isn't in 0.21.0, so not these
 700 2020-10-15T19:32:38  <sipa> luke-jr: indeed, the only effect on 0.21.0 would be making spending of v1 non relayed
 701 2020-10-15T19:32:50  <jnewbery> sipa: what's the difference between 'not relayed while taproot activation is defined but not yet active' and 'only relayed after being actually active'
 702 2020-10-15T19:33:31  <provoostenator> Did we relay v1 to/from transactions before taproot was merged?
 703 2020-10-15T19:33:37  <sipa> jnewbery: creation would be relayed as long as no activation parameters are set (the idea being that without activation parameters, it should be treated as an unknown future upgrade that can still change)
 704 2020-10-15T19:33:41  <aj> jnewbery: 0.21.0 will be not-defined and not-active, so will always relay creation of taproot outputs, but not spends of them
 705 2020-10-15T19:34:16  <sipa> maybe this is a simpler principle: before activation is _defined_, behavior should be identical to before taproot was merged
 706 2020-10-15T19:34:21  <aj> sipa: i'm not sure it makes much sense to make it harder to spend a taproot output than to create one? creating one before activation is how you lose money?
 707 2020-10-15T19:34:43  <jeremyrubin> aj: i thought we checked outputs standardness?
 708 2020-10-15T19:35:02  <jnewbery> sipa aj: thanks
 709 2020-10-15T19:35:10  <aj> jeremyrubin: 15846
 710 2020-10-15T19:35:12  <luke-jr> aj: the spend we make harder, may be a theft
 711 2020-10-15T19:35:20  <luke-jr> you can't steal if you can't spend
 712 2020-10-15T19:35:22  <jeremyrubin> #15846
 713 2020-10-15T19:35:24  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15846 | [POLICY] Make sending to future native witness outputs standard by sipa · Pull Request #15846 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 714 2020-10-15T19:35:41  <aj> luke-jr: prior to activation miners can spend trivially
 715 2020-10-15T19:35:58  <luke-jr> aj: miners don't rely on others' policy
 716 2020-10-15T19:36:11  <sipa> aj: my suggestion is that relay of creation and spending only differs before activation is defined... to match pre-taproot-implemented behavior
 717 2020-10-15T19:36:27  <sipa> after activation is defined, both are disallowed until it is actually active
 718 2020-10-15T19:36:29  *** Talkless has quit IRC
 719 2020-10-15T19:37:45  <luke-jr> (OT: wumpus: #19502 should probably get milestoned)
 720 2020-10-15T19:37:47  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19502 | Bugfix: Wallet: Soft-fail exceptions within ListWalletDir file checks by luke-jr · Pull Request #19502 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 721 2020-10-15T19:37:51  <sipa> aj: which is ultimately due to softfork safeness... if we treat taproot as subject to change still (which i think we should until activation is defined), we shouldn't permit spending it to be relayed
 722 2020-10-15T19:38:09  <wumpus> luke-jr: ok
 723 2020-10-15T19:38:24  <jeremyrubin> has that been reverted though somehow?
 724 2020-10-15T19:38:33  <sipa> jeremyrubin: what?
 725 2020-10-15T19:38:42  <jeremyrubin> looking at the current code and I'm not seeing that logic still
 726 2020-10-15T19:38:46  <aj> sipa: right, immediately after activation (supported by 0.21.1 say), you have all nodes relaying creation, but only 0.21.1 nodes relaying spends. vs having 0.21.0 and 0.21.1 nodes validating and relaying spends if we leave things as they are now
 727 2020-10-15T19:39:36  <jeremyrubin> Ah
 728 2020-10-15T19:39:39  <jeremyrubin> it went into Solver
 729 2020-10-15T19:39:51  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 730 2020-10-15T19:40:35  <sipa> aj: i think permitting spends right now is bad... it's just gratuitous policy difference between 0.21 and pre-0.21 nodes
 731 2020-10-15T19:40:54  <sipa> the extra rule for suspending relay of outputs is user protection before activation
 732 2020-10-15T19:41:07  <sipa> anyway, will open an issue
 733 2020-10-15T19:41:08  <aj> sipa: the principle (no behaviour change prior to activation) makes sense, just doesn't seem like it has much benefit (people still lose money if they create outputs earlier, because miners will claim them via a non-std tx) and slight costs (will make relay slightly harder due to implementation-but-no-activation nodes not relaying)
 734 2020-10-15T19:41:21  <wumpus> 20 minutes left, we might want to move to the next topic
 735 2020-10-15T19:41:30  <sipa> aj: if their own node rejects relay, miners will never see the tx :)
 736 2020-10-15T19:41:46  <luke-jr> sipa: no reason their own node would :P
 737 2020-10-15T19:41:53  <wumpus> #topic  Getting BIP 8 logic in before freeze (luke-jr)
 738 2020-10-15T19:42:03  <luke-jr> I've implemented the current BIP 8 as logic only (no activations) in #19573. This is probably not the final BIP 8 (aj's been working on some revisions), but having it merged in 0.21 means we can have a smaller diff to add Taproot activation later.
 739 2020-10-15T19:42:04  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19573 | Replace unused BIP 9 logic with draft BIP 8 by luke-jr · Pull Request #19573 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 740 2020-10-15T19:42:06  <luke-jr> Would be nice to get this merged before 0.21.0rc1 if possible. Anyone who wants to help review (or other) can join ##taproot-activation to help get this done quickly.
 741 2020-10-15T19:42:09  <luke-jr> Note the PR depends on #19401 and #20157. These are fairly trivial, and the former already has 2 ACKs.
 742 2020-10-15T19:42:11  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19401 | QA: Use GBT to get block versions correct by luke-jr · Pull Request #19401 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 743 2020-10-15T19:42:12  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20157 | Bugfix: chainparams: Add missing (disabled) Taproot deployment for Signet by luke-jr · Pull Request #20157 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 744 2020-10-15T19:43:31  *** rafaelpac has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 745 2020-10-15T19:45:03  <wumpus> i don't know, it does feel a bit rushed to me, to merge something (that should be a no-op otherwise) last minute just to minimize the diff later, especially when we don't even know yet if it's the final state of the BIP
 746 2020-10-15T19:45:13  <wumpus> not a small project either
 747 2020-10-15T19:45:48  <luke-jr> hmm, true
 748 2020-10-15T19:46:01  <sipa> no strong opinion... it doesn't seem very invasive, but on the other hand, this can also easily be backported along with actual activation parameters
 749 2020-10-15T19:46:18  <sipa> it also may turn out to be wasted effort
 750 2020-10-15T19:46:26  *** ossifrage has quit IRC
 751 2020-10-15T19:47:13  <luke-jr> not sure how it could be wasted effort
 752 2020-10-15T19:47:29  <luke-jr> sipa: your topic, you had mentioned signet/testnet activation - that might or might not be a reason to do this sooner
 753 2020-10-15T19:47:38  <jeremyrubin> i think it makes sense to wait for cleaner git history
 754 2020-10-15T19:48:03  <luke-jr> jeremyrubin: I'm assuming the two trivial PRs would be merged first as part of this process
 755 2020-10-15T19:48:20  <sipa> oh right, i didn't bring that up... do we want to define an activation on testnet?
 756 2020-10-15T19:48:36  <sipa> that's something that was done historically, but with signet i think there may be less need now
 757 2020-10-15T19:48:40  <luke-jr> I think it makes sense to test BIP 8 with testnet
 758 2020-10-15T19:49:30  <wumpus> it should activate there at some time i guess
 759 2020-10-15T19:50:18  <sipa> always possible in .1 or whatever point release too, of course
 760 2020-10-15T19:50:19  <aj> probably shouldn't activate on testnet with a different activation method than we plan on using for mainnet?
 761 2020-10-15T19:50:32  <luke-jr> sipa: true
 762 2020-10-15T19:50:35  *** rafaelpac has quit IRC
 763 2020-10-15T19:51:04  <luke-jr> maybe that's a good solution: testnet in .1, and mainnet not until .2
 764 2020-10-15T19:51:05  <sipa> it'd be nice to see things active on signet first before suggesting testnet changes
 765 2020-10-15T19:51:05  <wumpus> sipa: right
 766 2020-10-15T19:51:20  <aj> kallewoof's not awake, but i was thinking maybe lock taproot as it stands in immediately on the default signet, and if worst comes to worst just restart the signet chain if needed
 767 2020-10-15T19:51:20  <sipa> (as in signet it can be rolled out without code changes...)
 768 2020-10-15T19:52:00  <wumpus> that's great
 769 2020-10-15T19:52:12  <luke-jr> signet doesn't even need an activation, does it?
 770 2020-10-15T19:52:15  <luke-jr> just always-active?
 771 2020-10-15T19:52:16  <MarcoFalke> wait, if spends are made non-standard, it needs conde changes for signet
 772 2020-10-15T19:52:21  <aj> sipa: (not-relaying taproot-txs if activation hasn't happened will affect the "without code changes" part a bit
 773 2020-10-15T19:52:43  <aj> luke-jr: yeah, that's what i'm thinking
 774 2020-10-15T19:52:55  <aj> luke-jr: (i mean, "always-active" is an activation)
 775 2020-10-15T19:53:02  <luke-jr> the policy changes sipa suggested are conditional on the deployment state AFAIK?
 776 2020-10-15T19:53:21  <MarcoFalke> so I guess s/without/minimal/
 777 2020-10-15T19:53:25  <aj> luke-jr: right, but *nodes* have to know the deployment state in that case, not just miners
 778 2020-10-15T19:53:31  <luke-jr> so always-active would trigger the spending policy
 779 2020-10-15T19:53:50  <sipa> i think we can flesh these things out the next few days
 780 2020-10-15T19:53:55  <aj> yep
 781 2020-10-15T19:54:04  <luke-jr> yeah, let's give jeremyrubin some minutes ☺
 782 2020-10-15T19:54:18  <jeremyrubin> i need like 1 min
 783 2020-10-15T19:54:27  <jeremyrubin> so no rush
 784 2020-10-15T19:54:47  <wumpus> #topic Small announcement on behalf of BGIN (jeremyrubin)
 785 2020-10-15T19:55:00  <jeremyrubin> Matsuo has asked me to share the following
 786 2020-10-15T19:55:02  <jeremyrubin> FYI bgin-global.org is hosting an event for core devs the first week of Nov, please fill out this form https://forms.gle/99yUnQdtAkAwt5SW7 to assist scheduling or email schwentker@bsafe.network with any questions. Goal of the event is to help core dev sustainability, so should be of interest for all here.
 787 2020-10-15T19:55:12  <jeremyrubin> https://bgin-global.org
 788 2020-10-15T19:55:20  <luke-jr> during a pandemic? O.o
 789 2020-10-15T19:55:29  <achow101> Who's bgin?
 790 2020-10-15T19:55:33  <jeremyrubin> it's a virtual event
 791 2020-10-15T19:55:36  <luke-jr> i c
 792 2020-10-15T19:55:56  <luke-jr> "Blockchain Governance Initiative Network "
 793 2020-10-15T19:55:58  <jeremyrubin> BGIN is "Blockchain Governance Initiative Network (BGIN)"
 794 2020-10-15T19:56:05  <jeremyrubin> I'd ignore the acronym tho
 795 2020-10-15T19:56:11  <luke-jr> so this is like NY agreement in organization form? :x
 796 2020-10-15T19:56:20  <jeremyrubin> no
 797 2020-10-15T19:56:40  <aj> there's also coinbase looking to support bitcoin dev projects as of an hour or so ago https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/1316801517983334401
 798 2020-10-15T19:56:42  <jeremyrubin> it's the sort of name that you have to have to get intl participation from people in intl financial regulation
 799 2020-10-15T19:56:53  <luke-jr> jeremyrubin: lol
 800 2020-10-15T19:56:56  <jeremyrubin> so it's started by Matsuo and others
 801 2020-10-15T19:57:31  <jeremyrubin> the point being that a lot of various regulators want to chat about how Bitcoin works and how they engage, but also understanding how standards emerge
 802 2020-10-15T19:57:57  <jeremyrubin> But a part of that is they want to understand and potentiall support development through research grants
 803 2020-10-15T19:58:32  <wumpus> that sounds pretty scary tbh
 804 2020-10-15T19:58:36  <jeremyrubin> so it's maybe folk you'd rather not talk to at all depending on your preferences, but it is a good faith effort afaict
 805 2020-10-15T19:58:57  <jeremyrubin> :shrug:
 806 2020-10-15T19:59:15  <jeremyrubin> I'd encourage you to email concerns to schwentker@bsafe.network
 807 2020-10-15T20:00:05  <luke-jr> jeremyrubin: it sounds like they're just giving webinars and we'd simply watch it? O.o
 808 2020-10-15T20:00:14  <jeremyrubin> no i don't think so
 809 2020-10-15T20:00:26  <jeremyrubin> I think they want to hear from you directly
 810 2020-10-15T20:00:41  <MarcoFalke> end meeting?
 811 2020-10-15T20:00:44  <wumpus> ok, I think everything is said, thanks for the announcement
 812 2020-10-15T20:00:46  <wumpus> #endmeeting
 813 2020-10-15T20:00:46  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Oct 15 20:00:46 2020 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
 814 2020-10-15T20:00:46  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-15-19.00.html
 815 2020-10-15T20:00:46  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-15-19.00.txt
 816 2020-10-15T20:00:46  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-15-19.00.log.html
 817 2020-10-15T20:00:49  <luke-jr> >how they engage
 818 2020-10-15T20:00:51  <luke-jr> "don't
 819 2020-10-15T20:01:21  <luke-jr> jk, maybe should tell them to get rid of the travel rule tho ;)
 820 2020-10-15T20:01:22  <jeremyrubin> I mean, there are practical things that are relatively improtant to engage them on
 821 2020-10-15T20:01:26  <jeremyrubin> E.g., travel rule
 822 2020-10-15T20:01:30  <luke-jr> jeremyrubin: yeah, joking
 823 2020-10-15T20:01:31  <jeremyrubin> do you owe taxes on BCash
 824 2020-10-15T20:01:40  <luke-jr> not anymore
 825 2020-10-15T20:01:55  <emzy> jeremyrubin: I also find it strange. But can I as a none dev also join?
 826 2020-10-15T20:02:07  <jeremyrubin> If you had a contract denom in Bitcoin do you owe BCash and Bitcoin after a fork?
 827 2020-10-15T20:02:11  <luke-jr> emzy: who is to say you're not a dev? ;)
 828 2020-10-15T20:02:16  <achow101> luke-jr: re: sqlite and descriptors. The intention for the foreseeable future is sqlite == descriptors and descriptors == sqlite. So adjust #20156 accordingly
 829 2020-10-15T20:02:17  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20156 | Make sqlite support optional (compile-time) by luke-jr · Pull Request #20156 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 830 2020-10-15T20:02:20  <emzy> luke-jr: me :)
 831 2020-10-15T20:02:39  <luke-jr> achow101: what needs adjustment?
 832 2020-10-15T20:02:53  <sipa> achow101: no way to convert legacy bdb wallets to legacy sqlite ones?
 833 2020-10-15T20:03:19  <jeremyrubin> Anyways, i don't think there is malintnet but up to you to give benefit of the doubt or express concerns to them directly
 834 2020-10-15T20:03:23  <jeremyrubin> i am a mere herald
 835 2020-10-15T20:03:31  <aj> "legacy sqlite" wow, already :)
 836 2020-10-15T20:03:33  <luke-jr> wumpus: 20156 missed milestoning
 837 2020-10-15T20:03:45  <luke-jr> aj: lol
 838 2020-10-15T20:03:49  <sipa> aj: legacy meaning non-descriptor
 839 2020-10-15T20:03:49  <jeremyrubin> emzy: I think you'd be fine to join, just fill out the form
 840 2020-10-15T20:03:56  <achow101> luke-jr: to enforce that descriptor wallets can't be made of sqlite is disabled. Dunno of you already did that, still going through my email backlog
 841 2020-10-15T20:03:57  <aj> sipa: yeah :)
 842 2020-10-15T20:04:19  <emzy> jeremyrubin: I did. At least I can tell you here what happend :)
 843 2020-10-15T20:04:47  <luke-jr> achow101: I didn't remove any code enforcing it, at least
 844 2020-10-15T20:04:54  <achow101> sipa: maybe dump them createfromdump, but I'm not intending on making a migration for it
 845 2020-10-15T20:04:56  <jeremyrubin> emzy: wat?
 846 2020-10-15T20:05:39  <emzy> jeremyrubin: I submitted the form.
 847 2020-10-15T20:05:59  <sipa> achow101: well the question is if the format should be supported i think, regardless of how someone can create it
 848 2020-10-15T20:06:02  <luke-jr> error = Untranslated(strprintf("Failed to load database path '%s'. Data is not in required format.", path.string()));
 849 2020-10-15T20:06:12  <luke-jr> I guess that error could be clearer
 850 2020-10-15T20:06:19  <luke-jr> or maybe just remove descriptor support entirely
 851 2020-10-15T20:06:25  <sipa> it's ok to say non-descriptor-sqlite wallets are unsupported
 852 2020-10-15T20:06:33  <jonatack> achow101: right, the main reason for adding a db format field to getwalletinfo or -getinfo is because a bdb wallet can be descriptor
 853 2020-10-15T20:06:38  <sipa> if we don't test that
 854 2020-10-15T20:06:43  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
 855 2020-10-15T20:06:56  <sipa> but whatever combinations are supported should be tested
 856 2020-10-15T20:07:07  <wumpus> i'm all for not supporting too many combinations
 857 2020-10-15T20:07:11  <sipa> and those that aren't should at least get a warning
 858 2020-10-15T20:07:19  <wumpus> be careful here, anything you support for the wallet needs to be support for pretty much near forever
 859 2020-10-15T20:07:21  <sipa> (or otherwise be impossible to create)
 860 2020-10-15T20:07:23  <achow101> luke-jr: I'll have a look when I get home, but I was intending on writing a full without-bdb and without-sqlite thing that disabled legacy or descriptors respectively
 861 2020-10-15T20:07:25  <wumpus> as those files will be around for a long time
 862 2020-10-15T20:07:44  <wumpus> it's also confusing for users
 863 2020-10-15T20:07:57  <wumpus> two types of wallet is enough, avoid the combinatorial cmplexity
 864 2020-10-15T20:08:43  <sipa> yeah
 865 2020-10-15T20:09:07  <sipa> that's fair
 866 2020-10-15T20:09:20  <achow101> jonatack: I think that's useful for experts who do unsupported things, but for most users, the format should be tied to the type
 867 2020-10-15T20:09:52  <jeremyrubin> 2**256 wallets for added security
 868 2020-10-15T20:10:16  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 869 2020-10-15T20:10:16  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dongcarl closed pull request #20050: validation: Prune (in)direct g_chainman usage related to ::LookupBlockIndex (bundle 1) (master...2020-09-libbitcoinruntime-v4) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20050
 870 2020-10-15T20:10:17  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 871 2020-10-15T20:12:13  <wumpus> heh
 872 2020-10-15T20:12:40  <achow101> sipa: I think it will be supported but not recommended, aka you had to jump through a lot of hoops to get to legacy sqlite
 873 2020-10-15T20:13:01  <sipa> yeah, ok
 874 2020-10-15T20:13:32  <luke-jr> i can use sqlite wit uncompressed pubkeys?
 875 2020-10-15T20:13:40  <luke-jr> :P
 876 2020-10-15T20:13:48  <achow101> sure
 877 2020-10-15T20:14:07  <achow101> Descriptora can have uncompressed keys
 878 2020-10-15T20:14:12  <luke-jr> :o
 879 2020-10-15T20:14:27  <luke-jr> I meant the old wallet format tho
 880 2020-10-15T20:14:43  <luke-jr> we should probably drop support for that.. it isn't actually compatible post-segwit anyway :x
 881 2020-10-15T20:15:07  *** filchef has quit IRC
 882 2020-10-15T20:15:17  <sipa> you mean sqlite non-descriptor with uncompressed keys?
 883 2020-10-15T20:15:24  <achow101> Yeah but you and Matt will complain about it
 884 2020-10-15T20:15:31  *** filchef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 885 2020-10-15T20:15:33  <luke-jr> lol
 886 2020-10-15T20:16:53  <luke-jr> Qt should stop using camelcase so I don't need to guess at if they did ToolTip or Tooltip
 887 2020-10-15T20:17:12  <achow101> Is actually toolTip
 888 2020-10-15T20:17:22  <luke-jr> )(%#&)#_)#
 889 2020-10-15T20:17:41  <luke-jr> (I'm actually calling SetToolTip, so it's okay)
 890 2020-10-15T20:20:02  <promag> descriptors:true wallet doesn't mean it's sqlite right?
 891 2020-10-15T20:20:38  <promag> only true starting with 0.21, at least that's my understanding
 892 2020-10-15T20:21:00  <achow101> yes
 893 2020-10-15T20:21:03  <promag> that's why I'm suggesting "format" in getwalletinfo response
 894 2020-10-15T20:22:38  <promag> nit, and maybe in the gui we could have some thing/icon/whatever for these things - like getwalletinfo
 895 2020-10-15T20:22:39  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 896 2020-10-15T20:23:23  <luke-jr> promag: descriptors:true will mean sqlite in all supported configurations AIUI
 897 2020-10-15T20:24:49  <promag> luke-jr: you can still open a 0.20 descriptors wallet?
 898 2020-10-15T20:25:20  <luke-jr> promag: 0.20 doesn't support descriptors
 899 2020-10-15T20:25:37  <luke-jr> I don't think..
 900 2020-10-15T20:25:41  <promag> <.<
 901 2020-10-15T20:28:47  <promag> luke-jr: you are right
 902 2020-10-15T20:28:54  <promag> #16528
 903 2020-10-15T20:28:57  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16528 | Native Descriptor Wallets using DescriptorScriptPubKeyMan by achow101 · Pull Request #16528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 904 2020-10-15T20:30:01  <promag> 0.20 has some descriptors stuff, but not the option to create descriptors wallet
 905 2020-10-15T20:30:16  *** ossifrage has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 906 2020-10-15T20:34:01  *** vincenzopalazzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 907 2020-10-15T20:35:10  <achow101> Irs only helpful for people who have descriptor wallets on old master
 908 2020-10-15T20:36:32  <promag> right
 909 2020-10-15T20:37:22  * luke-jr likes git-worktree
 910 2020-10-15T20:37:24  <promag> on the long run the plan is to enforce descriptors?
 911 2020-10-15T20:37:52  <promag> and as a consequence it will be sqlite?
 912 2020-10-15T20:38:06  <achow101> Yes
 913 2020-10-15T20:38:08  <promag> or we will also support non descriptor wallets in sqlite?
 914 2020-10-15T20:39:28  <achow101> It will be supported as in if you somehow make one, we won't explode
 915 2020-10-15T20:39:52  <luke-jr> will we explode on promag's bdb descriptor wallet? ;)
 916 2020-10-15T20:40:02  <achow101> But actually making one is going to be non trivial
 917 2020-10-15T20:40:23  <achow101> Same for bdb descriptor wallets
 918 2020-10-15T20:41:39  <achow101> luke-jr: I've been running the sqlite branch with 3 of the 4 combinations of format and type without any issue
 919 2020-10-15T20:41:54  <achow101> For the past 3 months or so
 920 2020-10-15T20:42:17  <promag> "non trivial" why?
 921 2020-10-15T20:42:21  <achow101> Only one I haven't run is legacy sqlite
 922 2020-10-15T20:42:26  *** lightlike has quit IRC
 923 2020-10-15T20:43:47  <achow101> promag: to avoid combinatorial complexity in the migration code
 924 2020-10-15T20:45:41  *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 925 2020-10-15T20:46:09  <achow101> I'll open an issue that lays out the full plan and a timeline
 926 2020-10-15T20:52:53  <aj> luke-jr: git-worktree is the best. shame paths end up hardcoded so ccache stuff isn't shared across them though
 927 2020-10-15T20:53:24  <luke-jr> aj: wait, what? ccache doesn't care about paths, does it?
 928 2020-10-15T20:53:58  <sipa> your ccache cache is shared i think?
 929 2020-10-15T20:54:07  <sipa> it's in $HOME/.ccache
 930 2020-10-15T20:55:04  <luke-jr> hmm, I thought I configured my ccache to be on tmpfs tho
 931 2020-10-15T20:55:20  <luke-jr> ah yes cache directory                     /var/tmp/ccache-dev
 932 2020-10-15T20:55:27  <sipa> ah, or wherever you configure it to be
 933 2020-10-15T20:57:55  *** promag has quit IRC
 934 2020-10-15T20:58:34  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 935 2020-10-15T21:00:02  *** Lthere has quit IRC
 936 2020-10-15T21:00:17  <aj> luke-jr: ccache doesn't directly, but the path ends up going into the preprocessed source somewhere or something which makes ccache's input different each time... not sure how though now that i look
 937 2020-10-15T21:00:18  *** wilcl_ark is now known as willcl_ark
 938 2020-10-15T21:03:07  *** promag has quit IRC
 939 2020-10-15T21:05:45  <aj> oh, i'm wrong, ccache has a `hash_dir` flag that makes it hash the working dir, and it's -g that puts the working dir in the .o files
 940 2020-10-15T21:06:05  <sipa> still, worktrees are very useful
 941 2020-10-15T21:06:30  <sipa> i have separate ones for fuzzer builds (so i don't need to re-run ./configure with the fuzzer flags all the time)
 942 2020-10-15T21:06:33  <sipa> and sanitizer builds
 943 2020-10-15T21:07:22  <sipa> you can't checkout the same branch in two worktrees simultaneously, but you can use git checkout --detach in one to just switch to code of a branch in another
 944 2020-10-15T21:10:23  <luke-jr> aj: it being in the .o should be okay?
 945 2020-10-15T21:10:43  <luke-jr> sipa: you can checkout the same branch if you really want to :D
 946 2020-10-15T21:10:52  <sipa> luke-jr: how so?
 947 2020-10-15T21:11:21  <sipa> is there some --use-the-force option?
 948 2020-10-15T21:11:37  <luke-jr> IIRC
 949 2020-10-15T21:12:13  <luke-jr> --force
 950 2020-10-15T21:12:36  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
 951 2020-10-15T21:15:35  *** vincenzopalazzo has quit IRC
 952 2020-10-15T21:16:05  *** filchef has quit IRC
 953 2020-10-15T21:22:25  *** Antimatter has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 954 2020-10-15T21:30:00  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 955 2020-10-15T21:32:07  *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 956 2020-10-15T21:38:31  *** Exho has quit IRC
 957 2020-10-15T21:39:49  *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
 958 2020-10-15T21:40:44  *** rabidus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 959 2020-10-15T21:43:54  <sipa> if anyone gets this warning with gcc 9, it's a compiler bug (which just produces a bogus warning):
 960 2020-10-15T21:43:57  <sipa> src/ecmult_impl.h:496:48: warning: array subscript [1, 268435456] is outside array bounds of ‘struct secp256k1_strauss_point_state[1]’ [-Warray-bounds] 496 |             secp256k1_gej tmp = a[state->ps[np].input_pos];
 961 2020-10-15T21:59:28  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 962 2020-10-15T21:59:28  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #20159: test: mining_getblocktemplate_longpoll.py improvements (use MiniWallet, add logging) (master...20201015-test-improve-mining_getblocktemplate_longpoll) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20159
 963 2020-10-15T21:59:35  *** owowo has quit IRC
 964 2020-10-15T21:59:40  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 965 2020-10-15T22:04:17  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 966 2020-10-15T22:10:19  <luke-jr> btw, why do we use "org.bitcoinfoundation.Bitcoin-Qt" on macOS?
 967 2020-10-15T22:11:03  *** vasild has quit IRC
 968 2020-10-15T22:12:34  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 969 2020-10-15T22:14:05  <jb55> awkward
 970 2020-10-15T22:14:42  <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, iirc wasn't gavin the one signing the macos builds?
 971 2020-10-15T22:14:54  <phantomcircuit> probably just legacy from that
 972 2020-10-15T22:15:11  <sipa> i think changing it was brought up before, but would break compatibility with existing settings so wasn't done?
 973 2020-10-15T22:16:03  <sipa> (it's awkward that it was ever set to that - even when the foundation was actively sponsoring developers - but little that can be done about that now)
 974 2020-10-15T22:16:48  <luke-jr> sipa: it doesn't look like it would from the context :/
 975 2020-10-15T22:19:40  <sipa> there is some discussion about it in #17462
 976 2020-10-15T22:19:42  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17462 | build: macOS fix Info.plist by RandyMcMillan · Pull Request #17462 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 977 2020-10-15T22:22:34  *** promag_ is now known as promag
 978 2020-10-15T22:24:06  <promag> achow101: is there anything preventing swaping CWallet::database in runtime? so 1) load with bdb 2) swap database 3) write all ?
 979 2020-10-15T22:24:25  <promag> *swap to sqlite
 980 2020-10-15T22:24:35  <achow101> promag: you might end up missing a few records
 981 2020-10-15T22:24:41  <achow101> I'd definitely wouldn't recommend doing that
 982 2020-10-15T22:24:51  <promag> not all records are loaded ok
 983 2020-10-15T22:25:36  <achow101> promag: all records are loaded, it's just a matter of making sure that "write all" wrote them all
 984 2020-10-15T22:25:46  <achow101> there's no existing "write all"
 985 2020-10-15T22:25:58  <promag> oh ok
 986 2020-10-15T22:26:02  <luke-jr> all records might not be loaded
 987 2020-10-15T22:26:05  <luke-jr> IIRC moves don't
 988 2020-10-15T22:26:37  <achow101> there are some records that aren't loaded because they aren't useful, just kept around for back compat. obviously back compat doesn't matter if you move to sqlite
 989 2020-10-15T22:26:37  <phantomcircuit> sipa, iirc the foundation was paying for the certificate, something about it being easier for a "foundation" to get one than for an individual
 990 2020-10-15T22:26:56  <luke-jr> achow101: uh, pretty sure we still show them
 991 2020-10-15T22:27:16  <phantomcircuit> who knows if that was true or if it was pretextual though..
 992 2020-10-15T22:27:39  <achow101> luke-jr: no? I mean things like "default key" or the original "version"
 993 2020-10-15T22:27:47  <achow101> (version is now "minversion")
 994 2020-10-15T22:28:00  <promag> don't see a reason to remove load-bdb, that way the user could just send the funds to new wallet and we wouldn't have to do the migration tool
 995 2020-10-15T22:28:26  <achow101> The surefire way to migrate format is to grab a cursor on the original db, iterate it, and write every key/value pair in the new db
 996 2020-10-15T22:29:07  <luke-jr> achow101: well, I don't think moves get loaded either
 997 2020-10-15T22:29:35  <achow101> luke-jr: moves as in the old move rpc?
 998 2020-10-15T22:29:39  <luke-jr> yes
 999 2020-10-15T22:30:10  <achow101> I thought those records just got renamed and redefined for labels
1000 2020-10-15T22:30:22  <luke-jr> what?
1001 2020-10-15T22:30:26  <promag> bdb2sqlite.py incoming
1002 2020-10-15T22:30:39  <achow101> but also, that's for back compat, and if you are going to sqlite, back compat doesn't matter
1003 2020-10-15T22:30:56  <luke-jr> achow101: I would be annoyed if migrating my wallet lost data
1004 2020-10-15T22:31:16  <luke-jr> {"account": "a", "category": "move", "time": 1296345052, "amount": 0.00100000, "otheraccount": "b", "comment": ""},
1005 2020-10-15T22:31:25  <luke-jr> this shouldn't disappear from listtransactions just because I upgrade
1006 2020-10-15T22:31:28  <achow101> luke-jr: right, which is also why I prefer the straight record-to-record migration rather than what is loaded in CWallet
1007 2020-10-15T22:39:49  *** Livestradamus has quit IRC
1008 2020-10-15T22:39:49  *** IPGlider has quit IRC
1009 2020-10-15T22:40:55  *** Livestradamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1010 2020-10-15T22:41:04  *** IPGlider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1011 2020-10-15T22:47:08  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1012 2020-10-15T22:47:08  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #20161: Minor Taproot follow-ups (master...202010_taproot_followup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20161
1013 2020-10-15T22:47:10  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1014 2020-10-15T23:00:29  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1015 2020-10-15T23:18:39  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1016 2020-10-15T23:35:09  *** snex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1017 2020-10-15T23:35:11  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1018 2020-10-15T23:35:12  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #20162: p2p, compiler warnings: specify Announcement::m_state bitfield to be 8 bits (master...bitfield-too-small-warning) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20162
1019 2020-10-15T23:35:12  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1020 2020-10-15T23:35:40  *** snex has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1021 2020-10-15T23:36:33  <fanquake> Yea I’m fairly certain we can’t change that MacOS string without breaking something
1022 2020-10-15T23:40:27  *** fjahr_ is now known as fjahr
1023 2020-10-15T23:46:03  *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
1024 2020-10-15T23:47:55  *** _joerodgers has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1025 2020-10-15T23:52:09  *** joerodgers has quit IRC