12020-10-15T00:00:02 *** ermau has quit IRC
22020-10-15T00:00:17 *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
32020-10-15T00:00:28 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
42020-10-15T00:00:28 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c2c4dbaebd95...661fe5d65cc6
52020-10-15T00:00:29 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa1f6f2 MarcoFalke: net: Send post-verack handshake messages at most once
62020-10-15T00:00:29 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 661fe5d fanquake: Merge #20146: net: Send post-verack handshake messages at most once
72020-10-15T00:00:31 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
82020-10-15T00:00:45 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
92020-10-15T00:00:45 <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
102020-10-15T00:00:46 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
112020-10-15T00:03:56 *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
122020-10-15T00:05:34 *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132020-10-15T00:15:22 *** murray_ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
142020-10-15T00:15:48 *** murrayn has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152020-10-15T00:17:08 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
162020-10-15T00:22:09 *** zyga has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172020-10-15T00:23:14 *** promag has quit IRC
182020-10-15T00:23:26 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192020-10-15T00:39:16 *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
202020-10-15T00:39:44 *** molz_ has quit IRC
212020-10-15T00:41:00 *** gleb has quit IRC
222020-10-15T00:43:25 *** S3RK has quit IRC
232020-10-15T00:44:18 *** gleb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
242020-10-15T00:44:53 *** promag has quit IRC
252020-10-15T00:45:29 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
262020-10-15T00:49:25 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
272020-10-15T00:53:09 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
282020-10-15T01:07:59 *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
292020-10-15T01:11:25 *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302020-10-15T01:15:13 *** mol has quit IRC
312020-10-15T01:19:28 *** S3RK has quit IRC
322020-10-15T01:22:22 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
332020-10-15T01:22:22 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #20150: [0.19] Backports (0.19...more_019_backports) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20150
342020-10-15T01:22:23 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
352020-10-15T01:23:36 *** mol_ has quit IRC
362020-10-15T01:30:02 *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
372020-10-15T01:34:23 *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
382020-10-15T01:41:20 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
392020-10-15T01:43:26 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
402020-10-15T01:45:02 *** Eagle[TM] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
412020-10-15T01:47:00 *** EagleTM has quit IRC
422020-10-15T02:03:10 *** Livestradamus has quit IRC
432020-10-15T02:03:26 *** IPGlider has quit IRC
442020-10-15T02:15:39 *** IPGlider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452020-10-15T02:19:10 *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
462020-10-15T02:27:06 *** Livestradamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
472020-10-15T02:32:44 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
482020-10-15T02:37:03 *** andreacab has quit IRC
492020-10-15T02:37:05 *** glozow has quit IRC
502020-10-15T02:41:49 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has quit IRC
512020-10-15T02:45:42 *** troygiorshev has quit IRC
522020-10-15T02:46:30 *** troygiorshev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
532020-10-15T02:46:47 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
542020-10-15T02:50:17 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
552020-10-15T02:55:04 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has quit IRC
562020-10-15T03:00:01 *** zyga has quit IRC
572020-10-15T03:16:00 <fanquake> âï¸ feature freeze day âï¸
582020-10-15T03:17:14 <sipa> NOT YET
592020-10-15T03:18:57 <aj> sipa: it's thursday even in Honolulu, so i think fanquake is right
602020-10-15T03:19:32 <fanquake> meshcollider will surely tell us it's nearly over
612020-10-15T03:19:34 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
622020-10-15T03:22:07 <meshcollider> T minus 7hours
632020-10-15T03:22:15 <meshcollider> It's not over til I merge sqlite wallets!
642020-10-15T03:22:25 *** mol has quit IRC
652020-10-15T03:22:28 <meshcollider> And don't take that satisfaction away from me ;)
662020-10-15T03:23:52 <fanquake> heh. As long as you don't merge it in the next few minutes ð¥
672020-10-15T03:24:17 <meshcollider> Nah don't worry I don't have my key with me, it'll be a few hours til I'm home
682020-10-15T03:24:59 <meshcollider> I could just click the github "Merge" button and break everything though...
692020-10-15T03:25:23 <fanquake> ð¤ I'm about to rip out some non-endomorphison
702020-10-15T03:25:46 <meshcollider> ð
712020-10-15T03:26:24 <fanquake> Gotta love patents on multiplication
722020-10-15T03:29:15 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
732020-10-15T03:29:16 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/661fe5d65cc6...f2e6d1443013
742020-10-15T03:29:17 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 52380bf Pieter Wuille: Squashed 'src/secp256k1/' changes from 8ab24e8dad..c6b6b8f1bb
752020-10-15T03:29:18 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9e5626d Pieter Wuille: Update libsecp256k1 subtree to latest master
762020-10-15T03:29:19 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f2e6d14 fanquake: Merge #20147: Update libsecp256k1 (endomorphism, test improvements)
772020-10-15T03:29:20 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
782020-10-15T03:29:35 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
792020-10-15T03:29:36 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #20147: Update libsecp256k1 (endomorphism, test improvements) (master...202010_secp256k1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20147
802020-10-15T03:29:36 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
812020-10-15T03:29:37 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
822020-10-15T03:30:24 <sipa> \o/
832020-10-15T03:48:13 *** promag has quit IRC
842020-10-15T03:48:30 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
852020-10-15T03:53:10 *** promag has quit IRC
862020-10-15T03:53:45 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
872020-10-15T03:55:20 *** ferringb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
882020-10-15T04:01:16 *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
892020-10-15T04:10:13 *** balbirs has quit IRC
902020-10-15T04:10:45 *** balbirs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
912020-10-15T04:14:15 *** sr_gi has quit IRC
922020-10-15T04:14:45 *** sr_gi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
932020-10-15T04:18:53 <meshcollider> \o/
942020-10-15T04:32:09 *** dermoth_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
952020-10-15T04:32:28 *** dermoth has quit IRC
962020-10-15T04:32:30 *** dermoth_ is now known as dermoth
972020-10-15T04:38:03 *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
982020-10-15T04:42:13 *** mol has quit IRC
992020-10-15T04:44:11 *** flag has quit IRC
1002020-10-15T04:50:55 *** flag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1012020-10-15T04:55:46 *** rc_423_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1022020-10-15T04:56:05 *** rc_423 has quit IRC
1032020-10-15T05:16:26 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1042020-10-15T05:21:46 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1052020-10-15T05:22:03 *** mol_ has quit IRC
1062020-10-15T05:50:04 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1072020-10-15T05:56:38 *** S3RK has quit IRC
1082020-10-15T05:56:55 *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
1092020-10-15T05:57:10 *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102020-10-15T05:57:12 *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1112020-10-15T06:00:02 *** ferringb has quit IRC
1122020-10-15T06:02:55 *** S3RK has quit IRC
1132020-10-15T06:22:48 *** larsivi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142020-10-15T06:26:01 *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152020-10-15T06:30:39 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1162020-10-15T06:34:38 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172020-10-15T06:38:54 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1182020-10-15T06:46:34 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1192020-10-15T06:49:16 *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202020-10-15T06:59:15 *** promag has quit IRC
1212020-10-15T06:59:29 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222020-10-15T07:02:57 *** mrostecki has quit IRC
1232020-10-15T07:11:27 *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1242020-10-15T07:11:35 *** promag has quit IRC
1252020-10-15T07:12:10 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1262020-10-15T07:13:19 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1272020-10-15T07:13:19 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] meshcollider pushed 27 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f2e6d1443013...8ed37f6c8497
1282020-10-15T07:13:20 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 54729f3 Andrew Chow: Add libsqlite3
1292020-10-15T07:13:20 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e87df82 Andrew Chow: Add sqlite to travis and depends
1302020-10-15T07:13:21 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7577b6e Andrew Chow: Add SQLiteDatabase and SQLiteBatch dummy classes
1312020-10-15T07:13:22 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1322020-10-15T07:14:14 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332020-10-15T07:14:14 <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
1342020-10-15T07:14:15 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1352020-10-15T07:14:23 <aj> \o/
1362020-10-15T07:14:35 *** Ga1aCt1Cz00 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1372020-10-15T07:15:13 *** jesseposner has quit IRC
1382020-10-15T07:15:30 <meshcollider> achow101: ð¥³
1392020-10-15T07:16:53 *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has quit IRC
1402020-10-15T07:45:49 *** vincenzopalazzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1412020-10-15T07:46:40 *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1422020-10-15T07:47:03 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1432020-10-15T07:48:54 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1442020-10-15T07:56:20 *** promag has quit IRC
1452020-10-15T07:57:13 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1462020-10-15T07:57:50 *** jouke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1472020-10-15T08:03:36 *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1482020-10-15T08:07:36 *** S3RK has quit IRC
1492020-10-15T08:08:05 *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502020-10-15T08:13:23 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1512020-10-15T08:19:25 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1522020-10-15T08:23:19 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1532020-10-15T08:23:19 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 20 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8ed37f6c8497...3caee1694657
1542020-10-15T08:23:20 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f8c099e Pieter Wuille: --- [TAPROOT] Refactors ---
1552020-10-15T08:23:21 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 107b57d Pieter Wuille: scripted-diff: put ECDSA in name of signature functions
1562020-10-15T08:23:21 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8bd2b4e Pieter Wuille: refactor: rename scriptPubKey in VerifyWitnessProgram to exec_script
1572020-10-15T08:23:23 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1582020-10-15T08:23:38 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1592020-10-15T08:23:38 <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
1602020-10-15T08:23:40 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1612020-10-15T08:24:08 <sipa> \\\o///
1622020-10-15T08:25:06 <jonatack> boom \o/
1632020-10-15T08:30:29 <wumpus> \o/
1642020-10-15T08:30:57 * sipa does the tapdance
1652020-10-15T08:31:01 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1662020-10-15T08:31:06 <sipa> actually wait no, i can't dance
1672020-10-15T08:31:11 *** sdaftuar has quit IRC
1682020-10-15T08:31:36 *** sdaftuar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1692020-10-15T08:35:11 <wumpus> (don't let it being merged stop you from reviewing further if you were still in progress)
1702020-10-15T08:35:14 * wumpus neither
1712020-10-15T08:37:01 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722020-10-15T08:37:01 <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
1732020-10-15T08:37:02 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1742020-10-15T08:37:21 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752020-10-15T08:42:25 <sipa> what is the meeting topic command?
1762020-10-15T08:42:44 *** jonatack has quit IRC
1772020-10-15T08:43:06 <MarcoFalke> #proposedmeetingtopic
1782020-10-15T08:43:26 <MarcoFalke> Is there anything left to discuss, now that everything is merged?
1792020-10-15T08:44:19 <sipa> #proposedmeetingtopic taproot relay policy / activation on testnet/signet
1802020-10-15T08:47:01 *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
1812020-10-15T08:47:14 <wumpus> also wanted to get it merged so that other pre-0.21 PRs don't make it require rebase
1822020-10-15T08:47:26 <wumpus> with that many ACKs
1832020-10-15T08:51:53 *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
1842020-10-15T08:52:43 *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1852020-10-15T08:53:53 <MarcoFalke> Makes sense, and as the code is not active yet, it can still be changed freely
1862020-10-15T08:56:41 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1872020-10-15T08:56:42 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3caee1694657...3956165903cf
1882020-10-15T08:56:42 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6020ce3 Gregory Sanders: DecodeHexTx: Try case where txn has inputs first
1892020-10-15T08:56:43 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 27fc6a3 Gregory Sanders: DecodeHexTx: Break out transaction decoding logic into own function
1902020-10-15T08:56:43 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3956165 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #17775: DecodeHexTx: Try case where txn has inputs first
1912020-10-15T08:56:45 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1922020-10-15T08:58:11 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1932020-10-15T08:58:11 <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
1942020-10-15T08:58:12 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1952020-10-15T09:00:02 *** larsivi has quit IRC
1962020-10-15T09:07:45 *** jesseposner has quit IRC
1972020-10-15T09:10:13 <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
1982020-10-15T09:10:14 <kallewoof> master only.
1992020-10-15T09:11:29 <kallewoof> If people want to try out the actual real taproot activation mechanism for activation on signet, the story changes I guess.
2002020-10-15T09:12:10 <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
2012020-10-15T09:12:49 *** belcher has quit IRC
2022020-10-15T09:13:16 <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
2032020-10-15T09:13:37 <kallewoof> sipa: yeah, but p2p layer is affected... propagation can be delayed or fail unless one peer is a miner
2042020-10-15T09:14:13 <kallewoof> sipa: in pre-activation? i thought it policy-rejected
2052020-10-15T09:14:19 <sipa> kallewoof: no
2062020-10-15T09:15:01 <sipa> i think segwit had special rules about relay before activation, because it was also a p2p change
2072020-10-15T09:15:18 <kallewoof> ohh! i didn't realize that.
2082020-10-15T09:15:22 <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)
2092020-10-15T09:15:46 <aj> sipa: (probably no need for hard-forks in the taproot implementation now though so, whatevs)
2102020-10-15T09:15:52 *** S3RK has quit IRC
2112020-10-15T09:16:03 *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2122020-10-15T09:17:42 <sipa> the last softfork before that, CSV, was implemented & activated in the same release, 0.12.1
2132020-10-15T09:18:28 <sipa> but i think we should disable relay for networks which have no activation defined (i.e., all but regtest and maybe signet)
2142020-10-15T09:20:16 <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 workâ¢ï¸
2152020-10-15T09:21:32 *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162020-10-15T09:22:37 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2172020-10-15T09:27:43 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2182020-10-15T09:27:43 <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
2192020-10-15T09:27:44 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2202020-10-15T09:28:03 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2212020-10-15T09:28:03 <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
2222020-10-15T09:28:04 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2232020-10-15T09:28:52 <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..
2242020-10-15T09:30:27 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252020-10-15T09:30:27 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #19997: History for Taproot PR #19953 (master...taproot-history) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19997
2262020-10-15T09:30:28 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2272020-10-15T09:32:29 *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
2282020-10-15T09:33:37 *** S3RK has quit IRC
2292020-10-15T09:33:56 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2302020-10-15T09:37:37 *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2312020-10-15T09:38:16 *** jonatack has quit IRC
2322020-10-15T09:38:58 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has quit IRC
2332020-10-15T09:40:39 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342020-10-15T09:43:46 *** mol_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2352020-10-15T09:45:02 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2362020-10-15T09:45:03 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3956165903cf...e3b474c54866
2372020-10-15T09:45:03 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 883cea7 Pieter Wuille: Restore compatibility with old CSubNet serialization
2382020-10-15T09:45:04 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 886be97 Pieter Wuille: Ignore incorrectly-serialized banlist.dat entries
2392020-10-15T09:45:04 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e3b474c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20140: Restore compatibility with old CSubNet serialization
2402020-10-15T09:45:05 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
2412020-10-15T09:45:06 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2422020-10-15T09:45:22 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2432020-10-15T09:45:22 <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
2442020-10-15T09:45:23 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2452020-10-15T09:46:56 *** mol has quit IRC
2462020-10-15T09:47:32 *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
2472020-10-15T09:47:45 *** jonatack has quit IRC
2482020-10-15T09:50:03 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2492020-10-15T09:51:56 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2502020-10-15T09:51:56 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e3b474c54866...560dea9b26f7
2512020-10-15T09:51:57 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d681a28 Luke Dashjr: RPC: getpeerinfo: Deprecate "whitelisted" field (replaced by "permissions")
2522020-10-15T09:51:57 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5b57dc5 Luke Dashjr: RPC: getpeerinfo: Wrap long help line for bytesrecv_per_msg
2532020-10-15T09:51:58 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 560dea9 MarcoFalke: Merge #19770: RPC: getpeerinfo: Deprecate "whitelisted" field (replaced by...
2542020-10-15T09:51:59 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2552020-10-15T09:52:26 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2562020-10-15T09:52:26 <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
2572020-10-15T09:52:27 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2582020-10-15T09:56:03 *** BjarniRunar1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2592020-10-15T09:58:48 *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2602020-10-15T10:01:42 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2612020-10-15T10:01:43 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/560dea9b26f7...711ddce94377
2622020-10-15T10:01:43 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master faad92f MarcoFalke: test: Remove unused nVersion=1 in p2p tests
2632020-10-15T10:01:44 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 711ddce Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20131: test: Remove unused nVersion=1 in p2p tests
2642020-10-15T10:01:46 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2652020-10-15T10:02:02 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2662020-10-15T10:02:02 <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
2672020-10-15T10:02:03 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2682020-10-15T10:10:23 *** vasild has quit IRC
2692020-10-15T10:12:23 *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2702020-10-15T10:14:23 *** shesek has quit IRC
2712020-10-15T10:18:33 *** Coralie12Moscisk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2722020-10-15T10:23:50 *** jonatack has quit IRC
2732020-10-15T10:23:56 *** S3RK has quit IRC
2742020-10-15T10:24:29 *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2752020-10-15T10:25:56 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2762020-10-15T10:27:57 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2772020-10-15T10:28:24 *** csknk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2782020-10-15T11:31:23 *** lightningbot has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2792020-10-15T11:32:32 *** tralfaz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2802020-10-15T11:32:37 *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
2812020-10-15T11:32:37 *** davterra has quit IRC
2822020-10-15T11:32:49 *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2832020-10-15T11:33:35 *** S3RK has quit IRC
2842020-10-15T11:34:03 *** S3RK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2852020-10-15T11:35:38 *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2862020-10-15T11:35:55 *** Ga1aCt1Cz00 has quit IRC
2872020-10-15T11:37:53 *** Eagle[TM] has quit IRC
2882020-10-15T11:38:11 *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2892020-10-15T11:42:04 *** Ga1aCt1Cz00 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2902020-10-15T11:42:15 *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has quit IRC
2912020-10-15T11:54:56 *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2922020-10-15T11:55:33 *** Ga1aCt1Cz00 has quit IRC
2932020-10-15T11:59:59 *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has quit IRC
2942020-10-15T12:00:01 *** BjarniRunar1 has quit IRC
2952020-10-15T12:04:07 *** kristapsk___ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2962020-10-15T12:04:31 *** kristapsk_ has quit IRC
2972020-10-15T12:08:48 *** Ga1aCt1Cz00 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2982020-10-15T12:22:30 *** kerbyu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2992020-10-15T12:33:07 <jamesob> wow, big merge day. congrats sipa, achow101!
3002020-10-15T12:35:25 <elichai2> ð¥³ð¥³ð¥³ð¥³
3012020-10-15T12:38:22 *** Ga1aCt1Cz00_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3022020-10-15T12:39:53 *** Ga1aCt1Cz00 has quit IRC
3032020-10-15T12:46:35 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3042020-10-15T12:49:27 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3052020-10-15T12:49:27 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kallewoof opened pull request #20154: BIP-322 support (master...202010-bip322) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20154
3062020-10-15T12:49:28 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3072020-10-15T12:50:22 <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
3082020-10-15T12:52:07 *** willcl_ark is now known as [github-bot]
3092020-10-15T12:53:15 <hebasto> is #20120 rtm?
3102020-10-15T12:53:17 <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
3112020-10-15T12:54:59 <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)
3122020-10-15T12:55:16 <andytoshi> the new spec is bigger but i think will integrate much better with my descriptors library
3132020-10-15T12:55:30 *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3142020-10-15T12:56:00 <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
3152020-10-15T12:56:22 <kallewoof> andytoshi: cool to hear you're working on it. feedback and such super welcome :)
3162020-10-15T12:57:06 *** molz_ has quit IRC
3172020-10-15T12:57:16 <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
3182020-10-15T12:57:25 *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3192020-10-15T12:57:36 <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)
3202020-10-15T12:57:43 *** [github-bot] is now known as wilcl_ark
3212020-10-15T12:58:45 *** mol_ has quit IRC
3222020-10-15T13:00:34 <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..
3232020-10-15T13:01:29 <kallewoof> andytoshi: I'll revert that one now. Thanks for pointing it out
3242020-10-15T13:03:55 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3252020-10-15T13:05:03 <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)
3262020-10-15T13:05:18 <andytoshi> you sorta have to know this now, in choosing whether to use an OP_TRUE descriptor or a "real" one
3272020-10-15T13:05:40 *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3282020-10-15T13:06:12 <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.
3292020-10-15T13:06:58 <luke-jr> oh blah, sqlite isn't optional? :/
3302020-10-15T13:07:25 *** Exho has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3312020-10-15T13:08:41 * MarcoFalke updates all build scripts to install sqlite-dev
3322020-10-15T13:09:17 <MarcoFalke> This is probably the first time a dependecy has been added in years. Others were only removals.
3332020-10-15T13:09:52 * luke-jr begins on a PR to fix it optional
3342020-10-15T13:10:37 *** jesseposner has quit IRC
3352020-10-15T13:18:44 * 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.
3362020-10-15T13:20:56 *** luke-jr has quit IRC
3372020-10-15T13:21:18 *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3382020-10-15T13:26:51 *** tralfaz is now known as davterra
3392020-10-15T13:28:58 <andytoshi> kallewoof: sounds good, hopefully i'll have some test vectors in the next 6-8 hours we can compare
3402020-10-15T13:29:28 <kallewoof> andytoshi: nice!
3412020-10-15T13:29:44 *** harrigan has quit IRC
3422020-10-15T13:30:26 *** kerbyu has quit IRC
3432020-10-15T13:31:32 *** jonatack has quit IRC
3442020-10-15T13:31:38 *** doomas has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3452020-10-15T13:31:39 *** harrigan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3462020-10-15T13:33:00 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3472020-10-15T13:33:00 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3482020-10-15T13:33:34 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3492020-10-15T13:36:03 *** molz_ has quit IRC
3502020-10-15T13:38:55 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3512020-10-15T13:45:51 *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3522020-10-15T13:45:52 *** glozow has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3532020-10-15T13:53:46 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3542020-10-15T13:53:46 <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
3552020-10-15T13:53:47 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3562020-10-15T14:06:16 *** vincenzopalazzo has quit IRC
3572020-10-15T14:11:32 *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3582020-10-15T14:12:46 *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
3592020-10-15T14:16:14 *** promag has quit IRC
3602020-10-15T14:16:18 <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.
3612020-10-15T14:16:30 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3622020-10-15T14:16:44 *** davterra has quit IRC
3632020-10-15T14:16:57 *** davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3642020-10-15T14:18:03 <jamesob> s/compilation/link & ar time
3652020-10-15T14:24:14 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3662020-10-15T14:31:27 *** promag has quit IRC
3672020-10-15T14:32:03 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3682020-10-15T14:34:30 *** promag has quit IRC
3692020-10-15T14:34:31 <yanmaani> jamesob: yeah, me too
3702020-10-15T14:34:34 <yanmaani> what OS?
3712020-10-15T14:34:43 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3722020-10-15T14:34:59 <jamesob> Linux slug 4.19.0-10-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.19.132-1 (2020-07-24) x86_64 GNU/Linux
3732020-10-15T14:35:00 <yanmaani> I use gcc 8.3.0 @ debian (devuan)
3742020-10-15T14:35:02 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1 | JSON-RPC support for mobile devices ("ultra-lightweight" clients) · Issue #1 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3752020-10-15T14:35:19 <jamesob> I get it when compiling with gcc or clang; I think it's an issue with ld/ar
3762020-10-15T14:35:50 <yanmaani> Linux hostname 4.19.0-10-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.19.132-1 (2020-07-24) x86_64 GNU/Linux
3772020-10-15T14:35:52 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1 | JSON-RPC support for mobile devices ("ultra-lightweight" clients) · Issue #1 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3782020-10-15T14:35:55 <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?
3792020-10-15T14:36:13 <yanmaani> promag: you may be interested in overlayfs
3802020-10-15T14:36:22 <yanmaani> or just some caching setup
3812020-10-15T14:37:13 <luke-jr> promag: probably
3822020-10-15T14:37:22 <promag> yanmaani: yes, I though about that, but then in instead of prunning it would move blocks the the other place
3832020-10-15T14:37:28 <luke-jr> promag: needs some thought, though, as it also makes sense to move them automatically
3842020-10-15T14:37:38 <promag> luke-jr: right
3852020-10-15T14:37:59 <yanmaani> uh, how are you going to automatically move blocks to a RO fs?
3862020-10-15T14:38:04 <luke-jr> FWIW Signet may be broken on master since it lacks Taproot activation params
3872020-10-15T14:38:40 <promag> yanmaani: no, I mean RO as in bitcoind doesn't writes new blocks there
3882020-10-15T14:38:44 <yanmaani> the simple solution is to have a cronjob that checks mtime/ctime and moves+symlinks them
3892020-10-15T14:38:48 <yanmaani> oh, not a RO fs
3902020-10-15T14:38:56 <yanmaani> just do overlayfs or something IMO
3912020-10-15T14:39:04 <promag> not ro fs, "RO" -blocksdir
3922020-10-15T14:40:04 <promag> yanmaani: I understand this can be overcome out of bitcoind, but the idea would be to add a -prunestrategy=archive for instance
3932020-10-15T14:40:27 <luke-jr> yanmaani: for example, it can be an external drive you unplug when you leave home
3942020-10-15T14:40:28 <promag> just a thought..
3952020-10-15T14:41:01 <luke-jr> and blocks would just not prune-to-slow-storage while you're away from home
3962020-10-15T14:41:05 <luke-jr> when you get back, then they move
3972020-10-15T14:41:12 <yanmaani> luke-jr: But then you have a problem when you start bitcoind in such cases, no?
3982020-10-15T14:41:17 <promag> luke-jr: exactly
3992020-10-15T14:41:23 <luke-jr> and if you need to use (eg) a rescan RPC, you plug in the drive
4002020-10-15T14:41:30 <promag> it can be copy first, then delete old
4012020-10-15T14:41:31 <luke-jr> yanmaani: that's exactly what this would avoid
4022020-10-15T14:42:01 <yanmaani> I guess if you have the DB, yeah. Couldn't it just ignore missing blocks until they're needed?
4032020-10-15T14:42:13 <promag> yup
4042020-10-15T14:42:14 <yanmaani> so you can do whatever you want and bitcoind will just deal with it
4052020-10-15T14:42:24 <promag> this might interact with assumeutxo cc jamesob
4062020-10-15T14:42:26 <yanmaani> instead of re-implementing overlayfs in bitcoin core
4072020-10-15T14:43:08 <promag> yanmaani: overlayfs is cool if you dont care where each file is stored
4082020-10-15T14:43:27 <promag> and it's platform dependant
4092020-10-15T14:43:36 <yanmaani> you can move them around by yourself though
4102020-10-15T14:43:45 <yanmaani> or just set a cronjob to move+symlink
4112020-10-15T14:44:09 <promag> yes I could
4122020-10-15T14:44:28 <promag> or have it automatic
4132020-10-15T14:44:34 <jamesob> promag: should be compatible with assumeutxo since blocksdir access is largely unchanged; blocks have always come out of order anyway
4142020-10-15T14:45:00 <jamesob> well... not always, but for a while :)
4152020-10-15T14:45:39 *** Mercury_Vapor has quit IRC
4162020-10-15T14:45:43 <promag> jamesob: but what happens if you have to validate and a block isn't there?
4172020-10-15T14:46:44 <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
4182020-10-15T14:47:10 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4192020-10-15T14:47:10 <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
4202020-10-15T14:47:12 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4212020-10-15T14:47:59 <provoostenator> I'd like to nominate https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/96 for v0.21 too
4222020-10-15T14:48:26 <provoostenator> Also note it's impossible to create an unnamed wallet with the GUI atm
4232020-10-15T14:49:10 <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
4242020-10-15T14:49:48 <promag> jamesob: but if blocks are available locally then this is not required right?
4252020-10-15T14:50:06 <promag> "this" as in ibd
4262020-10-15T14:50:38 <jamesob> promag: ibd is still required to make sure that the blocks on disk render into the utxo set that you expect
4272020-10-15T14:51:13 <jamesob> I guess that'd be more like a reindex
4282020-10-15T14:52:22 <promag> thanks jamesob
4292020-10-15T14:52:53 <jamesob> sure thing
4302020-10-15T14:52:57 *** Mercury_Vapor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4312020-10-15T15:00:01 *** doomas has quit IRC
4322020-10-15T15:01:56 <jamesob> man it is now amazingly hard to replicate the slew of CI errors locally
4332020-10-15T15:03:39 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4342020-10-15T15:04:06 <sdaftuar> i thought it was a video game where you keep clicking the re-run button til it passes?
4352020-10-15T15:04:11 * sdaftuar ducks
4362020-10-15T15:05:01 <promag> sdaftuar: like go away pls
4372020-10-15T15:06:02 <promag> luke-jr: another approach would be -prunedir which if set it would move there instead of deleting
4382020-10-15T15:06:46 *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4392020-10-15T15:06:59 <luke-jr> promag: keep in mind it may be desirable to actually prune too
4402020-10-15T15:07:11 <luke-jr> promag: eg, keep blocks with your own txs in them in storage, but prune everything else
4412020-10-15T15:08:15 <promag> that requires to have wallets loaded
4422020-10-15T15:08:39 <luke-jr> not necessarily (see prune locks)
4432020-10-15T15:09:41 <promag> ah you mean #19463
4442020-10-15T15:09:44 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19463 | Prune locks by luke-jr · Pull Request #19463 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4452020-10-15T15:10:13 <luke-jr> promag: anyway, my point is it probably shouldn't literally hijack the pruning logic
4462020-10-15T15:10:21 <luke-jr> it is fundamentally different
4472020-10-15T15:10:35 <promag> don't want to change the logic
4482020-10-15T15:10:46 <promag> just want to s/delete/move
4492020-10-15T15:12:00 *** jesseposner has quit IRC
4502020-10-15T15:14:22 *** Emcy has quit IRC
4512020-10-15T15:15:03 *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4522020-10-15T15:22:25 *** gonemad3 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4532020-10-15T15:28:05 <luke-jr> #proposedmeetingtopic Getting BIP 8 logic in before freeze
4542020-10-15T15:28:05 <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
4552020-10-15T15:28:07 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11394 | Perform a weaker subtree check in Travis by sipa · Pull Request #11394 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4562020-10-15T15:29:50 *** kabaum has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4572020-10-15T15:44:48 *** kristapsk___ is now known as kristapsk
4582020-10-15T15:45:22 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4592020-10-15T15:45:22 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 6 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/711ddce94377...0d2248235375
4602020-10-15T15:45:23 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6df7882 Jon Atack: net: add peer network to CNodeStats
4612020-10-15T15:45:23 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4938a10 Jon Atack: rpc, test: expose CNodeStats network in RPC getpeerinfo
4622020-10-15T15:45:24 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5133fab Jon Atack: cli: simplify -netinfo using getpeerinfo network field
4632020-10-15T15:45:25 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4642020-10-15T15:45:42 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4652020-10-15T15:45:42 <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
4662020-10-15T15:45:44 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4672020-10-15T15:51:03 *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4682020-10-15T15:51:44 *** andreacab has quit IRC
4692020-10-15T15:52:18 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4702020-10-15T15:55:06 *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4712020-10-15T16:04:10 *** andreacab has quit IRC
4722020-10-15T16:04:35 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4732020-10-15T16:13:27 *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4742020-10-15T16:15:24 *** jesseposner has quit IRC
4752020-10-15T16:17:47 *** da39a3ee5e6b4b0d has quit IRC
4762020-10-15T16:21:20 *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4772020-10-15T16:22:11 <hebasto> provoostenator: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/96
4782020-10-15T16:22:29 <hebasto> provoostenator: agree about 0.21
4792020-10-15T16:47:04 *** andreacab has quit IRC
4802020-10-15T16:47:30 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4812020-10-15T16:50:16 *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4822020-10-15T16:51:40 *** andreacab has quit IRC
4832020-10-15T16:52:27 *** ossifrage has quit IRC
4842020-10-15T17:15:30 <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
4852020-10-15T17:38:01 *** davec has quit IRC
4862020-10-15T17:42:06 *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4872020-10-15T17:57:43 *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
4882020-10-15T17:58:28 <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
4892020-10-15T17:58:30 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16546 | External signer support - Wallet Box edition by Sjors · Pull Request #16546 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4902020-10-15T17:58:55 <provoostenator> That said, it now works with Sqlite!
4912020-10-15T17:59:07 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
4922020-10-15T18:00:02 *** gonemad3 has quit IRC
4932020-10-15T18:02:09 *** Cory has quit IRC
4942020-10-15T18:05:47 *** kristapsk has quit IRC
4952020-10-15T18:06:10 *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4962020-10-15T18:06:44 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4972020-10-15T18:09:21 *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4982020-10-15T18:16:36 *** joerodgers has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4992020-10-15T18:20:30 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5002020-10-15T18:20:30 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 8 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0d2248235375...9855422e65ca
5012020-10-15T18:20:30 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 567008d Hennadii Stepanov: p2p: Add DumpAnchors()
5022020-10-15T18:20:31 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c29272a Hennadii Stepanov: p2p: Add ReadAnchors()
5032020-10-15T18:20:31 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bad16af Hennadii Stepanov: p2p: Add CConnman::GetCurrentBlockRelayOnlyConns()
5042020-10-15T18:20:32 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5052020-10-15T18:21:38 *** Lthere has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5062020-10-15T18:22:15 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5072020-10-15T18:22:15 <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
5082020-10-15T18:22:16 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5092020-10-15T18:26:48 <phantomcircuit> sipa, can an attacker with access to the private key generate two signatures from the same private key for the same message?
5102020-10-15T18:26:53 <phantomcircuit> with schnorr signatures?
5112020-10-15T18:27:21 <phantomcircuit> i assume so
5122020-10-15T18:27:26 <sipa> generally you don't call someone with a private key an attacker ;)
5132020-10-15T18:27:43 <sdaftuar> "signer"
5142020-10-15T18:27:44 <sipa> but yes - the term you're looking for (i think) is a "unique signature", and no EC based signature schemes are
5152020-10-15T18:27:51 <phantomcircuit> sipa, if they're trying to abuse poorly written wallet software they are :P
5162020-10-15T18:27:59 <sdaftuar> "user"
5172020-10-15T18:28:07 <phantomcircuit> that's what i thought
5182020-10-15T18:28:23 <phantomcircuit> it's still an attacker... just not of the signature scheme itself
5192020-10-15T18:28:26 <jeremyrubin> I think phantomcircuit is more asking if a signing oracle will ever generate different signatures for same msg
5202020-10-15T18:28:52 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5212020-10-15T18:28:52 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dongcarl opened pull request #20158: tree-wide: De-globalize ChainstateManager (master...2020-06-libbitcoinruntime) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20158
5222020-10-15T18:28:53 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5232020-10-15T18:28:58 <sipa> phantomcircuit: to be clear, the bip340 signing algorithm is deterministic if no auxiliary randomness is used
5242020-10-15T18:29:08 <phantomcircuit> jeremyrubin, not if they will, but if they can, which sipa has answered
5252020-10-15T18:29:17 <sipa> but nobody is required (or can be verified to) follow that algorithm
5262020-10-15T18:29:35 <phantomcircuit> sipa, yeah i understand now, i was confused by the bip340 language about malleability
5272020-10-15T18:30:02 <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)
5282020-10-15T18:30:03 <phantomcircuit> i thought that my original reading was unlikely so im here asking :)
5292020-10-15T18:30:31 <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
5302020-10-15T18:30:57 <phantomcircuit> sipa, indeed cause then you could validate a transaction that is then rejected by block validation, would be a nasty issue
5312020-10-15T18:32:37 <sipa> in ed25519 land, this property clearly does not hold: https://hdevalence.ca/blog/2020-10-04-its-25519am
5322020-10-15T18:33:12 *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5332020-10-15T18:33:13 <sipa> and it's trivial to make signatures (with private key) that validate in some implementations and not others, with tons of variants
5342020-10-15T18:34:55 <phantomcircuit> sipa, for most signature scheme use the cost of rejecting a signature that would be valid elsewhere is typically zero
5352020-10-15T18:35:11 <phantomcircuit> this is a sort of unique case in which everybody has to actually 100% agree
5362020-10-15T18:37:55 <phantomcircuit> sipa, do you know ballpark how many signatures are in a typical 'full' block right now?
5372020-10-15T18:40:28 <sipa> around 6000 txins per block, and i assume only a fraction have more than one signature
5382020-10-15T18:42:09 <jeremyrubin> #proposedmeetingtopic small announcement on behalf of BGIN
5392020-10-15T18:46:36 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5402020-10-15T18:46:37 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9855422e65ca...9ad7cd2887ab
5412020-10-15T18:46:37 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3069b56 Amiti Uttarwar: [doc] Improve help for getpeerinfo connection_type field.
5422020-10-15T18:46:38 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 41dca08 Amiti Uttarwar: [trivial] Extract connection type doc into file where it is used.
5432020-10-15T18:46:39 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9ad7cd2 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20090: [doc] Tiny followups to new getpeerinfo connection type fiel...
5442020-10-15T18:46:40 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5452020-10-15T18:46:56 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5462020-10-15T18:46:56 <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
5472020-10-15T18:46:57 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5482020-10-15T18:49:40 *** lightlike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5492020-10-15T18:50:57 *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
5502020-10-15T18:58:10 *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5512020-10-15T18:59:32 *** promag_ has quit IRC
5522020-10-15T19:00:15 *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5532020-10-15T19:00:27 <wumpus> #startmeeting
5542020-10-15T19:00:27 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Oct 15 19:00:27 2020 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
5552020-10-15T19:00:27 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
5562020-10-15T19:00:28 <provoostenator> hi
5572020-10-15T19:00:30 *** promag has quit IRC
5582020-10-15T19:00:32 <emzy> hi
5592020-10-15T19:00:37 <hebasto> hi
5602020-10-15T19:00:39 <jnewbery> hi
5612020-10-15T19:00:49 <luke-jr> hi
5622020-10-15T19:00:54 <kanzure> hi
5632020-10-15T19:00:57 *** promag_ is now known as promag
5642020-10-15T19:01:05 <promag> hi
5652020-10-15T19:01:06 *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5662020-10-15T19:01:10 <wumpus> two proposed topics taproot relay policy / activation on testnet/signet (sipa), Getting BIP 8 logic in before freeze (luke-jr)
5672020-10-15T19:01:26 <luke-jr> wumpus: there was a third by jeremyrubin O.o
5682020-10-15T19:01:33 <luke-jr> [18:42:09] <jeremyrubin> #proposedmeetingtopic small announcement on behalf of BGIN
5692020-10-15T19:01:33 <jonatack> hi
5702020-10-15T19:02:03 <elichai2> hi
5712020-10-15T19:02:06 <wumpus> PSA today is the feature freeze for 0.21, it seems we managed to merge all the features on the milestone
5722020-10-15T19:02:12 <wumpus> luke-jr: strange, didn't see it in http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/proposedmeetingtopics.txt
5732020-10-15T19:02:18 <luke-jr> wumpus: thought it was tomorrow? :x
5742020-10-15T19:02:20 <provoostenator> Note that the GUI repo doesn't have a milestone
5752020-10-15T19:02:43 <MarcoFalke> provoostenator: Right. Is there any feature we missed from the GUI?
5762020-10-15T19:02:52 <MarcoFalke> bugfixes can go in any time
5772020-10-15T19:02:57 <luke-jr> [16:22:11] <hebasto> provoostenator: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/96
5782020-10-15T19:02:59 <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
5792020-10-15T19:03:19 <wumpus> provoostenator: good point, didn't look at the gui repo at all
5802020-10-15T19:03:24 <luke-jr> wumpus: would be nice to get some of BIP 8 in, so there's less backported with activation
5812020-10-15T19:03:24 <MarcoFalke> We still have 14 days to find and fix all bugs
5822020-10-15T19:04:01 <luke-jr> but I'll save that for the dedicated topic
5832020-10-15T19:04:08 <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
5842020-10-15T19:04:26 <wumpus> (except for the GUI one apparently, if it's ready for merge it should go in)
5852020-10-15T19:04:38 <luke-jr> wumpus: doesn't mean much when only a few people can edit tags :/
5862020-10-15T19:05:00 <wumpus> luke-jr: the idea is that things get proposed for the milestone in meetings, or in the channel at least
5872020-10-15T19:05:08 <dongcarl> hi
5882020-10-15T19:05:30 <luke-jr> oh well, BIP 8 isn't strictly feature anyway
5892020-10-15T19:05:33 <fjahr_> hi
5902020-10-15T19:06:01 <wumpus> #topic Pending bugfixes for 0.21
5912020-10-15T19:06:47 <wumpus> any bugfixes that we should get in for the release missing on the milestone?
5922020-10-15T19:07:14 <jonatack> i'd propose 20120, 20115, 19961, and maybe 19874
5932020-10-15T19:07:15 <luke-jr> I found #20157, not sure how important it is
5942020-10-15T19:07:16 <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
5952020-10-15T19:07:37 <sipa> luke-jr: should definitely be fixed before release
5962020-10-15T19:07:42 <sipa> #20120
5972020-10-15T19:07:44 <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
5982020-10-15T19:07:45 <luke-jr> > #20120, #20115, #19961, and maybe #19874
5992020-10-15T19:07:45 <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
6002020-10-15T19:07:46 <jonatack> plus the upcoming fix for #19543
6012020-10-15T19:07:47 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20115 | cli: -netinfo quick updates/fixups and release note by jonatack · Pull Request #20115 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6022020-10-15T19:07:49 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19961 | doc: tor.md updates by jonatack · Pull Request #19961 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6032020-10-15T19:07:50 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19874 | cli, bugfix: degrade -getinfo gracefully for older servers by jonatack · Pull Request #19874 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6042020-10-15T19:07:51 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19543 | Normalize fee units for RPC ("BTC/kB" and "sat/B) · Issue #19543 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6052020-10-15T19:08:09 <hebasto> #20080 or #19933
6062020-10-15T19:08:11 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20080 | Strip any trailing `/` in -datadir path by hebasto · Pull Request #20080 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6072020-10-15T19:08:14 <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
6082020-10-15T19:08:41 <luke-jr> oh yes, one of those are important to get in âº
6092020-10-15T19:08:51 <wumpus> jonatack: i'm not convinced #19874 is really a bugfix
6102020-10-15T19:08:53 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19874 | cli, bugfix: degrade -getinfo gracefully for older servers by jonatack · Pull Request #19874 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6112020-10-15T19:09:17 <luke-jr> afaik -getinfo has never worked with old servers gracefully
6122020-10-15T19:09:21 <ariard> hi
6132020-10-15T19:09:23 <jonatack> agree that it's optional. the doc/tor.md is still in draft but will open v soon
6142020-10-15T19:09:47 <sipa> i think documentation improvements can be done after feature freeze
6152020-10-15T19:09:58 <MarcoFalke> tests and docs can go in any time
6162020-10-15T19:10:07 <jonatack> sipa: agree, i held off on those to get the features in
6172020-10-15T19:11:31 <provoostenator> #18788 would be good tests to add
6182020-10-15T19:11:34 <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
6192020-10-15T19:11:56 <wumpus> 19543 was already tagged
6202020-10-15T19:12:18 <luke-jr> oh, did achow101 want to make descriptor wallets tied to sqlite? where does that stand?
6212020-10-15T19:12:28 <luke-jr> #20156 is IMO a bugfix
6222020-10-15T19:12:30 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20156 | Make sqlite support optional (compile-time) by luke-jr · Pull Request #20156 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6232020-10-15T19:12:37 <provoostenator> luke-jr: that's already merged
6242020-10-15T19:12:40 <wumpus> yes, that was his plan, to make it clearer that those are two different wallet formats
6252020-10-15T19:12:57 <meshcollider> Please can we decide which of 19933 and 20080 we want to keep and which one to close?
6262020-10-15T19:13:03 <luke-jr> provoostenator: tying the two together is?
6272020-10-15T19:13:07 <wumpus> luke-jr: i think 'return a null in a field' is graceful enough, it just shouldn't crash
6282020-10-15T19:13:09 <MarcoFalke> I like #20080
6292020-10-15T19:13:11 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20080 | Strip any trailing `/` in -datadir path by hebasto · Pull Request #20080 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6302020-10-15T19:13:20 <provoostenator> luke-jr: descriptor == sqlite for new wallet yes
6312020-10-15T19:13:25 <provoostenator> see my comment as well
6322020-10-15T19:13:33 <promag> +1 #20080
6332020-10-15T19:13:35 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20080 | Strip any trailing `/` in -datadir path by hebasto · Pull Request #20080 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6342020-10-15T19:13:42 <provoostenator> Unless achow101 changed his mind about that, but I think that was the point of getting it in before release
6352020-10-15T19:13:44 <wumpus> 20080 was already tagged right
6362020-10-15T19:13:46 <MarcoFalke> I promise to test 20080 soon
6372020-10-15T19:13:51 <wumpus> please don't repeat things
6382020-10-15T19:13:56 <luke-jr> wumpus: 'return a null in a field' ?
6392020-10-15T19:14:16 <wumpus> I'm having a lot of trouble keeping track of PRs mentioned here to add them to the milestone
6402020-10-15T19:14:21 <luke-jr> oh, for -getinfo; sure; or just an error even
6412020-10-15T19:14:25 <wumpus> luke-jr: yes
6422020-10-15T19:14:37 <meshcollider> Alright 20080 it is, I'll close 19933
6432020-10-15T19:15:09 <wumpus> meshcollider: yes makes sense
6442020-10-15T19:16:14 <wumpus> I think I've tagged everything mentioned, if not, please let me know
6452020-10-15T19:16:57 <promag> wumpus: maybe #20125
6462020-10-15T19:16:59 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20125 | rpc, wallet: Expose database format in getwalletinfo by promag · Pull Request #20125 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6472020-10-15T19:17:26 <luke-jr> 20080 should get 0.19.x and 0.20.x tags too I think
6482020-10-15T19:17:30 <wumpus> promag: sounds like a feature to me
6492020-10-15T19:17:49 <MarcoFalke> luke-jr: It already has
6502020-10-15T19:17:55 <wumpus> (though maybe a necessary one, I don't' know)
6512020-10-15T19:17:57 <luke-jr> o
6522020-10-15T19:17:57 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6532020-10-15T19:17:58 <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
6542020-10-15T19:18:08 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
6552020-10-15T19:18:14 <jonatack> agree with promag about 20125
6562020-10-15T19:18:18 <wumpus> luke-jr: let's discuss the 0.21 milestone now not other ones
6572020-10-15T19:18:36 *** belcher has quit IRC
6582020-10-15T19:19:09 <wumpus> ok adding 20125...
6592020-10-15T19:19:14 <promag> wumpus: not really... just adds "format" key to the rpc response
6602020-10-15T19:19:27 *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6612020-10-15T19:19:28 <wumpus> well it's not a bugfix at least
6622020-10-15T19:19:36 <wumpus> but I don't care it seems minimal enough
6632020-10-15T19:19:52 <promag> wumpus: right
6642020-10-15T19:20:43 <wumpus> that concludes the topic I guess
6652020-10-15T19:20:53 <luke-jr> I'm not sure it makes sense to expose that detail, but meh
6662020-10-15T19:21:06 <wumpus> #topic taproot relay policy / activation on testnet/signet (sipa)
6672020-10-15T19:21:18 <sipa> hi
6682020-10-15T19:21:31 <wumpus> luke-jr: especially if it's linked to descriptor wallets it seems a bit redundant, but yeah...
6692020-10-15T19:21:32 <promag> luke-jr: could still be rejected ;)
6702020-10-15T19:21:41 <sipa> there are a few aspects here
6712020-10-15T19:21:50 <wumpus> if it's useful for troubleshooting/diagnosis it should be in
6722020-10-15T19:22:12 <sipa> one is relay of v1 transaction outputs; bitcoin core will do that since #15846
6732020-10-15T19:22:15 <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
6742020-10-15T19:22:54 <sipa> but since the merge of #19953, we'll also relay spends of (valid) taproot outputs
6752020-10-15T19:22:57 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19953 | Implement BIP 340-342 validation (Schnorr/taproot/tapscript) by sipa · Pull Request #19953 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6762020-10-15T19:23:09 <sipa> i think that's undesirable, at least until activation is defined, or even until actually activated
6772020-10-15T19:23:44 * luke-jr did suggest splitting that out of the PR a few months ago :P
6782020-10-15T19:24:07 <sipa> luke-jr: well, we do want it on regtest
6792020-10-15T19:24:24 <luke-jr> regtest supports acceptnonstdtxn, but ok
6802020-10-15T19:26:03 <sipa> talking to sdaftuar a bit, i think we should just reject creation and spending of v1 outputs until taproot is _active_
6812020-10-15T19:26:17 <sipa> as a policy rule (not through script validation, which is more invasive)
6822020-10-15T19:27:16 <sipa> or at least creation as soon as an activation is defined
6832020-10-15T19:27:36 <sipa> (so that the behavior on mainnet before an activation is defined is essentially as if it didn't exist at all)
6842020-10-15T19:28:06 <sipa> i can open a PR/issue and discuss further there
6852020-10-15T19:28:30 <sipa> but i wanted to bring this up, as it may be unexpected that master is now doing taproot validation on the mempool
6862020-10-15T19:28:43 <wumpus> I think that makes sense, to do that as a policy rule
6872020-10-15T19:28:59 <MarcoFalke> so the spends would be valid taproot spends (with witness) only?
6882020-10-15T19:29:28 <sipa> so right now: all v1 creation is relayed, v1 spends are relayed only if valid according to taproot rules
6892020-10-15T19:29:52 <ariard> is there any disadvantage of doing this?
6902020-10-15T19:30:20 <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
6912020-10-15T19:30:23 *** ossifrage has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6922020-10-15T19:30:40 <provoostenator> Why not always relay?
6932020-10-15T19:31:02 <MarcoFalke> provoostenator: Someone will give away their coins, surely
6942020-10-15T19:31:03 <provoostenator> Doesn't seem ideal to have a bunch of nodes out there not relaying v1 transactions.
6952020-10-15T19:31:23 <sipa> provoostenator: they'd all start relaying as soon as activation happens
6962020-10-15T19:31:31 <sipa> before that point, we don't care
6972020-10-15T19:31:59 *** jesseposner has quit IRC
6982020-10-15T19:32:03 <ariard> sipa: so you want to hardcode the loosening policy change based on the consensus activation IIRC ?
6992020-10-15T19:32:07 <luke-jr> well, activation isn't in 0.21.0, so not these
7002020-10-15T19:32:38 <sipa> luke-jr: indeed, the only effect on 0.21.0 would be making spending of v1 non relayed
7012020-10-15T19:32:50 <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'
7022020-10-15T19:33:31 <provoostenator> Did we relay v1 to/from transactions before taproot was merged?
7032020-10-15T19:33:37 <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)
7042020-10-15T19:33:41 <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
7052020-10-15T19:34:16 <sipa> maybe this is a simpler principle: before activation is _defined_, behavior should be identical to before taproot was merged
7062020-10-15T19:34:21 <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?
7072020-10-15T19:34:43 <jeremyrubin> aj: i thought we checked outputs standardness?
7082020-10-15T19:35:02 <jnewbery> sipa aj: thanks
7092020-10-15T19:35:10 <aj> jeremyrubin: 15846
7102020-10-15T19:35:12 <luke-jr> aj: the spend we make harder, may be a theft
7112020-10-15T19:35:20 <luke-jr> you can't steal if you can't spend
7122020-10-15T19:35:22 <jeremyrubin> #15846
7132020-10-15T19:35:24 <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
7142020-10-15T19:35:41 <aj> luke-jr: prior to activation miners can spend trivially
7152020-10-15T19:35:58 <luke-jr> aj: miners don't rely on others' policy
7162020-10-15T19:36:11 <sipa> aj: my suggestion is that relay of creation and spending only differs before activation is defined... to match pre-taproot-implemented behavior
7172020-10-15T19:36:27 <sipa> after activation is defined, both are disallowed until it is actually active
7182020-10-15T19:36:29 *** Talkless has quit IRC
7192020-10-15T19:37:45 <luke-jr> (OT: wumpus: #19502 should probably get milestoned)
7202020-10-15T19:37:47 <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
7212020-10-15T19:37:51 <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
7222020-10-15T19:38:09 <wumpus> luke-jr: ok
7232020-10-15T19:38:24 <jeremyrubin> has that been reverted though somehow?
7242020-10-15T19:38:33 <sipa> jeremyrubin: what?
7252020-10-15T19:38:42 <jeremyrubin> looking at the current code and I'm not seeing that logic still
7262020-10-15T19:38:46 <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
7272020-10-15T19:39:36 <jeremyrubin> Ah
7282020-10-15T19:39:39 <jeremyrubin> it went into Solver
7292020-10-15T19:39:51 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7302020-10-15T19:40:35 <sipa> aj: i think permitting spends right now is bad... it's just gratuitous policy difference between 0.21 and pre-0.21 nodes
7312020-10-15T19:40:54 <sipa> the extra rule for suspending relay of outputs is user protection before activation
7322020-10-15T19:41:07 <sipa> anyway, will open an issue
7332020-10-15T19:41:08 <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)
7342020-10-15T19:41:21 <wumpus> 20 minutes left, we might want to move to the next topic
7352020-10-15T19:41:30 <sipa> aj: if their own node rejects relay, miners will never see the tx :)
7362020-10-15T19:41:46 <luke-jr> sipa: no reason their own node would :P
7372020-10-15T19:41:53 <wumpus> #topic Getting BIP 8 logic in before freeze (luke-jr)
7382020-10-15T19:42:03 <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.
7392020-10-15T19:42:04 <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
7402020-10-15T19:42:06 <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.
7412020-10-15T19:42:09 <luke-jr> Note the PR depends on #19401 and #20157. These are fairly trivial, and the former already has 2 ACKs.
7422020-10-15T19:42:11 <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
7432020-10-15T19:42:12 <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
7442020-10-15T19:43:31 *** rafaelpac has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7452020-10-15T19:45:03 <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
7462020-10-15T19:45:13 <wumpus> not a small project either
7472020-10-15T19:45:48 <luke-jr> hmm, true
7482020-10-15T19:46:01 <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
7492020-10-15T19:46:18 <sipa> it also may turn out to be wasted effort
7502020-10-15T19:46:26 *** ossifrage has quit IRC
7512020-10-15T19:47:13 <luke-jr> not sure how it could be wasted effort
7522020-10-15T19:47:29 <luke-jr> sipa: your topic, you had mentioned signet/testnet activation - that might or might not be a reason to do this sooner
7532020-10-15T19:47:38 <jeremyrubin> i think it makes sense to wait for cleaner git history
7542020-10-15T19:48:03 <luke-jr> jeremyrubin: I'm assuming the two trivial PRs would be merged first as part of this process
7552020-10-15T19:48:20 <sipa> oh right, i didn't bring that up... do we want to define an activation on testnet?
7562020-10-15T19:48:36 <sipa> that's something that was done historically, but with signet i think there may be less need now
7572020-10-15T19:48:40 <luke-jr> I think it makes sense to test BIP 8 with testnet
7582020-10-15T19:49:30 <wumpus> it should activate there at some time i guess
7592020-10-15T19:50:18 <sipa> always possible in .1 or whatever point release too, of course
7602020-10-15T19:50:19 <aj> probably shouldn't activate on testnet with a different activation method than we plan on using for mainnet?
7612020-10-15T19:50:32 <luke-jr> sipa: true
7622020-10-15T19:50:35 *** rafaelpac has quit IRC
7632020-10-15T19:51:04 <luke-jr> maybe that's a good solution: testnet in .1, and mainnet not until .2
7642020-10-15T19:51:05 <sipa> it'd be nice to see things active on signet first before suggesting testnet changes
7652020-10-15T19:51:05 <wumpus> sipa: right
7662020-10-15T19:51:20 <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
7672020-10-15T19:51:20 <sipa> (as in signet it can be rolled out without code changes...)
7682020-10-15T19:52:00 <wumpus> that's great
7692020-10-15T19:52:12 <luke-jr> signet doesn't even need an activation, does it?
7702020-10-15T19:52:15 <luke-jr> just always-active?
7712020-10-15T19:52:16 <MarcoFalke> wait, if spends are made non-standard, it needs conde changes for signet
7722020-10-15T19:52:21 <aj> sipa: (not-relaying taproot-txs if activation hasn't happened will affect the "without code changes" part a bit
7732020-10-15T19:52:43 <aj> luke-jr: yeah, that's what i'm thinking
7742020-10-15T19:52:55 <aj> luke-jr: (i mean, "always-active" is an activation)
7752020-10-15T19:53:02 <luke-jr> the policy changes sipa suggested are conditional on the deployment state AFAIK?
7762020-10-15T19:53:21 <MarcoFalke> so I guess s/without/minimal/
7772020-10-15T19:53:25 <aj> luke-jr: right, but *nodes* have to know the deployment state in that case, not just miners
7782020-10-15T19:53:31 <luke-jr> so always-active would trigger the spending policy
7792020-10-15T19:53:50 <sipa> i think we can flesh these things out the next few days
7802020-10-15T19:53:55 <aj> yep
7812020-10-15T19:54:04 <luke-jr> yeah, let's give jeremyrubin some minutes âº
7822020-10-15T19:54:18 <jeremyrubin> i need like 1 min
7832020-10-15T19:54:27 <jeremyrubin> so no rush
7842020-10-15T19:54:47 <wumpus> #topic Small announcement on behalf of BGIN (jeremyrubin)
7852020-10-15T19:55:00 <jeremyrubin> Matsuo has asked me to share the following
7862020-10-15T19:55:02 <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.
7872020-10-15T19:55:12 <jeremyrubin> https://bgin-global.org
7882020-10-15T19:55:20 <luke-jr> during a pandemic? O.o
7892020-10-15T19:55:29 <achow101> Who's bgin?
7902020-10-15T19:55:33 <jeremyrubin> it's a virtual event
7912020-10-15T19:55:36 <luke-jr> i c
7922020-10-15T19:55:56 <luke-jr> "Blockchain Governance Initiative Network "
7932020-10-15T19:55:58 <jeremyrubin> BGIN is "Blockchain Governance Initiative Network (BGIN)"
7942020-10-15T19:56:05 <jeremyrubin> I'd ignore the acronym tho
7952020-10-15T19:56:11 <luke-jr> so this is like NY agreement in organization form? :x
7962020-10-15T19:56:20 <jeremyrubin> no
7972020-10-15T19:56:40 <aj> there's also coinbase looking to support bitcoin dev projects as of an hour or so ago https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/1316801517983334401
7982020-10-15T19:56:42 <jeremyrubin> it's the sort of name that you have to have to get intl participation from people in intl financial regulation
7992020-10-15T19:56:53 <luke-jr> jeremyrubin: lol
8002020-10-15T19:56:56 <jeremyrubin> so it's started by Matsuo and others
8012020-10-15T19:57:31 <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
8022020-10-15T19:57:57 <jeremyrubin> But a part of that is they want to understand and potentiall support development through research grants
8032020-10-15T19:58:32 <wumpus> that sounds pretty scary tbh
8042020-10-15T19:58:36 <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
8052020-10-15T19:58:57 <jeremyrubin> :shrug:
8062020-10-15T19:59:15 <jeremyrubin> I'd encourage you to email concerns to schwentker@bsafe.network
8072020-10-15T20:00:05 <luke-jr> jeremyrubin: it sounds like they're just giving webinars and we'd simply watch it? O.o
8082020-10-15T20:00:14 <jeremyrubin> no i don't think so
8092020-10-15T20:00:26 <jeremyrubin> I think they want to hear from you directly
8102020-10-15T20:00:41 <MarcoFalke> end meeting?
8112020-10-15T20:00:44 <wumpus> ok, I think everything is said, thanks for the announcement
8122020-10-15T20:00:46 <wumpus> #endmeeting
8132020-10-15T20:00:46 <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Oct 15 20:00:46 2020 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
8142020-10-15T20:00:46 <lightningbot> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-15-19.00.html
8152020-10-15T20:00:46 <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-15-19.00.txt
8162020-10-15T20:00:46 <lightningbot> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-15-19.00.log.html
8172020-10-15T20:00:49 <luke-jr> >how they engage
8182020-10-15T20:00:51 <luke-jr> "don't
8192020-10-15T20:01:21 <luke-jr> jk, maybe should tell them to get rid of the travel rule tho ;)
8202020-10-15T20:01:22 <jeremyrubin> I mean, there are practical things that are relatively improtant to engage them on
8212020-10-15T20:01:26 <jeremyrubin> E.g., travel rule
8222020-10-15T20:01:30 <luke-jr> jeremyrubin: yeah, joking
8232020-10-15T20:01:31 <jeremyrubin> do you owe taxes on BCash
8242020-10-15T20:01:40 <luke-jr> not anymore
8252020-10-15T20:01:55 <emzy> jeremyrubin: I also find it strange. But can I as a none dev also join?
8262020-10-15T20:02:07 <jeremyrubin> If you had a contract denom in Bitcoin do you owe BCash and Bitcoin after a fork?
8272020-10-15T20:02:11 <luke-jr> emzy: who is to say you're not a dev? ;)
8282020-10-15T20:02:16 <achow101> luke-jr: re: sqlite and descriptors. The intention for the foreseeable future is sqlite == descriptors and descriptors == sqlite. So adjust #20156 accordingly
8292020-10-15T20:02:17 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20156 | Make sqlite support optional (compile-time) by luke-jr · Pull Request #20156 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
8302020-10-15T20:02:20 <emzy> luke-jr: me :)
8312020-10-15T20:02:39 <luke-jr> achow101: what needs adjustment?
8322020-10-15T20:02:53 <sipa> achow101: no way to convert legacy bdb wallets to legacy sqlite ones?
8332020-10-15T20:03:19 <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
8342020-10-15T20:03:23 <jeremyrubin> i am a mere herald
8352020-10-15T20:03:31 <aj> "legacy sqlite" wow, already :)
8362020-10-15T20:03:33 <luke-jr> wumpus: 20156 missed milestoning
8372020-10-15T20:03:45 <luke-jr> aj: lol
8382020-10-15T20:03:49 <sipa> aj: legacy meaning non-descriptor
8392020-10-15T20:03:49 <jeremyrubin> emzy: I think you'd be fine to join, just fill out the form
8402020-10-15T20:03:56 <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
8412020-10-15T20:03:57 <aj> sipa: yeah :)
8422020-10-15T20:04:19 <emzy> jeremyrubin: I did. At least I can tell you here what happend :)
8432020-10-15T20:04:47 <luke-jr> achow101: I didn't remove any code enforcing it, at least
8442020-10-15T20:04:54 <achow101> sipa: maybe dump them createfromdump, but I'm not intending on making a migration for it
8452020-10-15T20:04:56 <jeremyrubin> emzy: wat?
8462020-10-15T20:05:39 <emzy> jeremyrubin: I submitted the form.
8472020-10-15T20:05:59 <sipa> achow101: well the question is if the format should be supported i think, regardless of how someone can create it
8482020-10-15T20:06:02 <luke-jr> error = Untranslated(strprintf("Failed to load database path '%s'. Data is not in required format.", path.string()));
8492020-10-15T20:06:12 <luke-jr> I guess that error could be clearer
8502020-10-15T20:06:19 <luke-jr> or maybe just remove descriptor support entirely
8512020-10-15T20:06:25 <sipa> it's ok to say non-descriptor-sqlite wallets are unsupported
8522020-10-15T20:06:33 <jonatack> achow101: right, the main reason for adding a db format field to getwalletinfo or -getinfo is because a bdb wallet can be descriptor
8532020-10-15T20:06:38 <sipa> if we don't test that
8542020-10-15T20:06:43 *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
8552020-10-15T20:06:56 <sipa> but whatever combinations are supported should be tested
8562020-10-15T20:07:07 <wumpus> i'm all for not supporting too many combinations
8572020-10-15T20:07:11 <sipa> and those that aren't should at least get a warning
8582020-10-15T20:07:19 <wumpus> be careful here, anything you support for the wallet needs to be support for pretty much near forever
8592020-10-15T20:07:21 <sipa> (or otherwise be impossible to create)
8602020-10-15T20:07:23 <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
8612020-10-15T20:07:25 <wumpus> as those files will be around for a long time
8622020-10-15T20:07:44 <wumpus> it's also confusing for users
8632020-10-15T20:07:57 <wumpus> two types of wallet is enough, avoid the combinatorial cmplexity
8642020-10-15T20:08:43 <sipa> yeah
8652020-10-15T20:09:07 <sipa> that's fair
8662020-10-15T20:09:20 <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
8672020-10-15T20:09:52 <jeremyrubin> 2**256 wallets for added security
8682020-10-15T20:10:16 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8692020-10-15T20:10:16 <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
8702020-10-15T20:10:17 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
8712020-10-15T20:12:13 <wumpus> heh
8722020-10-15T20:12:40 <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
8732020-10-15T20:13:01 <sipa> yeah, ok
8742020-10-15T20:13:32 <luke-jr> i can use sqlite wit uncompressed pubkeys?
8752020-10-15T20:13:40 <luke-jr> :P
8762020-10-15T20:13:48 <achow101> sure
8772020-10-15T20:14:07 <achow101> Descriptora can have uncompressed keys
8782020-10-15T20:14:12 <luke-jr> :o
8792020-10-15T20:14:27 <luke-jr> I meant the old wallet format tho
8802020-10-15T20:14:43 <luke-jr> we should probably drop support for that.. it isn't actually compatible post-segwit anyway :x
8812020-10-15T20:15:07 *** filchef has quit IRC
8822020-10-15T20:15:17 <sipa> you mean sqlite non-descriptor with uncompressed keys?
8832020-10-15T20:15:24 <achow101> Yeah but you and Matt will complain about it
8842020-10-15T20:15:31 *** filchef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8852020-10-15T20:15:33 <luke-jr> lol
8862020-10-15T20:16:53 <luke-jr> Qt should stop using camelcase so I don't need to guess at if they did ToolTip or Tooltip
8872020-10-15T20:17:12 <achow101> Is actually toolTip
8882020-10-15T20:17:22 <luke-jr> )(%#&)#_)#
8892020-10-15T20:17:41 <luke-jr> (I'm actually calling SetToolTip, so it's okay)
8902020-10-15T20:20:02 <promag> descriptors:true wallet doesn't mean it's sqlite right?
8912020-10-15T20:20:38 <promag> only true starting with 0.21, at least that's my understanding
8922020-10-15T20:21:00 <achow101> yes
8932020-10-15T20:21:03 <promag> that's why I'm suggesting "format" in getwalletinfo response
8942020-10-15T20:22:38 <promag> nit, and maybe in the gui we could have some thing/icon/whatever for these things - like getwalletinfo
8952020-10-15T20:22:39 *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8962020-10-15T20:23:23 <luke-jr> promag: descriptors:true will mean sqlite in all supported configurations AIUI
8972020-10-15T20:24:49 <promag> luke-jr: you can still open a 0.20 descriptors wallet?
8982020-10-15T20:25:20 <luke-jr> promag: 0.20 doesn't support descriptors
8992020-10-15T20:25:37 <luke-jr> I don't think..
9002020-10-15T20:25:41 <promag> <.<
9012020-10-15T20:28:47 <promag> luke-jr: you are right
9022020-10-15T20:28:54 <promag> #16528
9032020-10-15T20:28:57 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16528 | Native Descriptor Wallets using DescriptorScriptPubKeyMan by achow101 · Pull Request #16528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
9042020-10-15T20:30:01 <promag> 0.20 has some descriptors stuff, but not the option to create descriptors wallet
9052020-10-15T20:30:16 *** ossifrage has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9062020-10-15T20:34:01 *** vincenzopalazzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9072020-10-15T20:35:10 <achow101> Irs only helpful for people who have descriptor wallets on old master
9082020-10-15T20:36:32 <promag> right
9092020-10-15T20:37:22 * luke-jr likes git-worktree
9102020-10-15T20:37:24 <promag> on the long run the plan is to enforce descriptors?
9112020-10-15T20:37:52 <promag> and as a consequence it will be sqlite?
9122020-10-15T20:38:06 <achow101> Yes
9132020-10-15T20:38:08 <promag> or we will also support non descriptor wallets in sqlite?
9142020-10-15T20:39:28 <achow101> It will be supported as in if you somehow make one, we won't explode
9152020-10-15T20:39:52 <luke-jr> will we explode on promag's bdb descriptor wallet? ;)
9162020-10-15T20:40:02 <achow101> But actually making one is going to be non trivial
9172020-10-15T20:40:23 <achow101> Same for bdb descriptor wallets
9182020-10-15T20:41:39 <achow101> luke-jr: I've been running the sqlite branch with 3 of the 4 combinations of format and type without any issue
9192020-10-15T20:41:54 <achow101> For the past 3 months or so
9202020-10-15T20:42:17 <promag> "non trivial" why?
9212020-10-15T20:42:21 <achow101> Only one I haven't run is legacy sqlite
9222020-10-15T20:42:26 *** lightlike has quit IRC
9232020-10-15T20:43:47 <achow101> promag: to avoid combinatorial complexity in the migration code
9242020-10-15T20:45:41 *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9252020-10-15T20:46:09 <achow101> I'll open an issue that lays out the full plan and a timeline
9262020-10-15T20:52:53 <aj> luke-jr: git-worktree is the best. shame paths end up hardcoded so ccache stuff isn't shared across them though
9272020-10-15T20:53:24 <luke-jr> aj: wait, what? ccache doesn't care about paths, does it?
9282020-10-15T20:53:58 <sipa> your ccache cache is shared i think?
9292020-10-15T20:54:07 <sipa> it's in $HOME/.ccache
9302020-10-15T20:55:04 <luke-jr> hmm, I thought I configured my ccache to be on tmpfs tho
9312020-10-15T20:55:20 <luke-jr> ah yes cache directory /var/tmp/ccache-dev
9322020-10-15T20:55:27 <sipa> ah, or wherever you configure it to be
9332020-10-15T20:57:55 *** promag has quit IRC
9342020-10-15T20:58:34 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9352020-10-15T21:00:02 *** Lthere has quit IRC
9362020-10-15T21:00:17 <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
9372020-10-15T21:00:18 *** wilcl_ark is now known as willcl_ark
9382020-10-15T21:03:07 *** promag has quit IRC
9392020-10-15T21:05:45 <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
9402020-10-15T21:06:05 <sipa> still, worktrees are very useful
9412020-10-15T21:06:30 <sipa> i have separate ones for fuzzer builds (so i don't need to re-run ./configure with the fuzzer flags all the time)
9422020-10-15T21:06:33 <sipa> and sanitizer builds
9432020-10-15T21:07:22 <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
9442020-10-15T21:10:23 <luke-jr> aj: it being in the .o should be okay?
9452020-10-15T21:10:43 <luke-jr> sipa: you can checkout the same branch if you really want to :D
9462020-10-15T21:10:52 <sipa> luke-jr: how so?
9472020-10-15T21:11:21 <sipa> is there some --use-the-force option?
9482020-10-15T21:11:37 <luke-jr> IIRC
9492020-10-15T21:12:13 <luke-jr> --force
9502020-10-15T21:12:36 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
9512020-10-15T21:15:35 *** vincenzopalazzo has quit IRC
9522020-10-15T21:16:05 *** filchef has quit IRC
9532020-10-15T21:22:25 *** Antimatter has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9542020-10-15T21:30:00 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
9552020-10-15T21:32:07 *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9562020-10-15T21:38:31 *** Exho has quit IRC
9572020-10-15T21:39:49 *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
9582020-10-15T21:40:44 *** rabidus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9592020-10-15T21:43:54 <sipa> if anyone gets this warning with gcc 9, it's a compiler bug (which just produces a bogus warning):
9602020-10-15T21:43:57 <sipa> src/ecmult_impl.h:496:48: warning: array subscript [1, 268435456] is outside array bounds of âstruct secp256k1_strauss_point_state[1]â [-Warray-bounds] 496 | secp256k1_gej tmp = a[state->ps[np].input_pos];
9612020-10-15T21:59:28 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9622020-10-15T21:59:28 <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
9632020-10-15T21:59:35 *** owowo has quit IRC
9642020-10-15T21:59:40 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
9652020-10-15T22:04:17 *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9662020-10-15T22:10:19 <luke-jr> btw, why do we use "org.bitcoinfoundation.Bitcoin-Qt" on macOS?
9672020-10-15T22:11:03 *** vasild has quit IRC
9682020-10-15T22:12:34 *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9692020-10-15T22:14:05 <jb55> awkward
9702020-10-15T22:14:42 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, iirc wasn't gavin the one signing the macos builds?
9712020-10-15T22:14:54 <phantomcircuit> probably just legacy from that
9722020-10-15T22:15:11 <sipa> i think changing it was brought up before, but would break compatibility with existing settings so wasn't done?
9732020-10-15T22:16:03 <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)
9742020-10-15T22:16:48 <luke-jr> sipa: it doesn't look like it would from the context :/
9752020-10-15T22:19:40 <sipa> there is some discussion about it in #17462
9762020-10-15T22:19:42 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17462 | build: macOS fix Info.plist by RandyMcMillan · Pull Request #17462 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
9772020-10-15T22:22:34 *** promag_ is now known as promag
9782020-10-15T22:24:06 <promag> achow101: is there anything preventing swaping CWallet::database in runtime? so 1) load with bdb 2) swap database 3) write all ?
9792020-10-15T22:24:25 <promag> *swap to sqlite
9802020-10-15T22:24:35 <achow101> promag: you might end up missing a few records
9812020-10-15T22:24:41 <achow101> I'd definitely wouldn't recommend doing that
9822020-10-15T22:24:51 <promag> not all records are loaded ok
9832020-10-15T22:25:36 <achow101> promag: all records are loaded, it's just a matter of making sure that "write all" wrote them all
9842020-10-15T22:25:46 <achow101> there's no existing "write all"
9852020-10-15T22:25:58 <promag> oh ok
9862020-10-15T22:26:02 <luke-jr> all records might not be loaded
9872020-10-15T22:26:05 <luke-jr> IIRC moves don't
9882020-10-15T22:26:37 <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
9892020-10-15T22:26:37 <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
9902020-10-15T22:26:56 <luke-jr> achow101: uh, pretty sure we still show them
9912020-10-15T22:27:16 <phantomcircuit> who knows if that was true or if it was pretextual though..
9922020-10-15T22:27:39 <achow101> luke-jr: no? I mean things like "default key" or the original "version"
9932020-10-15T22:27:47 <achow101> (version is now "minversion")
9942020-10-15T22:28:00 <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
9952020-10-15T22:28:26 <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
9962020-10-15T22:29:07 <luke-jr> achow101: well, I don't think moves get loaded either
9972020-10-15T22:29:35 <achow101> luke-jr: moves as in the old move rpc?
9982020-10-15T22:29:39 <luke-jr> yes
9992020-10-15T22:30:10 <achow101> I thought those records just got renamed and redefined for labels
10002020-10-15T22:30:22 <luke-jr> what?
10012020-10-15T22:30:26 <promag> bdb2sqlite.py incoming
10022020-10-15T22:30:39 <achow101> but also, that's for back compat, and if you are going to sqlite, back compat doesn't matter
10032020-10-15T22:30:56 <luke-jr> achow101: I would be annoyed if migrating my wallet lost data
10042020-10-15T22:31:16 <luke-jr> {"account": "a", "category": "move", "time": 1296345052, "amount": 0.00100000, "otheraccount": "b", "comment": ""},
10052020-10-15T22:31:25 <luke-jr> this shouldn't disappear from listtransactions just because I upgrade
10062020-10-15T22:31:28 <achow101> luke-jr: right, which is also why I prefer the straight record-to-record migration rather than what is loaded in CWallet
10072020-10-15T22:39:49 *** Livestradamus has quit IRC
10082020-10-15T22:39:49 *** IPGlider has quit IRC
10092020-10-15T22:40:55 *** Livestradamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10102020-10-15T22:41:04 *** IPGlider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10112020-10-15T22:47:08 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10122020-10-15T22:47:08 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #20161: Minor Taproot follow-ups (master...202010_taproot_followup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20161
10132020-10-15T22:47:10 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
10142020-10-15T23:00:29 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
10152020-10-15T23:18:39 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10162020-10-15T23:35:09 *** snex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10172020-10-15T23:35:11 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10182020-10-15T23:35:12 <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
10192020-10-15T23:35:12 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
10202020-10-15T23:35:40 *** snex has left #bitcoin-core-dev
10212020-10-15T23:36:33 <fanquake> Yea Iâm fairly certain we canât change that MacOS string without breaking something
10222020-10-15T23:40:27 *** fjahr_ is now known as fjahr
10232020-10-15T23:46:03 *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
10242020-10-15T23:47:55 *** _joerodgers has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10252020-10-15T23:52:09 *** joerodgers has quit IRC