1 2021-06-16T00:05:34  *** b10c <b10c!uid500648@id-500648.charlton.irccloud.com> has quit IRC (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
  2 2021-06-16T00:35:57  *** GIANTWORLDKEEPER <GIANTWORLDKEEPER!~pjetcetal@2.95.204.25> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
  3 2021-06-16T00:36:09  *** Guest69 <Guest69!~Guest69@218.212.21.21> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2021-06-16T00:51:31  *** GIANTWORLDKEEPER <GIANTWORLDKEEPER!~pjetcetal@2.95.204.25> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  5 2021-06-16T01:18:40  *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  6 2021-06-16T01:38:30  *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
  7 2021-06-16T01:42:42  *** DeanGuss <DeanGuss!~dean@user/deanguss> has quit IRC (Excess Flood)
  8 2021-06-16T01:44:24  *** DeanGuss <DeanGuss!~dean@nonplayercharacter.me> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  9 2021-06-16T01:52:08  *** instagibbs_ <instagibbs_!~instagibb@119247204116.ctinets.com> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 10 2021-06-16T01:52:28  *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 11 2021-06-16T02:07:15  *** instagibbs_ <instagibbs_!~instagibb@119247204116.ctinets.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 12 2021-06-16T02:26:59  *** jackielove4u <jackielove4u!uid43977@user/jackielove4u> has quit IRC (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
 13 2021-06-16T02:29:03  *** yanmaani <yanmaani!~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
 14 2021-06-16T02:29:44  *** yanmaani <yanmaani!~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 15 2021-06-16T02:38:35  *** martinus__ <martinus__!~martinus@212095005005.public.telering.at> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 16 2021-06-16T02:41:11  *** martinus_ <martinus_!~martinus@046125249003.public.t-mobile.at> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 17 2021-06-16T03:00:54  *** gleb <gleb!~gleb@178.150.137.228> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 18 2021-06-16T03:01:17  *** gleb <gleb!~gleb@178.150.137.228> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 19 2021-06-16T03:27:49  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2021-06-16T03:27:49  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/eb63b1db2c4d...6bc1eca01b2f
 21 2021-06-16T03:27:49  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 79c02c8 Pieter Wuille: Randomize message processing peer order
 22 2021-06-16T03:27:49  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6bc1eca fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22144: Randomize message processing peer order
 23 2021-06-16T03:27:51  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 24 2021-06-16T03:28:06  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 25 2021-06-16T03:28:06  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #22144: Randomize message processing peer order (master...202106_rand_peers) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22144
 26 2021-06-16T03:28:07  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 27 2021-06-16T03:31:09  *** cdecker5 <cdecker5!~cdecker@243.86.254.84.ftth.as8758.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 28 2021-06-16T03:31:37  *** cdecker <cdecker!~cdecker@243.86.254.84.ftth.as8758.net> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 29 2021-06-16T03:31:37  *** cdecker5 is now known as cdecker
 30 2021-06-16T03:39:41  *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 31 2021-06-16T03:49:24  *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 32 2021-06-16T04:00:12  *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@176.230.171.92> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 33 2021-06-16T04:02:10  *** ratelius <ratelius!ratelius@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/ratelius> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 34 2021-06-16T04:04:33  *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
 35 2021-06-16T04:04:54  *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 36 2021-06-16T04:21:30  *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 37 2021-06-16T04:24:10  *** dviola <dviola!~diego@user/dviola> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 38 2021-06-16T04:38:21  *** belcher <belcher!~belcher@user/belcher> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 39 2021-06-16T04:41:03  *** vnogueira <vnogueira!~vnogueira@user/vnogueira> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
 40 2021-06-16T04:41:21  *** vnogueira <vnogueira!~vnogueira@user/vnogueira> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 41 2021-06-16T04:47:34  *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
 42 2021-06-16T04:47:53  *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 43 2021-06-16T04:48:44  *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
 44 2021-06-16T04:49:03  *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 45 2021-06-16T04:50:30  *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
 46 2021-06-16T04:50:55  *** belcher <belcher!~belcher@user/belcher> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 47 2021-06-16T04:51:03  *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 48 2021-06-16T04:51:34  *** arnabsen <arnabsen!~arnabsen@45.116.190.221> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 49 2021-06-16T05:05:29  *** dviola <dviola!~diego@user/dviola> has quit IRC (Quit: WeeChat 3.2)
 50 2021-06-16T06:07:38  *** dermoth_ <dermoth_!~dermoth@user/dermoth> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 51 2021-06-16T06:07:52  *** dermoth <dermoth!~dermoth@user/dermoth> has quit IRC (Killed (NickServ (GHOST command used by dermoth_)))
 52 2021-06-16T06:07:56  *** dermoth_ is now known as dermoth
 53 2021-06-16T06:10:19  *** swambo_ <swambo_!~swambo@176.237.239.28> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 54 2021-06-16T06:11:40  *** Guest19 <Guest19!~Guest19@117.96.136.173> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 55 2021-06-16T06:12:27  *** Guest19 <Guest19!~Guest19@117.96.136.173> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
 56 2021-06-16T06:17:28  *** Guyver2 <Guyver2!~Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 57 2021-06-16T06:18:40  *** goatpig <goatpig!~goat@blocksettle-gw.cust.31173.se> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 58 2021-06-16T06:18:52  *** swambo_ <swambo_!~swambo@176.237.239.28> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 59 2021-06-16T06:19:09  *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 60 2021-06-16T06:37:22  *** smartin <smartin!~Icedove@88.135.18.171> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 61 2021-06-16T06:46:06  *** jarthur <jarthur!~jarthur@2603-8080-1540-002d-75b5-effb-8a85-a266.res6.spectrum.com> has quit IRC (Quit: jarthur)
 62 2021-06-16T06:52:47  *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
 63 2021-06-16T07:05:59  *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 64 2021-06-16T07:08:11  *** sibilant_ <sibilant_!~sibilant@user/sibilant> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
 65 2021-06-16T07:08:34  *** sibilant_ <sibilant_!~sibilant@host-95-197-90-27.mobileonline.telia.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 66 2021-06-16T07:10:39  *** sibilant_ <sibilant_!~sibilant@user/sibilant> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
 67 2021-06-16T07:10:56  *** sibilant <sibilant!~sibilant@user/sibilant> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 68 2021-06-16T07:11:29  *** kallewoof is now known as kalle
 69 2021-06-16T07:13:41  *** jackielove4u <jackielove4u!uid43977@user/jackielove4u> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 70 2021-06-16T07:42:52  *** kabaum <kabaum!~kabaum@host-78-77-216-135.mobileonline.telia.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 71 2021-06-16T07:54:13  *** evias <evias!~evias__@user/evias> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 72 2021-06-16T08:02:42  *** lkqwejhhgasdjhgn <lkqwejhhgasdjhgn!~kljkljklk@p200300d46f03bc00adf9c5ad604010d2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 73 2021-06-16T08:27:01  <vasild> Is my understanding correct that we don't send addresses or transactions via block-only connections, but the peer on the other end of a block-only connection may still send us addresses or transactions? Is the peer even aware that it is block-only connection for us?
 74 2021-06-16T08:33:28  *** arnabsen <arnabsen!~arnabsen@45.116.190.221> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 75 2021-06-16T08:41:08  *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 76 2021-06-16T09:02:16  *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
 77 2021-06-16T09:15:41  *** lightlike <lightlike!~lightlike@user/lightlike> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 78 2021-06-16T09:20:11  *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
 79 2021-06-16T09:21:04  *** gribble <gribble!~gribble@bitcoin/bot/gribble> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
 80 2021-06-16T09:27:24  *** gribble <gribble!~gribble@bitcoin/bot/gribble> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 81 2021-06-16T09:27:25  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o gribble
 82 2021-06-16T09:31:37  *** vincenzopalazzo <vincenzopalazzo!~vincenzop@2001:470:69fc:105::a67> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
 83 2021-06-16T09:31:38  *** tutwidi[m] <tutwidi[m]!~tutwidima@2001:470:69fc:105::ead> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
 84 2021-06-16T09:31:38  *** poucatreta[m] <poucatreta[m]!~poucatret@2001:470:69fc:105::20ae> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
 85 2021-06-16T09:31:40  *** robertspigler <robertspigler!~robertspi@2001:470:69fc:105::2d53> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
 86 2021-06-16T09:31:41  *** prusnak[m] <prusnak[m]!~stickmatr@2001:470:69fc:105::98c> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
 87 2021-06-16T09:31:41  *** orionwl[m] <orionwl[m]!~orionwlx0@2001:470:69fc:105::80> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
 88 2021-06-16T09:31:41  *** devrandom <devrandom!~devrandom@2001:470:69fc:105::d4d> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
 89 2021-06-16T09:31:41  *** dongcarl[m] <dongcarl[m]!~dongcarlm@2001:470:69fc:105::82> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
 90 2021-06-16T09:31:41  *** kvaciral[m] <kvaciral[m]!~kvaciralx@2001:470:69fc:105::17b> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
 91 2021-06-16T09:31:42  *** mrjumper[m] <mrjumper[m]!~mr-jumper@2001:470:69fc:105::7f1> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
 92 2021-06-16T09:32:49  *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 93 2021-06-16T09:33:45  *** orionwl[m] <orionwl[m]!~orionwlx0@2001:470:69fc:105::80> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 94 2021-06-16T09:34:40  *** vincenzopalazzo <vincenzopalazzo!~vincenzop@2001:470:69fc:105::a67> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 95 2021-06-16T09:34:41  *** devrandom <devrandom!~devrandom@2001:470:69fc:105::d4d> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 96 2021-06-16T09:34:41  *** prusnak[m] <prusnak[m]!~stickmatr@2001:470:69fc:105::98c> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 97 2021-06-16T09:34:41  *** robertspigler <robertspigler!~robertspi@2001:470:69fc:105::2d53> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 98 2021-06-16T09:34:52  *** poucatreta[m] <poucatreta[m]!~poucatret@2001:470:69fc:105::20ae> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2021-06-16T09:34:52  *** dongcarl[m] <dongcarl[m]!~dongcarlm@2001:470:69fc:105::82> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
100 2021-06-16T09:34:52  *** kvaciral[m] <kvaciral[m]!~kvaciralx@2001:470:69fc:105::17b> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
101 2021-06-16T09:34:52  *** tutwidi[m] <tutwidi[m]!~tutwidima@2001:470:69fc:105::ead> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
102 2021-06-16T09:34:52  *** mrjumper[m] <mrjumper[m]!~mr-jumper@2001:470:69fc:105::7f1> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
103 2021-06-16T09:36:25  *** gleb <gleb!~gleb@178.150.137.228> has quit IRC (Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds))
104 2021-06-16T09:37:38  *** gleb <gleb!~gleb@178.150.137.228> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
105 2021-06-16T09:40:08  <lightlike> vasild: We signal in the version message whether we want txRelay. I believe if a peer still send a tx or a tx inv in violation, they will be disconnected.
106 2021-06-16T09:40:31  <lightlike> Addrs will be ignored on block-relay-only connections but processed in -blocksonly mode (our peer cannot easily distinguish between these two), no disconnections there
107 2021-06-16T09:41:49  <vasild> hmm
108 2021-06-16T09:46:55  *** Jaamg <Jaamg!jaamg@kapsi.fi> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
109 2021-06-16T09:47:26  *** kabaum <kabaum!~kabaum@host-78-77-216-135.mobileonline.telia.com> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
110 2021-06-16T09:56:13  *** cdecker <cdecker!~cdecker@243.86.254.84.ftth.as8758.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
111 2021-06-16T09:58:25  *** cdecker <cdecker!~cdecker@243.86.254.84.ftth.as8758.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112 2021-06-16T10:04:45  <provoostenator> I'd like to nominate #21934 for v22 because monitoring signalling in the next few months is quite useful.
113 2021-06-16T10:04:46  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21934 | RPC/blockchain: getblockchaininfo: Include versionbits signalling details during LOCKED_IN by luke-jr · Pull Request #21934 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
114 2021-06-16T10:08:52  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
115 2021-06-16T10:08:53  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto closed pull request #22240: build: Re-enable -Wdeprecated-copy (master...210614-revert) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22240
116 2021-06-16T10:08:54  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
117 2021-06-16T10:20:24  *** Guest75 <Guest75!~Guest75@2409:4063:6e8f:1d37:f905:caef:ac29:240c> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
118 2021-06-16T10:20:57  *** Guest75 <Guest75!~Guest75@2409:4063:6e8f:1d37:f905:caef:ac29:240c> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
119 2021-06-16T10:21:13  *** Guest8 <Guest8!~Guest8@2409:4063:6e8f:1d37:f905:caef:ac29:240c> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2021-06-16T10:21:19  *** Guest8 <Guest8!~Guest8@2409:4063:6e8f:1d37:f905:caef:ac29:240c> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
121 2021-06-16T10:21:31  *** Guest98 <Guest98!~Guest98@2409:4063:6e8f:1d37:f905:caef:ac29:240c> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122 2021-06-16T10:21:33  *** Guest98 <Guest98!~Guest98@2409:4063:6e8f:1d37:f905:caef:ac29:240c> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
123 2021-06-16T10:23:19  <laanwj> vasild: yes i remember during the bip155 discussion there were some ideas to also incorporate 'do not send me addresses at all', but this was not done, i had to think of this with #22245
124 2021-06-16T10:23:20  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22245 | [p2p] Stop sending SENDADDRV2 message to block-relay-only peers by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #22245 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
125 2021-06-16T10:24:01  <vasild> I am composing a rely to that PR with a link to that discussion...
126 2021-06-16T10:24:45  <laanwj> i don't think there is any way to signal to not want addresses so i'm not sure why addrv1/addrv2 matters
127 2021-06-16T10:24:56  <laanwj> not even from a bandwidth perspective: addrv2 might be *more* efficient to ignore
128 2021-06-16T10:25:14  <laanwj> e.g. ipv4 addresses (the most common) take fewer bytes
129 2021-06-16T10:28:53  *** whatsupboy <whatsupboy!~whatsupbo@user/scobydoo> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
130 2021-06-16T10:36:12  <jnewbery_> laanwj: bandwidth is irrelevant. Nodes only send one addr message per 24 hours on average, and the max size is 1000 entries.
131 2021-06-16T10:36:17  *** arnabsen <arnabsen!~arnabsen@45.116.190.221> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132 2021-06-16T10:37:25  *** jnewbery_ is now known as jnewbery
133 2021-06-16T10:37:50  <laanwj> right, it's the only possible concern i could think of anyhow
134 2021-06-16T10:43:44  *** Guest73 <Guest73!~Guest73@2402:f000:2:d001:912c:3873:8807:5b1f> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
135 2021-06-16T10:45:06  *** Guest73 <Guest73!~Guest73@2402:f000:2:d001:912c:3873:8807:5b1f> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
136 2021-06-16T10:52:55  *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
137 2021-06-16T10:53:54  *** gleb <gleb!~gleb@178.150.137.228> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
138 2021-06-16T10:54:44  *** arnabsen <arnabsen!~arnabsen@45.116.190.221> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
139 2021-06-16T11:05:37  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2021-06-16T11:05:38  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #22258: build: Disable deprecated-copy warning only when external warnings are enabled (master...2106-buildEnableWarnDeprecatedCopy) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22258
141 2021-06-16T11:05:38  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
142 2021-06-16T11:08:11  *** bitdex <bitdex!~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex> has quit IRC (Quit: = "")
143 2021-06-16T11:18:31  *** whatsupboy <whatsupboy!~whatsupbo@user/scobydoo> has quit IRC (Quit: WeeChat 2.8)
144 2021-06-16T11:22:30  *** mihir <mihir!~mihir@103.216.176.46> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
145 2021-06-16T11:23:08  *** mihir <mihir!~mihir@103.216.176.46> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
146 2021-06-16T11:24:25  <jonatack> the disable_tx discussions left me with the recollection that, rather than encapsulating complex state in connection types, we might be heading back to separate flags, e.g. disable tx, disable addr, etc.
147 2021-06-16T11:25:26  <jonatack> in the BIP155 discussions nearly a year ago, it was decided that disable addr was a separate concern from BIP155-capable, thus the current implementation
148 2021-06-16T11:26:57  *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@176.230.171.92> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
149 2021-06-16T11:28:21  <jonatack> those do seem like separate concerns / flags / BIPs etc
150 2021-06-16T11:28:52  <jonatack> messages
151 2021-06-16T11:30:48  <vasild> +1
152 2021-06-16T11:31:15  <vasild> I opened https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1134 to clarify BIP155
153 2021-06-16T11:32:06  <jonatack> vasild: nice!
154 2021-06-16T11:34:18  <vasild> I never thought that "send me addrv2 instead of addr" may imply a preference to receive address messages (them being addrv2 or addr). My Enflisch is nae good.
155 2021-06-16T11:35:16  <vasild> jnewbery: ^
156 2021-06-16T11:35:25  <jonatack> vasild: just saw your review, agree
157 2021-06-16T11:40:13  <jonatack> (communication may have been a bit siloed on some topics, by habit / time zones / affinities etc)
158 2021-06-16T11:40:57  <jonatack> (reviewers of certain areas, and so on)
159 2021-06-16T11:46:18  <laanwj> vasild: me neither
160 2021-06-16T11:46:47  <laanwj> it wasn't my intent at least when writing it
161 2021-06-16T11:47:32  <laanwj> i really meant it as a specification of what is supported by the client (remember that initially i started with a protocol version number bump only, the message came later because that turned out to be the preferred signaling mechanism now)
162 2021-06-16T11:47:49  <laanwj> then the protocol version bump was added again because other implementations
163 2021-06-16T11:50:20  <laanwj> i never once considered it a preference with regard to receiving messages
164 2021-06-16T12:13:17  <jnewbery> vasild: why would I say "send me red apples instead of green apples" when I don't eat apples at all?
165 2021-06-16T12:13:31  <jnewbery> And if you send me an apple I'm going to put it straight in the trash
166 2021-06-16T12:13:52  <laanwj> that's just how the BIP was intended, it could just as well have been a service flag which is always sent
167 2021-06-16T12:14:29  <laanwj> as I said above, the fact that it's an extra message is an implementation detail
168 2021-06-16T12:15:01  <jnewbery> I'm very confused about why it's controversial to not send a message that has zero impact on our own processing
169 2021-06-16T12:15:17  <laanwj> there is no message to say "I don't want to receive address messages"
170 2021-06-16T12:15:19  <vasild> jnewbery: bad English, sorry
171 2021-06-16T12:15:25  <jnewbery> Why would I send a message to say "please send me addrv2 messages that I'll throw away instead of sending addr messages that I'll throw away"?
172 2021-06-16T12:15:37  <laanwj> because you will still receive v1 messages that you'll throw away
173 2021-06-16T12:15:49  <laanwj> it doesn't matter
174 2021-06-16T12:15:57  <jnewbery> so why send the message?
175 2021-06-16T12:15:59  <laanwj> but anyhow, ok, I don't understand why this is such a topic of contention teither
176 2021-06-16T12:16:01  <laanwj> never minds
177 2021-06-16T12:17:49  <vasild> natural language is vague, we should be talking with "if ()", ">" and "==" ;-)
178 2021-06-16T12:17:52  <laanwj> I did think a signal whether a peer is interested in address messages or not is orthogonal to what messages it supports or not, there was discussion to include this in BIP155 at some point but it wasnm't
179 2021-06-16T12:18:01  <laanwj> I do think such a signal is useful fwiw
180 2021-06-16T12:18:09  <laanwj> but I don't see how sendaddrv2 is helpful here
181 2021-06-16T12:18:12  <jnewbery> laanwj: but that's not what the PR does?
182 2021-06-16T12:18:21  <jnewbery> it doesn't prevent message relay
183 2021-06-16T12:18:31  <laanwj> I understand that
184 2021-06-16T12:18:36  <jonatack> there was a real discussion about it, no need to rehash a year later
185 2021-06-16T12:18:54  <laanwj> if it prevented message relay it'd be a  much more useful change
186 2021-06-16T12:19:14  <jnewbery> laanwj: I'm confused. I thought that's what you're arguing against
187 2021-06-16T12:19:17  <laanwj> "I don't want address messages from block-only peers" fine
188 2021-06-16T12:19:55  <laanwj> no, I'm arguing against misinterpreting BIP155
189 2021-06-16T12:20:13  <laanwj> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1134 clears it up for me
190 2021-06-16T12:20:22  <jnewbery> but this isn't misinterpreting BIP155. BIP155 is totally irrelevant for links that don't support address relay
191 2021-06-16T12:21:06  <laanwj> but was you say this doesnt disable address relay
192 2021-06-16T12:21:22  <laanwj> address relay isn't disabled for the connection
193 2021-06-16T12:21:50  <jnewbery> laanwj: what happens when I open an outbound blocks-only connection and receive an addr message on that connection?
194 2021-06-16T12:22:36  <vasild> jnewbery: there is more to this - a peer may maintain a useful database of addresses but not participate in address relay, so he is interested in receiving address gossip but is a black hole wrt further address propagation
195 2021-06-16T12:22:58  <vasild> jnewbery: it is ignored
196 2021-06-16T12:23:22  <jnewbery> if it's ignored then how can "he's interested in receiving address gossip" be true?
197 2021-06-16T12:23:54  <vasild> the peer I mentioned is not blocks-only
198 2021-06-16T12:23:56  *** donny <donny!uid133844@id-133844.brockwell.irccloud.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
199 2021-06-16T12:24:04  <vasild> may be a light client
200 2021-06-16T12:24:25  <jnewbery> so how's that relevant to PR 22245?
201 2021-06-16T12:24:41  <vasild> he is interested in receiving address gossip in order to maintain his own addresses databas
202 2021-06-16T12:24:42  <jnewbery> 22245 is only for blocks-relay-only connections
203 2021-06-16T12:25:08  <jnewbery> talking about light clients seems completely irrelevant to the PR
204 2021-06-16T12:25:32  <vasild> 22245 implies we put a new semantic to sendaddrv2: "However, if we move forward with the approached proposed in that PR"
205 2021-06-16T12:25:53  <vasild> that PR == #21528
206 2021-06-16T12:25:56  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
207 2021-06-16T12:26:16  <jnewbery> 22245 doesn't change the semantics of sendaddrv2 at all. It simply doesn't send the message when it's irrelevant
208 2021-06-16T12:26:21  <lightlike> jnewbery: i think we expect to receive addr messages on block-relay-only connections currently, because out peer doesn't know from the version messages whether this is a block-relay-only link or a regular connection in -blocksonly mode (for which we want addrs)
209 2021-06-16T12:27:16  <jnewbery> lightlike: the peer doesn't even know that the connection is not a full-relay-connection
210 2021-06-16T12:28:44  <jnewbery> vasild: I don't think your 4 state analysis in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22245#issuecomment-862279099 is quite right. When you say:
211 2021-06-16T12:28:47  <jnewbery> > !A and !B (it follows that if you send me a reply to my getaddr it should be in the old addr format because I don't support the new addrv2)
212 2021-06-16T12:29:08  <vasild> jnewbery: #21528 changes the semantic of sendaddrv2 and #22245 only makes sense if #21528 is accepted
213 2021-06-16T12:29:11  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
214 2021-06-16T12:29:13  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22245 | [p2p] Stop sending SENDADDRV2 message to block-relay-only peers by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #22245 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
215 2021-06-16T12:29:13  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
216 2021-06-16T12:29:22  <jnewbery> that doesn't make sense here. If we receive a reply to a getaddr on an outbound block-relay-only connection, then we drop it.
217 2021-06-16T12:29:49  <jnewbery> 22245 seems like a good change independently from 21528 to me
218 2021-06-16T12:30:07  *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@bzq-79-180-140-8.red.bezeqint.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
219 2021-06-16T12:30:55  <lightlike> vasild: I don't agree with that. 22245 should make just as much sense using just ADDR,ADDRV2 and GETADDR as signs that the node is interested in addr relay. SENDADDRV2 doesn't seem necessary to me
220 2021-06-16T12:30:56  <jonatack> jnewbery: it indeed would widen the meaning of sendaddrv2, and irreversibly
221 2021-06-16T12:31:22  <jnewbery> jonatack: I still don't understand why you keep saying that
222 2021-06-16T12:32:20  <jnewbery> if I don't do anything with addrs received on a link, then asking my peer to send those addrs (which I'm going to ignore) in a certain format, is neither useful, nor irreversible
223 2021-06-16T12:33:43  *** gleb <gleb!~gleb@178.150.137.228> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
224 2021-06-16T12:33:51  <jnewbery> can you help me understand why you think this change is irreverible?
225 2021-06-16T12:39:24  <jnewbery> lightlike: I think you meant "21528 should make just as much sense using just addr, addrv2 and getaddr" (and I agree)
226 2021-06-16T12:43:20  <vasild> If we look at 22245 in isolation (as if 21528 does not exist) then it is pointless change. Why make it? The peer is then going to send us addr which we ignore (instead of addrv2 which we ignore). Also we would be lying that we don't support addrv2 when we actually do. Just does not feel right.
227 2021-06-16T12:45:27  <vasild> But I think the bigger argument here is 22245+21528 and changing the semantic of sendaddrv2 in order to tweak address relay and attempt to fix the black holes problem. But would even that fix it? Some scenarios where it will not: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21528#issuecomment-862312851
228 2021-06-16T12:46:48  <jnewbery> `sendaddrv2` only has meaning within a single connection. It means "I prefer to receive addrv2 messages on this connection". It implies nothing about the implementation of the node (as it shouldn't). Not sending a sendaddrv2 message is not "lying that we don't support addrv2", but simply not expressing a preference for a certain format *on that connection*.
229 2021-06-16T12:47:24  <jnewbery> If this was a service bit, which is gossiped beyond a single connection, then I'd agree with you, but all p2p messages only have semantic meaning within the connection that they exist in
230 2021-06-16T12:47:36  <laanwj> the point is that there is no way to "not express a preference"
231 2021-06-16T12:47:46  <laanwj> either the preference is v1 (not message) or v2 (send a message)
232 2021-06-16T12:47:55  <jnewbery> the way to "not express a preference" is to not "express a preference"
233 2021-06-16T12:48:03  <laanwj> there could have been a third option in BIP155 but there wasn't
234 2021-06-16T12:48:05  <vasild> It means "I prefer to receive addrv2 messages on this connection" -- this is your interpretation.
235 2021-06-16T12:48:05  <laanwj> no, it's not
236 2021-06-16T12:48:34  <laanwj> that would mean that a peer that doesn't send the message doesn't fcare what it receives
237 2021-06-16T12:48:38  <laanwj> whereas it means that it wants to receive v1
238 2021-06-16T12:49:10  <laanwj> there is no "I don't want to receive addr" signal, nor is there "I don't care"
239 2021-06-16T12:49:18  <laanwj> maybe there should be! but there isn't
240 2021-06-16T12:49:19  *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
241 2021-06-16T12:49:36  <jnewbery> vasild: the BIP says "Sending such a message indicates that a node can understand and *prefers to receive addrv2 messages*" - yes, my interpretation of this is that it prefers to receive addrv2 messages
242 2021-06-16T12:50:05  <vasild> INSTEAD
243 2021-06-16T12:50:08  <laanwj> signaling the new protocol version then *deciding* not to send the message means your node wants to receive v1
244 2021-06-16T12:50:24  <jnewbery> laanwj: that's not how p2p versions work
245 2021-06-16T12:50:54  <laanwj> well it is how I intended BIP155, I don't really agree with the new interpretation
246 2021-06-16T12:50:54  <jnewbery> since they're serial, if a later p2p version adds some other feature, it doesn't automatically mean that anyone using that feature *must* implement addrv2
247 2021-06-16T12:51:04  *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@bzq-79-180-140-8.red.bezeqint.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
248 2021-06-16T12:51:31  <vasild> jnewbery: you skipped the trailing "instead..." which is important.
249 2021-06-16T12:52:05  <jnewbery> I didn't think I was misrepresenting it. Here you go: "Sending such a message indicates that a node can understand and prefers to receive addrv2 messages instead of addr messages. I.e. "Send me addrv2"."
250 2021-06-16T12:52:06  <laanwj> jnewbery: which is why there is the option not to send the message: it implies you want to keep reciving v1
251 2021-06-16T12:52:37  <laanwj> there are two states, not three or four
252 2021-06-16T12:52:53  <vasild> anyway, if sendaddrv2 signalled preference to receive unrequested address messages, then bitcoin core-pre-bip155 do not want to receive unrequested address messages?
253 2021-06-16T12:53:04  <jnewbery> laanwj: A BIP cannot specify that not sending something implies some meaning. BIPs are opt-in. I can't say in my BIP "not sending this message implies thing".
254 2021-06-16T12:53:11  <vasild> because they do not send sendaddrv2
255 2021-06-16T12:53:32  <laanwj> jnewbery: in this case not sending the message is the old behavior of 'send me v1'
256 2021-06-16T12:53:43  <jnewbery> vasild: huh? I think you really misunderstand 22245 and 21528.
257 2021-06-16T12:53:49  <laanwj> there's the old behavior anhd the new behavior
258 2021-06-16T12:54:31  <jnewbery> a pre-bip155 bitcoin core node will send a getaddr, which implies that it wants to receive addresses
259 2021-06-16T12:54:38  <laanwj> but I honestly don't understand why this is such a hotbed issue before the v22.0 feature freeze
260 2021-06-16T12:55:05  <jnewbery> it will also send addr messages, which implies that it's taking part in address relay
261 2021-06-16T12:55:14  <laanwj> there would have been tons of time to discuss this with less time pressure
262 2021-06-16T12:57:38  <vasild> jnewbery: would you say that if a node sends getaddr it follows that it wants to also receive unrequested address messages, outside of the response of that getaddr? And from that would you say it follows that this node participates in address relay (gossips to other nodes)?
263 2021-06-16T12:57:54  *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
264 2021-06-16T12:58:10  <laanwj> I wasn't aware either that sending "getaddr" changed the connection status in that regard
265 2021-06-16T12:59:19  *** vnogueira <vnogueira!~vnogueira@user/vnogueira> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
266 2021-06-16T12:59:44  <vasild> laanwj: my understanding is that 21528 intends to achieve that (sending getaddr changed the connection status...)
267 2021-06-16T12:59:46  *** vnogueira <vnogueira!~vnogueira@user/vnogueira> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
268 2021-06-16T12:59:48  <laanwj> but if you can regard "getaddr" as a signaling message to receive unrequested address messages, and a peer never sending it effectively signals it doesn't ever want to see address messages, then you're right, there are three states
269 2021-06-16T13:00:09  <jnewbery> laanwj: that's what #21528 is proposing. If a peer sends us `addr` OR `addrv2` OR `getaddr` OR `sendaddrv2`, then we should consider it a peer for address gossiping. I think it makes sense to review that PR.
270 2021-06-16T13:00:11  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
271 2021-06-16T13:00:12  *** promag_ is now known as promag
272 2021-06-16T13:00:37  <jnewbery> The PR description also lists all of the places that the proposal has been discussed previously
273 2021-06-16T13:00:51  <laanwj> jnewbery: if that is new behavior it needs a BIP as well
274 2021-06-16T13:01:01  <laanwj> doesn't seem limited to bitcoin core
275 2021-06-16T13:01:08  <jnewbery> laanwj: please read the PR before making statements like that
276 2021-06-16T13:01:23  <jnewbery> here's the mailing list post: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018784.html
277 2021-06-16T13:01:24  <laanwj> you're being really agressive now
278 2021-06-16T13:02:00  <jnewbery> I don't think it's aggressive to expect people to read PR descriptions
279 2021-06-16T13:02:08  <laanwj> I'm not aware of every single PR description
280 2021-06-16T13:02:16  <laanwj> I just cannot keep up wit hthat
281 2021-06-16T13:03:28  <jnewbery> laanwj: this has been discussed in many venues already. It's been raised on the mailing list, discussed in bitcoin core irc and p2p irc meetings, amiti has even done a survey of every other common node implementation to make sure it doesn't break them: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21528#issuecomment-809906430
282 2021-06-16T13:03:48  <vasild> hmm, actually laanwj is right that 21528 is not related to just bitcoin core - it changes the semantics of getaddr, addr, addrv2 and sendaddrv2. I guess that warrants a BIP.
283 2021-06-16T13:04:59  <laanwj> jnewbery: that's good
284 2021-06-16T13:05:32  <laanwj> vasild: yes, likely instead of your proposed BIP155 change
285 2021-06-16T13:06:19  <laanwj> (as it goes the other way)
286 2021-06-16T13:06:52  <laanwj> which is fine, if you're trying to change something, just be transparent about it, a while before you were still claiming this doesn't make any irreversible change to behavior
287 2021-06-16T13:07:25  <jnewbery> laanwj: are you saying that I'm not being transparent?
288 2021-06-16T13:07:34  *** evias_ <evias_!~evias__@196.red-88-6-131.staticip.rima-tde.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
289 2021-06-16T13:07:41  <jnewbery> 22245 makes no irreversible changes to behavior
290 2021-06-16T13:07:47  <laanwj> it came across to me as "this was always the case"
291 2021-06-16T13:08:10  <jnewbery> all of this has been discussed many times on github, irc, mailing list. How could it be more transparent?
292 2021-06-16T13:08:36  <laanwj> maybe it's just the nthat taking that part out of the parent PR separetely was unclear to people
293 2021-06-16T13:08:45  <vasild> Today is the first time I hear about it, sorry.
294 2021-06-16T13:09:09  <laanwj> yeah
295 2021-06-16T13:09:36  <vasild> it == 21528+22245
296 2021-06-16T13:10:10  <jnewbery> laanwj: I suggested to amiti that 22245 be separated from 21528, so I apologize if that was confusing for people and take full responsibility
297 2021-06-16T13:10:11  *** evias <evias!~evias__@user/evias> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
298 2021-06-16T13:10:24  <jnewbery> it seems to me like a good change independent from 21528
299 2021-06-16T13:10:32  <vasild> IMO 21528+22245 is a protocol change.
300 2021-06-16T13:10:40  <jnewbery> vasild: it's not a protocol change
301 2021-06-16T13:11:00  <vasild> the semantic of e.g. getaddr is changed (extended)
302 2021-06-16T13:11:30  <laanwj> by itself (without other context) it seemed like a misinterpretation of BIP155 as i had intended it
303 2021-06-16T13:11:51  <laanwj> seeing it as part of a large change is completely different
304 2021-06-16T13:12:42  <jnewbery> laanwj: the first sentence in the PR description links to the 21528. I don't understand how it's not transparent
305 2021-06-16T13:13:22  <laanwj> so okay, you *are* trying to amke a protocol change
306 2021-06-16T13:13:32  <jnewbery> what?
307 2021-06-16T13:13:54  <jnewbery> can you please stop the insinuations that I'm trying to do something underhand?
308 2021-06-16T13:14:19  <laanwj> what, I dont' mean you are trying to make a sneaky protocol change
309 2021-06-16T13:14:41  <laanwj> I haven't said anything about being underhand
310 2021-06-16T13:14:45  <laanwj> I just didn't understand
311 2021-06-16T13:14:51  <jnewbery> you said that I'm not being transparent
312 2021-06-16T13:15:09  *** laanwj <laanwj!~laanwj@user/laanwj> has quit IRC (Quit: WeeChat 3.1)
313 2021-06-16T13:17:24  <jamesob> seems clear that there's enough unresolved discussion here that merging these changes in before the feature freeze isn't the way to go. and that conversations like these would be much more amicable IRL!
314 2021-06-16T13:18:45  <jnewbery> laanwj: I'd suggest re-reading the irc meeting logs from when this was discussed, both in the main Bitcoin Core meeting, and in the p2p meeting. You commented in the first meeting in March, so you were aware that this was a proposal.
315 2021-06-16T13:21:50  *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
316 2021-06-16T13:23:44  <jnewbery> It's very frustrating to see someone put in months of work on something, raise it in both irc meetings, share it on the mailing list, do a huge amount of work to verify compatibility with other nodes, and then see people show up and leave opinionated comments without reading and understanding the full context.
317 2021-06-16T13:24:14  *** nfr <nfr!~nfr@2001:1c00:31c:5500:f00e:3d5e:2b21:31c1> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
318 2021-06-16T13:25:01  *** nfr <nfr!~nfr@2001:1c00:31c:5500:f00e:3d5e:2b21:31c1> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
319 2021-06-16T13:26:53  <jamesob> jnewbery: no doubt man, but to some extent that's just the nature of the beast re: the project's decentralized development process. I haven't seen mention of an irreversible widening of the protocol's semantics earlier than jonatack's comment 8 hours ago, and I think once something like that is raised it deserves to be fleshed out over some time
320 2021-06-16T13:30:05  <jnewbery> I'm still waiting for jonatack to explain why this is an "irreversible change"
321 2021-06-16T13:32:00  <michaelfolkson> It is regrettable but if laanwj vasild jonatack are all uncomfortable with it getting in before feature freeze then we should probably move on. Lots of other things to discuss for feature freeze
322 2021-06-16T13:32:29  *** Guest9766574 <Guest9766574!~Guest9766@ip5f5bf52b.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
323 2021-06-16T13:36:57  *** Guest9766574 <Guest9766574!~Guest9766@ip5f5bf52b.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
324 2021-06-16T13:39:37  *** sibilant_ <sibilant_!~sibilant@194.59.250.58> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
325 2021-06-16T13:41:54  <_aj_> jnewbery: <jnewbery> you said that I'm not being transparent // -!- laanwj [~laanwj@user/laanwj] has quit
326 2021-06-16T13:42:15  *** sibilant <sibilant!~sibilant@user/sibilant> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
327 2021-06-16T13:44:09  *** goatpig <goatpig!~goat@blocksettle-gw.cust.31173.se> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
328 2021-06-16T13:48:04  *** evias_ <evias_!~evias__@196.red-88-6-131.staticip.rima-tde.net> has quit IRC (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
329 2021-06-16T13:55:49  *** lightlike <lightlike!~lightlike@user/lightlike> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
330 2021-06-16T13:56:00  *** lightlike <lightlike!~lightlike@p200300c7ef121e0069fa21b1771e86de.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
331 2021-06-16T14:04:09  *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has quit IRC (Quit: leaving)
332 2021-06-16T14:05:48  *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
333 2021-06-16T14:06:24  <ariard> notwithstanding making the discussion far less heated for the sake of everyone, i agree that's a sender-only change and i don't see how it would restrain a future bip155 client to probe addrv2 support with its selected v22.0+ peers
334 2021-06-16T14:06:49  <ariard> that's the bip is unclear and not interest in addr format doesn't signal lack of interest in addr-relay sounds a different issue there, imho
335 2021-06-16T14:09:41  *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
336 2021-06-16T14:10:36  *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
337 2021-06-16T14:11:41  *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
338 2021-06-16T14:21:09  *** jonatack <jonatack!jonatack@user/jonatack> has quit IRC (Quit: Connection closed)
339 2021-06-16T14:22:18  *** goatpig <goatpig!~goat@h-94-254-2-155.A498.priv.bahnhof.se> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
340 2021-06-16T14:24:00  *** leafy-greens <leafy-greens!~leafy-gre@modemcable123.58-83-70.mc.videotron.ca> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
341 2021-06-16T14:26:09  *** evias <evias!~evias__@user/evias> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
342 2021-06-16T14:27:53  *** sibilant_ <sibilant_!~sibilant@user/sibilant> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
343 2021-06-16T14:40:52  *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
344 2021-06-16T14:43:10  *** stevenroose <stevenroose!~steven@2001:19f0:6801:83a:5b0:2160:99b2:6c0e> has quit IRC (Quit: ZNC 1.7.4 - https://znc.in)
345 2021-06-16T14:43:26  *** stevenroose <stevenroose!~steven@2001:19f0:6801:83a:ec57:5e94:994a:afff> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
346 2021-06-16T14:51:23  *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has quit IRC (Quit: leaving)
347 2021-06-16T14:52:45  *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
348 2021-06-16T14:53:19  *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
349 2021-06-16T14:55:42  *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
350 2021-06-16T14:59:08  *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
351 2021-06-16T14:59:26  *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
352 2021-06-16T14:59:51  *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
353 2021-06-16T15:00:56  *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@bzq-79-180-140-8.red.bezeqint.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
354 2021-06-16T15:03:18  *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
355 2021-06-16T15:05:21  *** jonatack <jonatack!jonatack@user/jonatack> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
356 2021-06-16T15:09:41  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
357 2021-06-16T15:09:42  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Sjors opened pull request #22260: Make bech32m the default, except where needed. Update GUI checkbox. (master...2021/06/bech32_gui) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22260
358 2021-06-16T15:09:43  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
359 2021-06-16T15:23:47  *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@bzq-79-180-140-8.red.bezeqint.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
360 2021-06-16T15:38:56  *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@bzq-79-180-140-8.red.bezeqint.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
361 2021-06-16T15:47:41  *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
362 2021-06-16T15:53:26  *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has quit IRC ()
363 2021-06-16T15:54:22  *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
364 2021-06-16T15:54:32  *** lkqwejhhgasdjhgn <lkqwejhhgasdjhgn!~kljkljklk@p200300d46f03bc00adf9c5ad604010d2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
365 2021-06-16T15:56:49  *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
366 2021-06-16T15:57:15  *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
367 2021-06-16T15:59:06  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
368 2021-06-16T15:59:06  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #22261: [p2p/mempool] Two small fixes to node broadcast logic (master...2021-06-broadcast-fixes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22261
369 2021-06-16T15:59:07  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
370 2021-06-16T15:59:21  *** dunxen <dunxen!dunxen@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/dunxen> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
371 2021-06-16T16:01:17  *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
372 2021-06-16T16:02:09  *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
373 2021-06-16T16:18:15  *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@bzq-79-180-140-8.red.bezeqint.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
374 2021-06-16T16:19:59  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
375 2021-06-16T16:19:59  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dongcarl closed pull request #20158: tree-wide: De-globalize ChainstateManager (master...2020-06-libbitcoinruntime) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20158
376 2021-06-16T16:20:01  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
377 2021-06-16T16:23:48  *** prakash <prakash!~prakash@58.182.42.155> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
378 2021-06-16T16:35:05  *** lightlike <lightlike!~lightlike@user/lightlike> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
379 2021-06-16T16:39:43  *** lightlike <lightlike!~lightlike@user/lightlike> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
380 2021-06-16T16:52:49  *** WS_black22 <WS_black22!~WS_black2@176.67.86.204> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
381 2021-06-16T16:52:53  <WS_black22> hello folks
382 2021-06-16T16:53:11  <WS_black22> i got my old wallet.dat i need to imported to the new bitcoin core, how can i do this? i dont see the replasment of wallet.dat,
383 2021-06-16T16:53:28  *** Guest69 <Guest69!~Guest69@218.212.21.21> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
384 2021-06-16T16:54:51  *** WS_black22 <WS_black22!~WS_black2@176.67.86.204> has quit IRC (Quit: IRC sucks ... IRC should Die! all sick!)
385 2021-06-16T16:57:51  *** Talkless <Talkless!~Talkless@mail.dargis.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
386 2021-06-16T17:03:23  *** mekster <mekster!~mekster@li1564-239.members.linode.com> has quit IRC (Quit: mekster)
387 2021-06-16T17:03:42  *** mekster <mekster!~mekster@li1564-239.members.linode.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
388 2021-06-16T17:06:23  *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
389 2021-06-16T17:09:58  <amiti> hey all, looks like I missed lots of convo about my work to mitigate-addr-blackholes. I've caught up on the conversation here & the PRs and want to share two main thoughts:
390 2021-06-16T17:10:09  <amiti> 1. My biggest question is why are these approach concerns only being raised now?
391 2021-06-16T17:10:10  <amiti> To review the context of this work: I opened #21528 almost 3 months ago, and soon after brought it up at the weekly bitcoin-core-dev meeting to seek approach feedback. A lot of the concerns that are now being voiced (should there be a separate flag, could we do redundant relay for blackholes rather than selective, what are the implications for other clients) have already been discussed in relation to these changes. My
392 2021-06-16T17:10:10  <amiti> understanding was the biggest concern was about compatibility for other clients, so I wrote to the mailing list and researched / opened issues in every other bitcoin client I could find. I’ve additionally brought up these changes at a P2P meeting in early April and then again this week. I understand that time zones are hard and that not everyone can attend the meetings, but I’d hope the logs would be read and concerns to
393 2021-06-16T17:10:10  <amiti> be raised in the week that follows.
394 2021-06-16T17:10:11  <amiti> It’s pretty disheartening to spend a long time trying to clear the conceptual obstacles for this work, to then loop back and rehash the same conversations. So this brings me back to the question of why are these approach concerns only being raised now? I’m genuinely perplexed because between the PR, irc meetings & the mailing list, I thought I was very vocal about these changes. If our only takeaway is how we avoid these
395 2021-06-16T17:10:12  <amiti> sort of drawn-out circular conversations, at least this will have been a constructive experience.
396 2021-06-16T17:10:12  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
397 2021-06-16T17:10:22  <amiti> 2. In regards to the path forward for #21528 & #22245, it seems like the concerns are all focusing specifically on SENDADDRV2 and the wording of that specific bip.  #21528 can proceed without using SENDADDRV2 (aka without #22245), but imo it would make more sense to treat it consistently with ADDR, GETADDR and ADDRV2 messages. While I do think the change is a standalone improvement, the end goal is to support more
398 2021-06-16T17:10:22  <amiti> block-relay-only connections (and address the concerns I had about the disabletx proposal).  In the end, if the only remaining concern is really around SENDADDRV2, I will remove that piece. But I would prefer to keep it logically consistent with the rest of the proposed changes.
399 2021-06-16T17:10:22  <amiti> Its clear that network-wide addr relay is something filled with murky assumptions, and divergent expectations, but I’m hoping to find a way forward for these goals.
400 2021-06-16T17:10:23  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
401 2021-06-16T17:10:24  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22245 | [p2p] Stop sending SENDADDRV2 message to block-relay-only peers by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #22245 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
402 2021-06-16T17:10:24  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
403 2021-06-16T17:10:25  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22245 | [p2p] Stop sending SENDADDRV2 message to block-relay-only peers by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #22245 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
404 2021-06-16T17:10:46  <amiti> laanwj, vasild, jonatack: I'm interested in hearing your opinions on these two points. thanks in advance!
405 2021-06-16T17:10:59  <amiti> also sorry for all the gribbles =P
406 2021-06-16T17:13:46  *** martinus__ <martinus__!~martinus@212095005005.public.telering.at> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
407 2021-06-16T17:15:44  *** mekster <mekster!~mekster@li1564-239.members.linode.com> has quit IRC (Quit: mekster)
408 2021-06-16T17:16:34  *** mekster <mekster!~mekster@li1564-239.members.linode.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
409 2021-06-16T17:19:57  <achow101> amiti: from a cursory review of all of the discussion on this topic that I could find, the issue is with the specific implementation of #22245, which, afaict, is not discussed anywhere except when that PR was opened. I get that it was broken out of #21528 but I don't see where that specific change is discussed.
410 2021-06-16T17:19:59  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22245 | [p2p] Stop sending SENDADDRV2 message to block-relay-only peers by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #22245 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
411 2021-06-16T17:20:00  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
412 2021-06-16T17:20:32  <sipa> i don't think the sendaddrv2 aspect of the discussion is relevant
413 2021-06-16T17:21:22  <sipa> (only to the extent that it drew attention to the fact that 21528 is changing behavior for a number of messages including sendaddrv2)
414 2021-06-16T17:21:34  <achow101> it seems to me that the concerns are with 22245 itself, not with the concept of avoiding addr blackholes
415 2021-06-16T17:21:57  <sipa> 22245 is utterly harmless on itself
416 2021-06-16T17:22:36  <sipa> sending sendaddrv2 or not makes no difference, as the received addr messages are just ignored
417 2021-06-16T17:28:19  <achow101> sipa: but with 21528 it gains an additional meaning?
418 2021-06-16T17:29:01  <sipa> achow101: not in my opinion, but yes, i think that is the disagreement
419 2021-06-16T17:29:48  *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
420 2021-06-16T17:30:02  <amiti> this is kinda what I'm trying to clarify- are the concerns solely about the sendaddrv2 message, or are they about the general approach
421 2021-06-16T17:31:44  <amiti> but yeah, I conceptually agree with what sipa just voiced
422 2021-06-16T17:35:50  <sipa> amiti: actually, question i have: if 21528 would exclude sendaddrv2 (just not use it as a trigger when received), what would happen for relay to block only peers?
423 2021-06-16T17:38:34  <amiti> so, if 21528 only used ADDR, ADDRV2, GETADDR to indicate "interest in addr relay", then bitcoin core nodes wouldn't initiate any of those to outbound block-relay-only connections. but nodes who have started up in blocks-only mode would initiate a GETADDR to their outbound peers.
424 2021-06-16T17:38:44  <amiti> and participate in other ADDR relay
425 2021-06-16T17:42:22  <sipa> amiti: so what difference would that make?
426 2021-06-16T17:44:51  <amiti> sipa: right, so I don't quite get why sendaddrv2 would / should be treated differently, and have a preference for logical consistency across p2p messages. BUT if the concern is *exclusively* about sendaddrv2 messages & not matching the intent when writing the bip, I can just leave it out and continue forward.
427 2021-06-16T17:45:19  <sipa> amiti: yeah, i'm just trying to understand the tradeoffs
428 2021-06-16T17:45:32  <sipa> not suggesting anything specifically
429 2021-06-16T17:47:07  <amiti> gotcha, imo the main tradeoff of using sendaddrv2 or not is just "logical consistency" of treating it the same as other address messages. no observable functional difference based on current clients
430 2021-06-16T17:47:51  <amiti> also in the research of other clients, I wasn't specifically looking, but didn't see much support for sendaddrv2, so suspect it would have minimal impact there too.
431 2021-06-16T17:47:52  <sipa> got it, thanks
432 2021-06-16T17:50:20  <amiti> :)
433 2021-06-16T17:52:00  <achow101> is 22245 required for 21528 or just "makes things consistent"? If the latter, I would suggest just dropping/skipping it for now.
434 2021-06-16T17:52:18  <achow101> it seems to me it doesn't really get in the way
435 2021-06-16T17:53:08  *** dunxen <dunxen!dunxen@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/dunxen> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
436 2021-06-16T17:53:19  *** dunxen <dunxen!dunxen@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/dunxen> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
437 2021-06-16T17:54:27  *** kabaum <kabaum!~kabaum@host-78-77-216-135.mobileonline.telia.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
438 2021-06-16T17:54:51  <sipa> i think i'm leaning in that direction too; trying to write my thoughts a bit more structured on the PR
439 2021-06-16T18:06:27  *** belcher_ <belcher_!~belcher@user/belcher> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
440 2021-06-16T18:06:40  <amiti> yup, not my preference but totally viable. if we're going that route, I'd like to better understand the reasoning around treating sendaddrv2 differently, and then can update 21528 & close 22245.
441 2021-06-16T18:07:34  *** belcher <belcher!~belcher@user/belcher> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
442 2021-06-16T18:09:14  *** hiii <hiii!~hiii@171.78.176.155> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
443 2021-06-16T18:11:23  *** belcher_ is now known as belcher
444 2021-06-16T18:18:25  <hiii> Hi, is this the main bitcoin dev channel?
445 2021-06-16T18:19:20  <michaelfolkson> hiii: "Bitcoin Core development discussion and commit log"
446 2021-06-16T18:26:03  <hiii> thanks
447 2021-06-16T18:26:21  <hiii> where can I ask about summerofbitcoin? sorry if this is off topic
448 2021-06-16T18:27:00  <michaelfolkson> hiii: #bitcoin
449 2021-06-16T18:29:41  <hiii> michaelfolkson: thank you so much, i asked here since it was a btc core developer program, apologies
450 2021-06-16T18:31:22  *** dunxen <dunxen!dunxen@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/dunxen> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving...)
451 2021-06-16T18:36:38  *** sjaustirni <sjaustirni!~sjaustirn@user/sjaustirni> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452 2021-06-16T18:37:20  *** sjaustirni <sjaustirni!~sjaustirn@user/sjaustirni> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
453 2021-06-16T18:48:42  *** zndtoshi <zndtoshi!~zndtoshi@79.112.74.9> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
454 2021-06-16T18:49:49  <zndtoshi> I posted the answers (randomized order) for the devs that were kind enough to give their feedback on the Taproot update and future expectations. Thank you! https://twitter.com/zndtoshi/status/1405235804549566464?s=20
455 2021-06-16T18:53:16  *** evias <evias!~evias__@user/evias> has quit IRC (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
456 2021-06-16T19:06:43  *** kabaum <kabaum!~kabaum@host-78-77-216-135.mobileonline.telia.com> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
457 2021-06-16T19:13:07  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
458 2021-06-16T19:13:07  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto reopened pull request #19882: depends: Export variables from make to environment explicitly (master...200905-build) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19882
459 2021-06-16T19:13:08  *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
460 2021-06-16T19:19:44  *** zestymug <zestymug!uid446484@id-446484.charlton.irccloud.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
461 2021-06-16T19:21:44  *** zndtoshi <zndtoshi!~zndtoshi@79.112.74.9> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
462 2021-06-16T19:26:01  *** zndtoshi <zndtoshi!~zndtoshi@79.112.74.9> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
463 2021-06-16T19:27:03  *** logarus <logarus!~logarus@101.186.60.205> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
464 2021-06-16T19:28:49  *** logarus2 <logarus2!~logarus@2001:8003:4d47:a500:fc19:6bd2:ed16:1c0d> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
465 2021-06-16T19:29:56  *** lukedashjr <lukedashjr!~luke-jr@user/luke-jr> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
466 2021-06-16T19:30:14  *** luke-jr <luke-jr!~luke-jr@user/luke-jr> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
467 2021-06-16T19:31:23  *** lukedashjr is now known as luke-jr
468 2021-06-16T19:33:15  *** Talkless <Talkless!~Talkless@mail.dargis.net> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
469 2021-06-16T19:38:13  *** zestymug is now known as zesty
470 2021-06-16T19:39:51  *** vasanth2[m] <vasanth2[m]!~vasanth2m@2001:470:69fc:105::3548> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
471 2021-06-16T19:41:03  *** kexkey <kexkey!~kexkey@static-198-54-132-110.cust.tzulo.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
472 2021-06-16T19:49:35  *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
473 2021-06-16T19:57:39  *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
474 2021-06-16T19:57:56  *** nanotube <nanotube!~nanotube@user/nanotube> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
475 2021-06-16T19:58:50  *** Guest54 <Guest54!~Guest54@pool-108-53-136-237.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
476 2021-06-16T20:09:43  *** zndtoshi <zndtoshi!~zndtoshi@79.112.74.9> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
477 2021-06-16T20:19:18  *** RebelOfBabylon <RebelOfBabylon!~RebelOfBa@host-67-204-200-148.public.eastlink.ca> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
478 2021-06-16T20:30:12  *** RebelOfBabylon <RebelOfBabylon!~RebelOfBa@host-67-204-200-148.public.eastlink.ca> has quit IRC (Quit: Connection closed)
479 2021-06-16T20:51:36  *** nanotube <nanotube!~nanotube@user/nanotube> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
480 2021-06-16T21:19:25  *** vnogueira <vnogueira!~vnogueira@user/vnogueira> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
481 2021-06-16T21:19:55  *** vnogueira <vnogueira!~vnogueira@user/vnogueira> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
482 2021-06-16T21:30:26  *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
483 2021-06-16T21:38:33  *** Guyver2 <Guyver2!~Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
484 2021-06-16T21:41:49  *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
485 2021-06-16T21:42:07  *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
486 2021-06-16T21:47:02  *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
487 2021-06-16T21:47:13  *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
488 2021-06-16T21:47:22  *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
489 2021-06-16T21:48:23  *** rejvons <rejvons!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
490 2021-06-16T21:50:40  *** rejvons is now known as ola
491 2021-06-16T21:50:45  *** ola is now known as rejvons
492 2021-06-16T21:53:39  *** rejvons is now known as ratatosk9
493 2021-06-16T21:54:24  *** ratatosk9 is now known as rejvons
494 2021-06-16T21:58:04  *** hiii <hiii!~hiii@171.78.176.155> has quit IRC (Quit: Connection closed)
495 2021-06-16T22:00:01  *** rejvons <rejvons!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
496 2021-06-16T22:00:18  *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
497 2021-06-16T22:02:52  *** gene_ <gene_!~gene@2a02:6f8:2020:214:100::100e> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
498 2021-06-16T22:03:03  *** ratatosk9 is now known as rejvons
499 2021-06-16T22:13:21  *** smartin <smartin!~Icedove@88.135.18.171> has quit IRC (Quit: smartin)
500 2021-06-16T22:18:03  *** rejvons is now known as ratatosk9
501 2021-06-16T22:22:07  *** Guest54 <Guest54!~Guest54@pool-108-53-136-237.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
502 2021-06-16T22:22:12  *** gene_ is now known as gene
503 2021-06-16T22:24:51  *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
504 2021-06-16T22:29:06  *** leafy-greens <leafy-greens!~leafy-gre@modemcable123.58-83-70.mc.videotron.ca> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
505 2021-06-16T22:34:28  *** Neojack <Neojack!Neojack@pear.bnc4free.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
506 2021-06-16T22:35:11  *** lightlike <lightlike!~lightlike@user/lightlike> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
507 2021-06-16T22:39:22  *** l3kk0 <l3kk0!~l3kk0@c-73-22-213-40.hsd1.il.comcast.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
508 2021-06-16T22:39:33  *** l3kk0 <l3kk0!~l3kk0@107.117.175.81> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
509 2021-06-16T22:48:38  *** l3kk0 <l3kk0!~l3kk0@107.117.175.81> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
510 2021-06-16T22:50:05  *** l3kk0 <l3kk0!~l3kk0@c-73-22-213-40.hsd1.il.comcast.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
511 2021-06-16T23:11:11  *** provoostenator <provoostenator!~quassel@user/provoostenator> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
512 2021-06-16T23:38:17  *** sanket1729 <sanket1729!~sanket172@ec2-100-24-255-95.compute-1.amazonaws.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
513 2021-06-16T23:50:01  *** gene <gene!~gene@2a02:6f8:2020:214:100::100e> has quit IRC (Quit: gene)
514 2021-06-16T23:52:29  *** jarthur <jarthur!~jarthur@2603-8080-1540-002d-d88a-0d46-4103-a0ae.res6.spectrum.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev