12025-05-15T00:03:20 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r167-61-130-171.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
22025-05-15T00:05:47 *** mcey_ <mcey_!~emcy@85.255.235.129> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
32025-05-15T00:08:55 *** mcey <mcey!~emcy@85.255.232.180> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
42025-05-15T00:18:28 *** luke-jr_ <luke-jr_!~luke-jr@user/luke-jr> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
52025-05-15T00:18:45 *** pseudoramdom <pseudoramdom!~pseudoram@user/pseudoramdom> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
62025-05-15T00:19:43 *** luke-jr <luke-jr!~luke-jr@user/luke-jr> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
72025-05-15T00:24:32 *** pseudoramdom <pseudoramdom!~pseudoram@user/pseudoramdom> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
82025-05-15T00:35:47 *** emcy__ <emcy__!~emcy@148.252.129.104> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
92025-05-15T00:39:12 *** mcey_ <mcey_!~emcy@85.255.235.129> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
102025-05-15T00:46:39 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
112025-05-15T00:46:57 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122025-05-15T01:17:28 *** PaperSword1 <PaperSword1!~Thunderbi@ec2-3-17-244-63.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132025-05-15T01:19:10 *** PaperSword <PaperSword!~Thunderbi@ec2-3-17-244-63.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
142025-05-15T01:20:17 *** PaperSword <PaperSword!~Thunderbi@securemail.qrsnap.io> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152025-05-15T01:21:48 *** PaperSword1 <PaperSword1!~Thunderbi@ec2-3-17-244-63.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
162025-05-15T01:28:36 *** dzxzg <dzxzg!~dzxzg@user/dzxzg> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
172025-05-15T01:48:36 *** robszarka <robszarka!~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:3855:996a:9be1:e359> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
182025-05-15T01:48:58 *** szarka <szarka!~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:3855:996a:9be1:e359> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192025-05-15T01:51:20 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
202025-05-15T01:51:39 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212025-05-15T02:24:54 *** jarthur <jarthur!~jarthur@user/jarthur> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
222025-05-15T02:53:30 *** Zak11 <Zak11!~Zak@2607:fb91:50b:c5::8335> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232025-05-15T02:54:28 *** Zak11 <Zak11!~Zak@2607:fb91:50b:c5::8335> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
242025-05-15T03:02:11 *** zak77 <zak77!~zak@172.58.150.56> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252025-05-15T03:43:04 *** Guest59 <Guest59!~Guest59@12.116.17.30> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
262025-05-15T04:01:01 *** cmirror <cmirror!~cmirror@4.53.92.114> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
272025-05-15T04:01:32 *** cmirror <cmirror!~cmirror@4.53.92.114> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
282025-05-15T04:24:59 *** greypw1495085720 <greypw1495085720!~greypw@user/greypw> has quit IRC (Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds))
292025-05-15T04:26:31 *** zeropoint <zeropoint!~alex@45-28-139-114.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> has quit IRC (Quit: leaving)
302025-05-15T04:47:43 *** _flood <_flood!~flooded@149.102.226.200> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
312025-05-15T04:48:58 *** flooded <flooded!~flooded@149.102.226.199> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
322025-05-15T04:51:37 *** Guest59 <Guest59!~Guest59@12.116.17.30> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
332025-05-15T05:06:57 *** TallTim_ <TallTim_!~talltim@24.124.35.28> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
342025-05-15T05:08:07 *** kevkevin <kevkevin!~kevkevin@209.242.39.30> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
352025-05-15T05:08:49 *** kevkevin <kevkevin!~kevkevin@209.242.39.30> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
362025-05-15T05:10:33 *** TallTim <TallTim!~talltim@24-124-35-28-dynamic.midco.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
372025-05-15T05:13:25 *** kevkevin <kevkevin!~kevkevin@209.242.39.30> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
382025-05-15T05:40:22 *** Christoph_ <Christoph_!~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
392025-05-15T06:26:15 *** jarthur <jarthur!~jarthur@user/jarthur> has quit IRC (Quit: jarthur)
402025-05-15T06:56:36 *** tarotfied <tarotfied!~tarotfied@user/tarotfied> has quit IRC (Quit: WeeChat 4.1.1)
412025-05-15T07:17:58 *** seaner <seaner!~sean@203.132.94.86> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
422025-05-15T07:31:04 *** kevkevin <kevkevin!~kevkevin@209.242.39.30> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
432025-05-15T07:35:49 *** kevkevin <kevkevin!~kevkevin@209.242.39.30> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
442025-05-15T07:36:27 *** tarotfied <tarotfied!~tarotfied@user/tarotfied> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452025-05-15T07:39:05 *** Guyver2 <Guyver2!~Guyver@77-174-98-73.fixed.kpn.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
462025-05-15T08:39:57 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/31d3eebfb92a...89c7b6b97ab4
472025-05-15T08:39:58 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3b82416 fanquake: doc: remove Carls substitute server from Guix docs
482025-05-15T08:39:58 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 89c7b6b merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#32498: doc: remove Carls substitute server from Guix...
492025-05-15T08:40:02 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #32498: doc: remove Carls substitute server from Guix docs (master...remove_carl_substitute_server) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32498
502025-05-15T09:17:57 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/89c7b6b97ab4...c779ee3a4044
512025-05-15T09:17:58 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 75a185e fanquake: test: add skip_if_running_under_valgrind()
522025-05-15T09:17:58 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c779ee3 merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#32492: test: add skip_if_running_under_valgrind()
532025-05-15T09:17:59 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #32492: test: add skip_if_running_under_valgrind() (master...functional_tracepoints_skip_valgrind) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32492
542025-05-15T09:34:32 *** kevkevin <kevkevin!~kevkevin@209.242.39.30> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
552025-05-15T09:34:45 *** johnzweng <johnzweng!~johnzweng@zweng.at> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
562025-05-15T09:35:38 *** johnzweng <johnzweng!~johnzweng@zweng.at> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
572025-05-15T09:39:07 *** kevkevin <kevkevin!~kevkevin@209.242.39.30> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
582025-05-15T10:00:43 *** Christoph_ <Christoph_!~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net> has quit IRC (Quit: Christoph_)
592025-05-15T10:33:15 *** eugenesiegel <eugenesiegel!~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
602025-05-15T10:46:51 *** Christoph_ <Christoph_!~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
612025-05-15T10:59:53 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32507: ci: Exclude failing wallet_reorgsrestore.py from valgrind task for now (master...2505-ci-valgrind) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32507
622025-05-15T11:01:54 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r167-61-130-171.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
632025-05-15T11:02:45 *** seaner <seaner!~sean@203.132.94.86> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
642025-05-15T11:33:37 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r167-61-130-171.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
652025-05-15T11:35:52 *** kevkevin <kevkevin!~kevkevin@209.242.39.30> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
662025-05-15T11:42:23 *** Christoph_ <Christoph_!~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net> has quit IRC (Quit: Christoph_)
672025-05-15T11:44:39 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
682025-05-15T11:47:24 *** Christoph_ <Christoph_!~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
692025-05-15T11:58:50 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hodlinator opened pull request #32509: qa: feature_framework_startup_failures.py fixes & improvements (#30660 follow-up) (master...2025/05/30660_follow_up) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32509
702025-05-15T12:17:06 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Sjors opened pull request #32510: rfc: only put replaced txs in extra pool (master...2025/05/extra-pool) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32510
712025-05-15T12:19:30 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has quit IRC (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
722025-05-15T12:21:48 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
732025-05-15T12:24:36 *** kevkevin_ <kevkevin_!~kevkevin@209.242.39.30> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
742025-05-15T12:24:36 *** kevkevin <kevkevin!~kevkevin@209.242.39.30> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
752025-05-15T12:28:22 *** bitdex <bitdex!~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex> has quit IRC (Quit: = "")
762025-05-15T12:39:25 *** zak77 <zak77!~zak@172.58.150.56> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
772025-05-15T12:53:07 *** Christoph_ <Christoph_!~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net> has quit IRC (Quit: Christoph_)
782025-05-15T12:56:06 *** Christoph_ <Christoph_!~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
792025-05-15T12:56:34 *** Guest67 <Guest67!~Guest67@102.89.83.172> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
802025-05-15T13:00:38 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32511: refactor: bdb removals (master...2505-del-get-dest-key) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32511
812025-05-15T13:03:20 *** Guest67 <Guest67!~Guest67@102.89.83.172> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
822025-05-15T13:20:12 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] darosior closed pull request #32117: qa: make feature_assumeutxo.py test more robust (master...2503_more_assumeutxo_test_unbrittling) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32117
832025-05-15T13:36:50 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] m3dwards opened pull request #32513: ci: remove 3rd party js from windows dll gha job (master...250515-remove-js-ci) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32513
842025-05-15T13:48:30 *** saturday- <saturday-!~saturday7@59.167.129.22> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
852025-05-15T13:49:29 *** saturday7 <saturday7!~saturday7@59.167.129.22> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
862025-05-15T13:51:32 *** Guyver2 <Guyver2!~Guyver@77-174-98-73.fixed.kpn.net> has left #bitcoin-core-dev (Closing Window)
872025-05-15T13:55:38 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32514: scripted-diff: Remove unused leading newline in RPC docs (master...2505-rpc-newline) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32514
882025-05-15T14:13:45 <instagibbs> Any reason MiniWallet shouldn't be picking up all the newly generated block coinbase outputs in tests? It's starting with 49 outputs, no more can be added, they can be consumed, then more can be added later, up to 49 on rescan?
892025-05-15T14:21:07 <instagibbs> looks like it's stuck at the same 49 actually
902025-05-15T14:29:25 *** gerle <gerle!~quassel@212.186.78.187> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
912025-05-15T14:40:53 *** bugs_ <bugs_!~bugs@user/bugs/x-5128603> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
922025-05-15T15:01:06 *** zeropoint <zeropoint!~alex@45-28-139-114.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
932025-05-15T15:08:36 *** fearbeag <fearbeag!~seanicide@216.209.44.189> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
942025-05-15T15:11:55 *** bob_x1 <bob_x1!~bob_x@user/bob-x1/x-8934932> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
952025-05-15T15:13:10 *** bob_x1 <bob_x1!~bob_x@user/bob-x1/x-8934932> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
962025-05-15T15:13:33 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
972025-05-15T15:13:51 *** synexic <synexic!~syn@toucht.one> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
982025-05-15T15:13:57 *** dviola <dviola!~diego@user/dviola> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
992025-05-15T15:14:01 *** synexic <synexic!~syn@toucht.one> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1002025-05-15T15:14:20 *** diego <diego!~diego@177.34.235.126> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1012025-05-15T15:14:39 *** diego <diego!~diego@177.34.235.126> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1022025-05-15T15:15:30 *** dviola <dviola!~diego@user/dviola> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1032025-05-15T15:17:01 *** adys <adys!~adys@149.106.235.56> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1042025-05-15T15:17:39 *** reardencode <reardencode!~reardenco@shrugged.reardencode.com> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1052025-05-15T15:19:53 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #32516: functional test: add MAX_DISCONNECTED_TX_POOL_BYTES coverage (master...2025-05-reorg_mempool_trimming) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32516
1062025-05-15T15:20:21 *** midnight_ <midnight_!~midnight@user/midnight> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1072025-05-15T15:22:55 *** reardencode <reardencode!~reardenco@console.reardencode.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1082025-05-15T15:24:53 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c779ee3a4044...bdc1cef1de84
1092025-05-15T15:24:54 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa981b9 MarcoFalke: ci: Exclude failing wallet_reorgsrestore.py from valgrind task for now
1102025-05-15T15:24:54 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bdc1cef merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#32507: ci: Exclude failing wallet_reorgsrestore.py f...
1112025-05-15T15:24:55 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #32507: ci: Exclude failing wallet_reorgsrestore.py from valgrind task for now (master...2505-ci-valgrind) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32507
1122025-05-15T15:27:17 *** antanst <antanst!~antanst@user/antanst> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1132025-05-15T15:27:17 *** gerle <gerle!~quassel@212.186.78.187> has quit IRC (Quit: https://quassel-irc.org - Komfortabler Chat. Ãberall.)
1142025-05-15T15:32:05 *** nickler_ <nickler_!~nickler@static.219.205.69.159.clients.your-server.de> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1152025-05-15T15:33:41 *** Christoph_ <Christoph_!~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1162025-05-15T15:36:23 *** nickler <nickler!~nickler@static.219.205.69.159.clients.your-server.de> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172025-05-15T15:36:28 *** midnight <midnight!~midnight@user/midnight> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182025-05-15T15:39:44 *** TallTim_ is now known as TallTim
1192025-05-15T15:40:11 *** antanst <antanst!~antanst@user/antanst> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202025-05-15T15:40:33 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] pinheadmz opened pull request #32517: rpc: add "ischange: true" to decoded tx outputs in wallet gettransaction response (master...wallet-gettransaction-ischange) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32517
1212025-05-15T15:58:42 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 4 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bdc1cef1de84...725c9f7780e0
1222025-05-15T15:58:42 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d1fdc84 Nicola Leonardo Susca: doc: Remove Linux Kernel from dep. table
1232025-05-15T15:58:43 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a3520f9 Nicola Leonardo Susca: doc: Add dependency self-compilation info
1242025-05-15T15:58:43 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e62423d Nicola Leonardo Susca: doc: Improve dependencies.md documentation
1252025-05-15T15:58:45 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #31895: doc: Improve `dependencies.md` (master...doc-followup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31895
1262025-05-15T15:58:52 <darosior> #proposedmeetingtopic communication about Core's vision for relay policy from current contributors (1000 feet view executive summary, not the specific recent drama)
1272025-05-15T16:00:08 <achow101> #startmeeting
1282025-05-15T16:00:08 <corebot> achow101: Meeting started at 2025-05-15T16:00+0000
1292025-05-15T16:00:10 <corebot> achow101: Current chairs: achow101
1302025-05-15T16:00:11 <corebot> achow101: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
1312025-05-15T16:00:11 <corebot> achow101: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
1322025-05-15T16:00:12 <corebot> achow101: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
1332025-05-15T16:00:13 <TheCharlatan> hi
1342025-05-15T16:00:16 <hebasto> hi
1352025-05-15T16:00:16 <brunoerg> hi
1362025-05-15T16:00:17 <achow101> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: abubakarsadiq achow101 _aj_ ajonas b10c brunoerg cfields darosior dergoegge fanquake fjahr furszy gleb glozow hebasto hodlinator instagibbs jarolrod jonatack josibake kanzure laanwj LarryRuane lightlike luke-jr maflcko marcofleon maxedw Murch pinheadmz provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar S3RK stickies-v sipa sr_gi tdb3 theStack TheCharlatan vasild willcl-ark
1372025-05-15T16:00:18 <sipa> hi
1382025-05-15T16:00:19 <Murch[m]> hi
1392025-05-15T16:00:29 <pinheadmz> Hi
1402025-05-15T16:00:37 <lightlike> Hi
1412025-05-15T16:00:44 <johnny9dev> hi
1422025-05-15T16:00:46 <eugenesiegel> hi
1432025-05-15T16:01:01 <achow101> There is 1 preproposed meeting topic, any last minute ones to add?
1442025-05-15T16:01:01 <stickies-v> hi
1452025-05-15T16:01:06 <marcofleon> hi
1462025-05-15T16:01:41 <achow101> #topic Kernel WG Update (TheCharlatan)
1472025-05-15T16:02:00 <hodlinator> hi
1482025-05-15T16:02:17 <maxedw> Hi
1492025-05-15T16:02:21 <TheCharlatan> Had a PR review club yesterday on #32317.
1502025-05-15T16:02:23 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32317 | kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions by TheCharlatan · Pull Request #32317 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1512025-05-15T16:02:58 <TheCharlatan> I also discussed some future optimizations that this might enable today, e.g. reducing the scope of cs_main, running block validation in parallel.
1522025-05-15T16:02:58 <furszy> hi
1532025-05-15T16:03:01 <TheCharlatan> #32427 has already received a bunch of conceptual feedback, thanks for that!
1542025-05-15T16:03:03 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32427 | (RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store by TheCharlatan · Pull Request #32427 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1552025-05-15T16:03:52 *** rkrux <rkrux!~rkrux@user/rkrux> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1562025-05-15T16:03:53 <TheCharlatan> I'd be interested in hearing some more opinions on if this could allow us to get rid of much of the reindexing logic
1572025-05-15T16:04:01 <rkrux> hi
1582025-05-15T16:04:30 <TheCharlatan> though some have raised concerns in the PR already that reindexing also encompasses recovering from block file corruption.
1592025-05-15T16:04:44 <laanwj> hi
1602025-05-15T16:05:06 <TheCharlatan> that's all for today
1612025-05-15T16:05:22 <achow101> #topic Cluster Mempool WG Update (sdaftuar, sipa)
1622025-05-15T16:05:42 <sipa> 31444 got merged (yay!), #31553 is next to review
1632025-05-15T16:05:45 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31553 | cluster mempool: add TxGraph reorg functionality by sipa · Pull Request #31553 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1642025-05-15T16:06:30 <sipa> On the research front, we found a counterexample to our earlief belief that the SFL linearization algorithm always makes progress: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/spanning-forest-cluster-linearization/1419/6
1652025-05-15T16:07:00 <sipa> That's unfortunate, though I don't think it has much practical impact - it's still far better than what we have, and logistically much more useful than the 1989 paper algorithm.
1662025-05-15T16:07:29 <sipa> So my thinking remains to in the near future work on replacing the current algorithm with that.
1672025-05-15T16:08:14 <Murch[m]> What is the practical implication of that?
1682025-05-15T16:08:16 <sipa> To clarify: it's a randomized algorithm, and the "no progress" possibility boils down to forever making terrible choices, it doesn't mean an inability to make progress.
1692025-05-15T16:08:18 <abubakarsadiq> hi
1702025-05-15T16:08:28 <Murch[m]> Would that mean that some clusters just never get linearized or just that some cycles would be wasted?
1712025-05-15T16:08:40 <Murch[m]> Okay
1722025-05-15T16:09:37 <sipa> In all examples found, there is something like a 50-80% chance of making progress anyway, whenever you're in such a (very rare) potential-not-making progress state.
1732025-05-15T16:09:48 <sipa> But of course, there may exist examples for which the situation is worse.
1742025-05-15T16:10:04 <sipa> 50-80% chance per step
1752025-05-15T16:10:25 <sipa> That's it for me.
1762025-05-15T16:10:53 <achow101> #topic MuSig2 WG Update (achow101, rkrux)
1772025-05-15T16:11:00 <achow101> Been addressing review and rebasing #31622
1782025-05-15T16:11:04 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31622 | psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking by achow101 · Pull Request #31622 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1792025-05-15T16:11:05 <achow101> PRs to review are still #31622 and #31244
1802025-05-15T16:11:06 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31622 | psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking by achow101 · Pull Request #31622 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1812025-05-15T16:11:07 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31244 | descriptors: MuSig2 by achow101 · Pull Request #31244 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1822025-05-15T16:11:19 <achow101> #topic QML GUI WG Update (jarolrod, johnny9dev)
1832025-05-15T16:11:30 <abubakarsadiq> TheCharlatan: is #32427 at a stage you need testing?
1842025-05-15T16:11:32 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32427 | (RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store by TheCharlatan · Pull Request #32427 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1852025-05-15T16:11:41 *** cfields <cfields!~cfields@user/cfields> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1862025-05-15T16:11:47 <johnny9dev> bitcoin-core/gui-qml#448 was merged this week.
1872025-05-15T16:11:47 <johnny9dev> I'm continuing work on bitcoin-core/gui-qml#450 with just the list of recipients in the Review page remaining to be completed
1882025-05-15T16:11:47 <johnny9dev> Christoph has proposed a solution for initial loading state using a "skeleton" design pattern. He opened up a discussion at https://github.com/BitcoinDesign/Bitcoin-Core-App/issues/155 and has a prototype to go with it.
1892025-05-15T16:11:49 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/448 | Introduce Coin Selection page by johnny9 · Pull Request #448 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
1902025-05-15T16:11:50 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/450 | Add Multiple Recipients option to the Send form by johnny9 · Pull Request #450 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
1912025-05-15T16:12:41 <fanquake> johnny9dev: is the qml branch going to be rebased onto master at some point? I'd have assumed you'd want cmake + qt6 now that it's available
1922025-05-15T16:13:06 <johnny9dev> Thats the current thought
1932025-05-15T16:13:32 <Murch[m]> johnny9dev: I was a bit surprised at the sparse information in the coin control table, it looks like it is just amount and address. Is this going to be extended or is this the intended final state?
1942025-05-15T16:13:33 <hebasto> it makes more sense after restoring Android builds
1952025-05-15T16:13:38 <johnny9dev> I haven't had much slack time to experiment but I am very curious still about alternative deployments that have been discussed
1962025-05-15T16:14:14 <pinheadmz> fanquake: I am working on that rebase
1972025-05-15T16:14:20 <pinheadmz> (For fun!)
1982025-05-15T16:14:40 <pinheadmz> 400 commits and hundreds of conflicts. Mostly multiprocess interface and build system
1992025-05-15T16:15:05 <sipa> pinheadmz: i'm impressed, can i ask what sort of thing you would consider not fun?
2002025-05-15T16:15:37 <pinheadmz> Changing diapers ?
2012025-05-15T16:16:02 <pinheadmz> Anyway. Once rebase is done idk what to do with it (force push to qml master?)
2022025-05-15T16:16:16 <sipa> pinheadmz: are you trying to maintain the commit history? i can imagine that squashing parts or even all of it would make this a lot easier
2032025-05-15T16:16:22 <johnny9dev> @murch: there is a discussion on github for a more final implementation. https://github.com/BitcoinDesign/Bitcoin-Core-App/issues/155
2042025-05-15T16:16:27 <pinheadmz> I am not
2052025-05-15T16:16:41 <pinheadmz> I actually used a script to filter out pairs of revert commits, etc
2062025-05-15T16:16:56 <johnny9dev> Sorry, https://github.com/BitcoinDesign/Bitcoin-Core-App/issues/153 for Coin Control details
2072025-05-15T16:17:25 <Murch[m]> ah, was gonna say that it seems unrelated
2082025-05-15T16:17:37 <Murch[m]> Thanks, Iâll take a look
2092025-05-15T16:17:40 <pinheadmz> I think ideally qmlgui ends up with bitcoin/bitcoin as a git sub module
2102025-05-15T16:17:52 <pinheadmz> Or muktiprocess something something
2112025-05-15T16:18:21 <johnny9dev> I agree with that
2122025-05-15T16:18:29 <hebasto> ^^ as pointed by darosior
2132025-05-15T16:19:54 <TheCharlatan> abubakarsadiq, marcofleon has written a differential fuzz test for the PR. Further testing would also be appreciated, what did you have in mind?
2142025-05-15T16:21:02 <achow101> #topic communication about Core's vision for relay policy from current contributors (darosior)
2152025-05-15T16:21:18 <darosior> Hi everyone. My proposal for the OP_RETURN standardness rule change has been severely mischaracterized online. This has led to genuine concerns from Bitcoin enthusiasts about the change itself, but also about Bitcoin Core. I do not think there is any ground for these concerns, but what is done is done. From my experience engaging with the community
2162025-05-15T16:21:18 <darosior> in the past weeks i think we should hold off the change for some time (if it's gonna be merged doesn't matter if it is now or in 2 weeks) and work on our communication. To this end i suggest we post on the website a broad view of how Bitcoin Core approaches relay policy, to be signed off by people working in this area of the codebase. It should be
2172025-05-15T16:21:18 <darosior> short, in the form of an executive summary. I think it would go a long way for people who heard about the drama but cannot afford to spend time digging on Github or the mailing list and interpret our technical discussions.
2182025-05-15T16:22:13 <achow101> similar to what instagibbs tried to write up last week?
2192025-05-15T16:22:18 <darosior> No
2202025-05-15T16:22:45 <achow101> or more generic?
2212025-05-15T16:23:08 <darosior> instagibbs' writeup was specific and technical, so much that it just confused people who aren't already familiar
2222025-05-15T16:23:09 <Murch[m]> It sounds like it would be more about the goals and approaches, not the concrete case
2232025-05-15T16:23:19 <darosior> Yes exactly
2242025-05-15T16:24:03 *** cfields <cfields!~cfields@user/cfields> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252025-05-15T16:24:13 <cfields> hi... ircd troubles.
2262025-05-15T16:24:33 <darosior> cfields: got the logs?
2272025-05-15T16:24:47 <sipa> I'm generally supportive of putting some statement on the website to have something to point people to, though obviously it'll depend on the content.
2282025-05-15T16:25:00 <achow101> sipa: +1
2292025-05-15T16:25:08 <achow101> darosior: do you have a draft to share?
2302025-05-15T16:25:20 <darosior> I don't i wanted to take the temperature first
2312025-05-15T16:25:27 <cfields> darosior: no, I'll catch up from context and read logs later. thanks though.
2322025-05-15T16:25:31 <abubakarsadiq> @thecharlatan: I remember using py-bitcoinkernel for my mining research https://github.com/ismaelsadeeq/mining-analysis and it's a bit annoying I have to shutdown my bitcoind, so I am thinking whether it is at the stage I can reproduce try reproducing the research without shutting down bitcoind and halting other node activities I am running.
2332025-05-15T16:25:39 <Murch[m]> Having spent a bunch of time discussing online in the past couple weeks, I do think that we should talk less about the nuanced trade-offs and more about what our priorities are
2342025-05-15T16:25:47 <sipa> TheCharlatan, abubakarsadiq: stick to topic, please?
2352025-05-15T16:26:44 <willcl-ark> hi
2362025-05-15T16:27:33 <Murch[m]> Trying to convey the finer details exacerbated the amount of follow-up questions and results in finer grained misconceptions that take even more time to address. darosiorâs idea sounds good to me.
2372025-05-15T16:27:54 <sipa> It's a bit of a challenge I think to do this, as Bitcoin Core contributors are an ill-defined group and I think few people are comfortable speaking for others. But I can imagine a statement from some maintainers/regular contributors of the form "We believe many contributors feel the goal of relay/mempool/... should be", so rather than "Bitcoin Core believes X should happen", it is an observation
2382025-05-15T16:28:00 <sipa> about current contributors' views
2392025-05-15T16:29:02 <darosior> That sounds good to me
2402025-05-15T16:29:03 *** Guest66 <Guest66!~Guest66@2601:189:8100:6980:bc79:2704:b212:60f> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2412025-05-15T16:29:48 <achow101> yeah, i'd prefer to have it be a statement from the contributors who sign off on it, rather than a statement from the project
2422025-05-15T16:30:36 <fanquake> How many signatures do you need for it to be viable for the website?
2432025-05-15T16:30:43 <darosior> i think we should be able to make statements from the problem, but this is a different discussion. A letter signed off by contributors in this area relayed on the website sounds good to me
2442025-05-15T16:30:47 <Murch[m]> achow101, sipa: Would such a personal statement still be published on bitcoincore.org?
2452025-05-15T16:31:10 <darosior> *from the project, sorry, not problem
2462025-05-15T16:31:53 <darosior> I think a short explainer of why the binaries released by the project on the website are the way they are has absolutely its place on the website...
2472025-05-15T16:32:31 <achow101> Murch[m]: depends on the content, and if enough people sign it?
2482025-05-15T16:32:55 <darosior> I don't think it's the number of the signatures that matter, but who signs it
2492025-05-15T16:33:24 *** rkrux <rkrux!~rkrux@user/rkrux> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
2502025-05-15T16:33:54 <stickies-v> if there's enough consensus (among core devs) to merge it, there should be enough consensus to put a website post up
2512025-05-15T16:33:54 <sipa> Hmm, I think I'm not getting my suggestion across well. I don't mean at all a personal statement by some/many people, individually signed by all.
2522025-05-15T16:34:08 <darosior> stickies-v: exactly
2532025-05-15T16:34:21 <achow101> darosior: sure, but we also don't want it to be perceived as a small group of people setting the direction of the project
2542025-05-15T16:35:02 <fanquake> sipa: yea I think I'm missing the difference between "We believe many contributors feel" & "Bitcoin Core believes X",
2552025-05-15T16:35:31 <pinheadmz> why imply anything? why wouldnt it be "we the undersigned believe..." ?
2562025-05-15T16:35:31 <darosior> achow101: the set of people that would make such a change a reality (by signing off the PR) is not large. That's just the reality
2572025-05-15T16:36:11 <sipa> fanquake: well for one it doesn't need to claim to be inclusive of all views
2582025-05-15T16:36:24 <sipa> but yeah, maybe there isn't that much of a difference
2592025-05-15T16:36:53 <fanquake> Sure. I guess in my mind, the view of the project is what we are shipping in the binaries
2602025-05-15T16:37:27 <darosior> fanquake: +1
2612025-05-15T16:37:28 <stickies-v> exactly this. if we ship based on rough consensus, we should be able to blog post based on rough consensus
2622025-05-15T16:37:56 <TheCharlatan> there could be a difference between what is shipped, and what people believe the direction of policy over the next few years should be.
2632025-05-15T16:38:30 <willcl-ark> So would this be an educational post, something like the compact blocks FAQ? Or more of a report, or just a "we the undersigned agree x" type of thing?
2642025-05-15T16:38:39 <darosior> TheCharlatan: yeah i think there is a true distinction between what is and what should be in the future. That's up for debate too in my opinion, but here i am suggesting we do the former
2652025-05-15T16:39:16 <stickies-v> sure, but 32406 specifically includes direction of policy by changing a default and deprecating the option, right?
2662025-05-15T16:39:28 <darosior> heh, true
2672025-05-15T16:39:40 <sipa> but even deprecation is not a promise, just an intent
2682025-05-15T16:39:55 <sipa> and as contributors and their views change, intent can change
2692025-05-15T16:40:01 <instagibbs> sipa +1
2702025-05-15T16:40:02 <darosior> willcl-ark: something akin to "what we've been up to, and why"
2712025-05-15T16:40:13 <sipa> darosior: i like that
2722025-05-15T16:40:23 <achow101> I think I'll have more/stronger opinions once there's something to review
2732025-05-15T16:40:23 <willcl-ark> darosior: ok. that sounds nice
2742025-05-15T16:40:41 <abubakarsadiq> I think there is something similar on the website https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/09/01/open-letter/
2752025-05-15T16:40:41 <darosior> achow101: yeah, let me come up with a draft and we can reassess
2762025-05-15T16:40:44 <achow101> it's too early for abstract thought :p
2772025-05-15T16:41:21 <sipa> abubakarsadiq: wow, blast from the past :p
2782025-05-15T16:41:33 <darosior> By the way i think it would be nice if we published more PSAs about what we've been up to. But this one is most important now because of the recent controversy
2792025-05-15T16:41:41 <stickies-v> thank you for all your public work on this darosior (and others)
2802025-05-15T16:42:12 <darosior> stickies-v: thanks for the thanks, and sorry to have triggered this in the first place
2812025-05-15T16:42:28 <darosior> (although it was just unveiling resentment that was already there)
2822025-05-15T16:42:31 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32519: ci: Enable feature_init and wallet_reorgsrestore in valgrind task (master...2505-ci-valgrind) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32519
2832025-05-15T16:42:33 <achow101> Any other topics to discuss?
2842025-05-15T16:42:34 <sipa> darosior: *pew* (the sound of people shotting the messenger)
2852025-05-15T16:42:43 <darosior> lol
2862025-05-15T16:43:17 <cfields> I'm not sure what we're trying to accomplish here. My understanding is that the hate isn't coming so much from the change itself so much as the perception of how decisions are made and priorities are set. I'm not sure that "this is why we're doing X" is a constructive response to that?
2872025-05-15T16:43:35 <Murch[m]> Aye, I think we should generally think a bit more about public communication, and even how we support users of Bitcoin Core
2882025-05-15T16:43:40 <darosior> cfields: a decent part of misunderstanding is also coming from the change
2892025-05-15T16:44:13 <darosior> Murch[m]: i agree, topic for the next Coredev? Also happy to discuss it during an IRC meeting
2902025-05-15T16:44:53 <glozow> Light concept ACK to "here's the north star / what we've been doing and why." Also agree that perhaps communication about how decisions are made might be even more important
2912025-05-15T16:45:04 <Murch[m]> Iâve been told by several people in the past couple months that they wish there were a way to contact Bitcoin Core if one had questions or support issues, and others have recommended that we might find a couple contributors that do public relations or developer advocacy in some form.
2922025-05-15T16:45:09 <stickies-v> cfields: I was starting to type a similar response too, i think a lot of people have already heard a lot of the reasoning, but just fundamentally believe we / contributors / maintainers are evil or compromised and should not be trusted, and more reasoning may not convince them
2932025-05-15T16:45:20 <Murch[m]> E.g., by trying to talk more about the big picture
2942025-05-15T16:45:27 <sipa> cfields: i think having a place to describe motivations for a change can very much help with some misunderstandings i'm seeing (as opposed to needing individual contributors' social media posts, which can be hard to find, scattered, and easily drowned in noise)
2952025-05-15T16:45:29 <stickies-v> but i don't know how to solve that, and having a brief, easy-to-point to statement might still be a helpful addition
2962025-05-15T16:45:37 <Murch[m]> Someone actually recently approached me that they want to make some educational videos about Bitcoin Core
2972025-05-15T16:46:22 <Murch[m]> It certainly doesnât sound like stuff thatâs close to our heart, but we also canât lose three weeks on a good chunk of developers every time someone misrepresents a situation
2982025-05-15T16:47:32 <achow101> stickies-v: if people believe that contributors are evil / compromised, I don't think any communication that we do would really change that opinion?
2992025-05-15T16:47:49 <darosior> Murch[m]: this is more than 3 weeks of time that is at stake. It should not be overstated but i think it shook the trust in Bitcoin Core to some extent.
3002025-05-15T16:48:01 <sipa> achow101: yes, but i think that's only a minority, and maybe not the most important one
3012025-05-15T16:48:07 <Murch[m]> darosior: Yeah, I agree
3022025-05-15T16:48:34 <darosior> achow101: this is not about convincing people that already made their mind but the silent majority of people that are currently hearing from only the side of "Core is evil"
3032025-05-15T16:48:40 <Murch[m]> achow101: I think the perception that we are compromised or misguided is only tenable, because the actual motivations are not understood
3042025-05-15T16:49:46 <darosior> And a lot of people that is important to not lose the trust of, don't have the time to dig up through dumpster fire Github threads and ML threads for our arguments
3052025-05-15T16:50:21 <TheCharlatan> yes, my impression from the past three weeks is that people genuinely don't understand why and how we're nudging ecosystem behaviour with policy.
3062025-05-15T16:50:44 <darosior> I am not saying that as a project we should address every single tin foil hat conspiracy out there, but we should at least have a statement about our vision out. Anyone genuine can hear them and read us. Right now they can only hear them.
3072025-05-15T16:51:03 <achow101> sure, I think writing a statement is fine, I just don't think that a dissuading people who have that opinion should necessarily be a goal
3082025-05-15T16:51:03 <Murch[m]> Yeah, the conversation being on Twitter, Nostr, Stacker News, Delving, the Mailing List, the podcast sphere, and probably a gazillion chats that we arenât in, doesnât help with getting our message out when we donât feel that strongly about it, while the other side thinks the world is on fire
3092025-05-15T16:51:16 <abubakarsadiq> I think more communication is always welcome and beneficial, but I donât believe it will prevent misclassification or incidents like the one caused by the recent policy change PR.
3102025-05-15T16:51:16 <abubakarsadiq> In an open-source project like this, some people will always complain or create noise when developers make a decision that doesnât align with their views.
3112025-05-15T16:51:16 <abubakarsadiq> Iâm not sure thereâs a clear way to address that.
3122025-05-15T16:51:18 <achow101> but certainly explaining motivations may help to that effect
3132025-05-15T16:52:47 <Murch[m]> There also generally have been a few things that the community has felt very strongly about that Bitcoin Core has not addressed, so itâs just been piling up
3142025-05-15T16:53:51 <darosior> abubakarsadiq: we will never sway disingenuous people. There is still plenty of genuinely confused people out there to be swayed. I think a letter on the website is a very cost efficient way of working toward that goal.
3152025-05-15T16:53:56 <Murch[m]> Given that we are such a small group compared to the Bitcoin user base, more simply resources served highly visibly might significantly reduce our effort
3162025-05-15T16:54:16 <darosior> Murch[m]: yes, this is not about that specific issue. Resentment has been piling up and lack of communication is fueling it
3172025-05-15T16:54:55 <achow101> anyways, it seems like the next thing to do is to have something written to review
3182025-05-15T16:55:01 <stickies-v> i agree it's worth doing effort to provide resources to people genuinely trying to understand
3192025-05-15T16:55:02 <glozow> Producing more and more text that nobody reads is a bad strategy imo. It seems like we''re always thinking "if I just write one more post, they'll get it" and that's not true. I don't think we can win an information war unless we devote significant resources to becoming influencers long term. We have code to write, and they don't.
3202025-05-15T16:55:05 <achow101> that will probably help inform the questions about what the point is
3212025-05-15T16:55:28 <abubakarsadiq> +1 glozow
3222025-05-15T16:56:05 <darosior> glozow: this is not about writing one more blog post this is about writing the very first thing about it.
3232025-05-15T16:56:48 <Murch[m]> glozow: Yeah, what Iâm tryìng to express is that we might want to communicate less often, but simpler and more visibly
3242025-05-15T16:57:03 <glozow> I think darosior, Murch, and many others have written a ton about op_return already. They are excellent and were worth the time. But who is the person who will be convinced by a bitcoincore.org post and not the ones you've already written?
3252025-05-15T16:57:31 <sipa> glozow: i think there may be some
3262025-05-15T16:57:31 <glozow> And how will they come across this post?
3272025-05-15T16:57:58 <darosior> glozow: I don't think an executive of a Bitcoin company will go read my thousand line detailed technical refutation of mostly tin foil hat stuff and made-up objections. They will read two paragraphs published officially on the Bitcoin Core website.
3282025-05-15T16:58:17 <Murch[m]> glozow: Yeah, Iâm not talking about the spilt milk, Iâm thinking that in hindsight, e.g., darosiorâs one long post was a much better at broadly addressing the issue than my ~200 posts
3292025-05-15T16:58:17 <glozow> Murch: that seems like a good strategy overall
3302025-05-15T16:58:29 <darosior> glozow: the same way they come across binaries. Somehow they find their way.
3312025-05-15T16:58:42 <Murch[m]> exactly what darosior said
3322025-05-15T16:58:43 *** arminsdev <arminsdev!~arminsdev@2601:184:4181:ba20:e58f:9d0:9bf1:4ce1> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3332025-05-15T16:59:20 <glozow> darosior: I don't think so. I think they message a dev or somebody dev-adjacent that they trust
3342025-05-15T16:59:21 <achow101> glozow: I think something that is jointly the opinion of multiple contributors will have more weight than the hundreds of separate posts arguing with specific people
3352025-05-15T16:59:47 <achow101> at least more easily pointed to as an opinion of several contributors to the project
3362025-05-15T17:00:06 <Murch[m]> Anyway, +1 on waiting with merging 32406, +1 on one or two simple statements of a few lines (that might take significant effort to craft) reserving the judgement after seeing the content ;)
3372025-05-15T17:00:22 <sipa> yeah, let's discuss when there is some text
3382025-05-15T17:00:30 <achow101> #endmeeting
3392025-05-15T17:00:30 <corebot> achow101: Meeting ended at 2025-05-15T17:00+0000
3402025-05-15T17:00:31 <corebot> achow101: Raw log: https://achow101.com/ircmeetings/2025/bitcoin-core-dev.2025-05-15_16_00.log.json
3412025-05-15T17:00:32 <corebot> achow101: Formatted log: https://achow101.com/ircmeetings/2025/bitcoin-core-dev.2025-05-15_16_00.log.html
3422025-05-15T17:00:33 <corebot> achow101: Minutes: https://achow101.com/ircmeetings/2025/bitcoin-core-dev.2025-05-15_16_00.html
3432025-05-15T17:01:24 <glozow> Sorry I don't mean to discourage you from writing a post, and I'm interested in contributing to it. I just think we should manage expectations about how it will be received.
3442025-05-15T17:01:31 <sipa> glozow: that's fair
3452025-05-15T17:01:41 <sipa> this will not Fix Everything(tm)
3462025-05-15T17:02:09 <glozow> I think it will be screenshotted and scrutinized just the same. You might send it to an executive, but they'll want you to hop on the phone and explain it to them.
3472025-05-15T17:02:11 <Murch[m]> Yeah, definitely, thanks for clarifying
3482025-05-15T17:03:52 *** pablomartin_ <pablomartin_!~pablomart@217.130.254.81> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3492025-05-15T17:05:12 *** Christoph_ <Christoph_!~Christoph@2a02:810d:1399:b700:4069:f9f8:f618:2ead> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3502025-05-15T17:05:15 <cfields> +1 glozow. That's what I was getting at as well. A post isn't going to end this. Questions about policy/consensus and how those decisions are made will always exist, and they'll always be a magnet for vitrol. This isn't about appeasing anyone. It's an opportunity for us to reflect and decide if we really are working in the users' best interests. If we are, we should continue on with the understanding that we'll get hate anyway. If we're lacking,
3512025-05-15T17:05:16 <cfields> we should improve. Anything containing "we, the undersigned" will just fan the flames. Imo any communication should be about what we've learned from this debacle and what we intend to change. Not an explainer about policy.
3522025-05-15T17:06:13 <Murch[m]> cfields: Thanks, thatâs good food for thought
3532025-05-15T17:08:09 <Earnestly> Is there a ml post (I can't subscribe, it probably just sits in mod queue forever) which goes over the rationale/reason (from bitcoin core's view) for why op_return is to be changed (and the option to configure it potentially removed in the future)?
3542025-05-15T17:08:30 <cfields> lol
3552025-05-15T17:08:53 <instagibbs> Poe's Law
3562025-05-15T17:09:50 *** Christoph_ <Christoph_!~Christoph@2a02:810d:1399:b700:4069:f9f8:f618:2ead> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3572025-05-15T17:10:44 <Earnestly> I've been here for awhile and don't think I've ever really been antagnostic
3582025-05-15T17:11:08 <Earnestly> I've only seen a gist about this topic so far
3592025-05-15T17:11:24 <instagibbs> Earnestly it's just comedic how hard communication is
3602025-05-15T17:12:23 <Earnestly> Surely, but I was wondering if there was some ml discussion (I'm not sure if there is a ml anymore, I sort of just assumed the linux.org hosted one became an archive) about this other than PRs
3612025-05-15T17:12:37 <Earnestly> (As the PRs don't really provide much background iirc)
3622025-05-15T17:12:46 <instagibbs> Earnestly https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d6ZO7gXGYbQ
3632025-05-15T17:12:52 <Murch[m]> Earnestly: Antoineâs delving post is pretty comprehensive: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/addressing-community-concerns-and-objections-regarding-my-recent-proposal-to-relax-bitcoin-cores-standardness-limits-on-op-return-outputs/1697/1
3642025-05-15T17:12:55 <Earnestly> Hm, groups
3652025-05-15T17:13:24 <Earnestly> Murch[m]: Was hoping for content prior to the objections
3662025-05-15T17:13:30 <Murch[m]> And yeah, the mailing list moved to https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev
3672025-05-15T17:13:46 <cfields> Earnestly: just to be clear, I was just laughing at the timing of your question. Of course it's a reasonable one :)
3682025-05-15T17:14:01 <sipa> Earnestly: instagibbs' first link is the ML post that started it all, plus the discussion that followed
3692025-05-15T17:14:08 <Murch[m]> Earnestly: Instagibbsâs link from a few lines above has you covered
3702025-05-15T17:14:31 <Earnestly> Yeah it seems good
3712025-05-15T17:14:41 <Earnestly> Thanks, I'll have a read
3722025-05-15T17:15:03 <Earnestly> I'll also try to see if I can just get a feed from google groups to something, nntp or whatever it is
3732025-05-15T17:16:19 <Murch[m]> Earnestly: You can subscribe with any address, you donât need a google account, if that is the problem
3742025-05-15T17:16:30 *** enochazariah <enochazariah!~enochazar@197.210.53.77> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3752025-05-15T17:17:45 *** shytypes <shytypes!~shytypes@104.28.198.116> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3762025-05-15T17:25:13 <instagibbs> sipa sdaftuar is there supposed to be some upper limit to reorg depth where if it's exceeded, we don't try to re-enter txns to the mempool?
3772025-05-15T17:25:48 <sipa> instagibbs: i thought there was
3782025-05-15T17:25:58 <instagibbs> ok, any idea where that would lie
3792025-05-15T17:27:19 *** Talkless <Talkless!~Talkless@138.199.6.197> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3802025-05-15T17:27:27 <instagibbs> ah! found it
3812025-05-15T17:27:54 <sipa> where?
3822025-05-15T17:27:59 <lightlike> instagibbs: MAX_DISCONNECTED_TX_POOL_BYTES in disconnected_transaction.h
3832025-05-15T17:27:59 <instagibbs> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L3702
3842025-05-15T17:28:45 <instagibbs> I ran into a clear 10->11 transition where things stop getting submitted, couldnt figure out why
3852025-05-15T17:30:44 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
3862025-05-15T17:30:59 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3872025-05-15T17:32:41 <instagibbs> invalidateblock path is quite different too, TIL
3882025-05-15T17:32:45 <lightlike> instagibbs: InvalidateBlock is only invoked in case of artificial reorgs (invalidateblock rpc). For actual reorgs, there is probably no depth limit, just MAX_DISCONNECTED_TX_POOL_BYTES?!
3892025-05-15T17:33:14 <instagibbs> lightlike ð
3902025-05-15T17:33:19 <sipa> that matches the understanding i got when looking at this code a few months ago
3912025-05-15T17:34:11 <sdaftuar> hmm. the way it's supposed to(tm) work is that we have a memory limit during any reorg, which once hit, will cause us to start evicting transactions from the pool of txs that we will eventually try to resubmit to the mempool.
3922025-05-15T17:34:17 <sdaftuar> you're saying that isn't how it's done for actual reorgs?
3932025-05-15T17:34:24 <instagibbs> invalidateblock is Special(TM)
3942025-05-15T17:34:36 <instagibbs> that's the answer here
3952025-05-15T17:34:39 <sdaftuar> ah ok
3962025-05-15T17:34:52 * sdaftuar goes back to lurking
3972025-05-15T17:34:54 <instagibbs> which like, I kind of wonder why
3982025-05-15T17:35:22 <sipa> sdaftuar: for invalidateblock there is a depth limit above which it won't even try to re-enter disconnected blocks; for normal reorgs, it is only a memory limit, not a height liit
3992025-05-15T17:35:23 <instagibbs> but yeah, will ignore it for now and make "real" reorgs instead
4002025-05-15T17:35:33 <sdaftuar> sipa: got it, thanks for clarifying
4012025-05-15T17:42:11 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4022025-05-15T17:44:25 *** Guest66 <Guest66!~Guest66@2601:189:8100:6980:bc79:2704:b212:60f> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
4032025-05-15T17:59:52 *** pablomartin_ <pablomartin_!~pablomart@217.130.254.81> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
4042025-05-15T18:02:05 *** pablomartin_ <pablomartin_!~pablomart@217.130.254.81> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4052025-05-15T18:08:33 *** shytypes <shytypes!~shytypes@104.28.198.116> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
4062025-05-15T18:13:03 *** enochazariah <enochazariah!~enochazar@197.210.53.77> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
4072025-05-15T18:13:14 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
4082025-05-15T18:13:30 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4092025-05-15T18:13:45 *** arminsdev <arminsdev!~arminsdev@2601:184:4181:ba20:e58f:9d0:9bf1:4ce1> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
4102025-05-15T18:27:27 <darosior> We do have a limit on the number of blocks
4112025-05-15T18:27:33 <darosior> Or at least we used to
4122025-05-15T18:27:42 <darosior> IIRC it was 10 blocks
4132025-05-15T18:27:57 <instagibbs> rewrote my scenario, it is now only limited based on memory, it seems
4142025-05-15T18:28:31 <darosior> Oh that must be because of the invalidateblock difference that you pointed after, should have read scrollback
4152025-05-15T18:32:53 *** pablomartin_ <pablomartin_!~pablomart@217.130.254.81> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
4162025-05-15T18:36:36 *** eugenesiegel <eugenesiegel!~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
4172025-05-15T18:37:28 *** pablomartin_ <pablomartin_!~pablomart@176.red-88-26-183.staticip.rima-tde.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4182025-05-15T18:45:56 *** Christoph_ <Christoph_!~Christoph@2a02:810d:1399:b700:4069:f9f8:f618:2ead> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4192025-05-15T18:52:27 *** Christoph_ <Christoph_!~Christoph@2a02:810d:1399:b700:4069:f9f8:f618:2ead> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
4202025-05-15T19:01:37 *** pablomartin_ <pablomartin_!~pablomart@176.red-88-26-183.staticip.rima-tde.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
4212025-05-15T19:08:47 *** skr0 <skr0!~skr0@user/skr0> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4222025-05-15T19:15:24 *** eugenesiegel <eugenesiegel!~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4232025-05-15T19:16:35 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has quit IRC (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
4242025-05-15T19:25:32 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4252025-05-15T19:25:49 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
4262025-05-15T19:26:05 *** pablomartin_ <pablomartin_!~pablomart@66.red-79-151-104.dynamicip.rima-tde.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4272025-05-15T19:26:05 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4282025-05-15T19:26:43 *** Talkless <Talkless!~Talkless@138.199.6.197> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
4292025-05-15T19:27:49 *** eugenesiegel <eugenesiegel!~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
4302025-05-15T19:29:53 *** pablomartin_ <pablomartin_!~pablomart@66.red-79-151-104.dynamicip.rima-tde.net> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
4312025-05-15T19:33:57 *** skr0 <skr0!~skr0@user/skr0> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
4322025-05-15T19:35:12 *** entropyx <entropyx!~blackbox@user/entropyx> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
4332025-05-15T19:38:37 *** entropyx <entropyx!~blackbox@82.86.130.246> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4342025-05-15T19:44:58 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
4352025-05-15T19:45:21 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4362025-05-15T19:52:51 *** Guest41 <Guest41!~Guest41@dsl-tkubng12-54f954-141.dhcp.inet.fi> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4372025-05-15T20:02:03 *** dzxzg <dzxzg!~dzxzg@user/dzxzg> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4382025-05-15T20:03:48 <jonatack> Caught up with the discussion in today's core dev meeting
4392025-05-15T20:04:18 <jonatack> I'm willing to help review the draft before publication
4402025-05-15T20:04:37 <jonatack> if that can be helpful
4412025-05-15T20:06:13 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32520: Remove legacy `Parse(U)Int*` (master...2504-int-parsing) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32520
4422025-05-15T20:22:19 <kanzure> +1 to glozow's/cfield's comments. also, if there is no intention to change anything from this debacle (which might be a legitimate and correct outcome), then possibly it would make sense to say so, and indicate that we honestly believe that people did not read the pull request and made up misinformation: stating so may be helpful for helpful non-developers to understand that misinformation ...
4432025-05-15T20:22:25 <kanzure> ...about code proposals is a real problem that we acknowledge exists. finally, there may be some value in placating the larger community by re-announcing the availability of e.g. pruning flag that already works on their installations. (or some variation of this)
4442025-05-15T20:32:57 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has quit IRC (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
4452025-05-15T20:35:20 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4462025-05-15T20:50:06 *** Guest41 <Guest41!~Guest41@dsl-tkubng12-54f954-141.dhcp.inet.fi> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
4472025-05-15T21:05:32 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] darosior opened pull request #32521: policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard (master...2503_nonstd_tx_sigops) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521
4482025-05-15T21:06:39 *** eugenesiegel <eugenesiegel!~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4492025-05-15T21:10:32 *** eugenesiegel <eugenesiegel!~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
4502025-05-15T21:11:45 *** zeropoint <zeropoint!~alex@45-28-139-114.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> has quit IRC (Quit: leaving)
4512025-05-15T21:25:34 *** dzxzg <dzxzg!~dzxzg@user/dzxzg> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
4522025-05-15T21:27:12 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
4532025-05-15T21:27:34 *** Cory38 <Cory38!~Cory38@user/pasha> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4542025-05-15T21:37:39 <gmaxwell> Making a post that explains whats up is just a good practice,-- it may not be at all helpful, but it's a good thing to do. Care should be taken to not do any more rake stomping with it, (e.g. mark drafts as drafts!) :P
4552025-05-15T21:42:54 *** bugs_ <bugs_!~bugs@user/bugs/x-5128603> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
4562025-05-15T21:45:12 <gmaxwell> One of the reasons, I fear, is that the root 'concern' material is just not actually that sincere or authentic. I've found that opponents of the change *reliably* disingage in discussions as soon as I join them, in a most unusual way. plus the flood of "I just switched to knots" posts from accounts that have never before made a comment related to bitcoin. I think it's likely that someone
4572025-05-15T21:45:18 <gmaxwell> has found an oppturnity to fan drama and is exploiting it for some reason. In any case, to whatever extent if any the traffic is an attack it will continue to be unresponsive to good communications. But good communications is the right thing, so it just makes sense to keep doing the right thing.
4582025-05-15T22:53:30 *** robszarka <robszarka!~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:3ce0:e2e8:f86b:2c60> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4592025-05-15T22:57:20 *** szarka <szarka!~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:3855:996a:9be1:e359> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
4602025-05-15T23:04:41 *** kevkevin_ <kevkevin_!~kevkevin@209.242.39.30> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
4612025-05-15T23:15:56 *** Holz <Holz!~Holz@user/Holz> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
4622025-05-15T23:34:55 *** kevkevin <kevkevin!~kevkevin@209.242.39.30> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4632025-05-15T23:36:17 *** AtleoS <AtleoS!~AtleoS@user/AtleoS> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4642025-05-15T23:39:34 *** kevkevin <kevkevin!~kevkevin@209.242.39.30> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
4652025-05-15T23:43:55 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
4662025-05-15T23:44:19 *** zak77 <zak77!~zak@172.58.150.56> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4672025-05-15T23:44:19 *** zak77 <zak77!~zak@172.58.150.56> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
4682025-05-15T23:50:14 *** jespada <jespada!~jespada@r179-25-150-22.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4692025-05-15T23:51:31 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] w0xlt opened pull request #32522: util: C++20 `ToIntegral()` Improvement (master...to_integral) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32522