19:01:22 <wumpus> #startmeeting
19:01:22 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Mar 15 19:01:22 2018 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:01:22 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:01:26 <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator
19:01:39 <meshcollider> eHi
19:01:43 <meshcollider> Hi*
19:01:43 <cfields> hi
19:01:58 <wumpus> any topics?
19:02:10 <wumpus> #topic high priority for review
19:02:18 <luke-jr> GUI multiwallet
19:02:26 <wumpus> only 5 things left: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
19:02:32 <achow101> hi
19:02:44 <luke-jr> wumpus: the wrong multiwallet PR is included in that :/
19:02:44 <wumpus> cfields should probably rebase the banman
19:03:00 <cfields> nobody rebases banman!
19:03:03 <Randolf> Hello.
19:03:03 <cfields> (will do)
19:03:04 <achow101> #12560 please
19:03:06 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12560 | [wallet][RPC] Set or generate a new HD seed by achow101 · Pull Request #12560 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:03:20 <wumpus> cfields: was already afraid the banman wouldn't agree with that :)
19:03:37 <luke-jr> #11383
19:03:40 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11383 | Basic Multiwallet GUI support by luke-jr · Pull Request #11383 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:03:42 <cfields> heh
19:03:52 <wumpus> chainhead: added
19:04:02 <wumpus> achow101: added, I mean, sorry chainhead
19:04:26 <wumpus> as jonasschnelli isn't here, I don't think discussing multiwallet GUI makes much sense :/
19:04:31 <meshcollider> I'd like to see #12254 on there
19:04:38 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12254 | BIP 158: Compact Block Filters for Light Clients by jimpo · Pull Request #12254 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:05:04 <promag> hi
19:05:10 <wumpus> ok
19:05:21 <luke-jr> wumpus: ok
19:06:49 <kanzure> hi.
19:06:55 <wumpus> so apart from that, we have two PRs by BlueMatt on there
19:07:06 <BlueMatt> yea, those should be removed as they have not yet beedn rebased (I think)
19:07:13 <BlueMatt> also I dont recall how two ended up on there...thats clearly cheating
19:07:23 <kanzure> http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2018-03-07-priorities/
19:07:33 <wumpus> ok
19:08:06 <cfields> feel free to remove banman for being non-rebased as well. I'll try to get to it today/tomorrow, but I *think* that's in fitting with the discussion we had
19:08:31 <achow101> +1 on removing things that need rebasing
19:08:33 <wumpus> cfields: ok, done
19:08:56 <wumpus> can always be readded
19:09:11 <Randolf> I suspect that more people would do rebasing if the web-interface provided an option for that.
19:09:12 <wumpus> and yes, it's consistent and fair with BlueMatt
19:09:45 <wumpus> Randolf: not all rebases are trivial one-click affairs
19:09:53 <Randolf> That's true.
19:10:00 <wumpus> other topics?
19:10:12 <meshcollider> luke's multiwallet stuff
19:10:25 <Randolf> There seems to be confusion about whether Lightning Network is supported in Bitcoin 0.16.
19:10:33 <sipa> ...
19:10:36 <BlueMatt> wut
19:10:43 <wumpus> I don't think discussing GUI multiwallet makes sense without jonasschnelli here, but if you really want to discuss it meshcollider we could
19:10:45 <sipa> there is no such thing as "Bitcoin 0.16"
19:11:00 <promag> I would like some feedback here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12507#issuecomment-372367647
19:11:03 <Randolf> I meant v0.16.
19:11:03 <sipa> and if you mean Bitcoin Core, that has nothing to do with Lightning
19:11:07 <achow101> Randolf: from who?
19:11:07 <wumpus> lightning is 'supported' since segwit was activated
19:11:15 <meshcollider> wumpus: true I'm indifferent, I'd just like to see a decision be made lol
19:11:33 <Randolf> achow101:  Well, I see the question come up from time-to-time in the #bitcoin channel, and in other IRC channels there's disagreement about whether it's fully implemented or at all.
19:11:50 <BlueMatt> Randolf: please take this after the meeting
19:11:59 <Randolf> I'm thinking that it may be good to indicate it prominently on the bitcoin.org web site or a readme file clearly.
19:12:00 <Randolf> Okay.
19:12:10 <promag> regarding multiwallet gui, IMO both still have some things to fix
19:12:17 <provoostenator> I'd also like the multiwallet stuff to go forward, but does it get in the way of the RPC Interface stuff?
19:12:54 <promag> provoostenator: you mean #10740?
19:12:57 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10740 | [WIP] [wallet] dynamic loading/unloading of wallets by jnewbery · Pull Request #10740 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:13:05 <wumpus> #topic Multiwallet GUI
19:13:07 <wumpus> ok
19:13:30 <luke-jr> promag: there's nothing left to fix in #11383; just needs a rebasing since a day or so ago
19:13:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11383 | Basic Multiwallet GUI support by luke-jr · Pull Request #11383 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:14:03 <promag> luke-jr: receiving address and sending addresses dialogs should mention the wallet name in some place
19:14:10 <promag> in the title for instance
19:14:45 <luke-jr> I could add that, but it seems okay to wait for a later PR to add those, and would invalidate the ACKs already received :/
19:14:47 <promag> also test with -disablewallet, the wallet selection should be invisible?
19:15:55 <promag> luke-jr: well that also works, just saying that it could be more complete
19:16:21 <luke-jr> yes, there is much room to improve on it; but I fear causing further delays
19:16:24 <provoostenator> promag: no I mean #10244
19:16:28 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10244 | Refactor: separate gui from wallet and node by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10244 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:17:02 <wumpus> luke-jr: I agree, at some point, if it's an improvement we should merge it, it doesn't have to do every single thing people can think of
19:17:14 <provoostenator> luke-jr: and there's the issue of putting model state in UI elements, which makes future changes to the design needlessly hard
19:17:14 <promag> provoostenator: oh I still have to see that one
19:17:17 <wumpus> collaboration works better on the master branch
19:17:38 <wumpus> but jonasschnelli had some problems with your approach
19:18:10 <provoostenator> E.g. if I want to change the dropdown into a menu, I now need to figure out where to keep the wallet array. The other PR handles that more elegantly (but maybe it's worse in other ways, I can't tell).
19:18:37 <wumpus> provoostenator: agree
19:18:42 <promag> well the way I see both build on top of a weak support of multiwallets
19:18:51 <ryanofsky> fwiw, i haven't looked at jonas pr yet, but i think luke's approach is fine. if jonas has improvements, no reason they can't go in later
19:19:10 <promag> maybe we should focus also on #12587, adding signals etc
19:19:12 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12587 | Introduce g_wallet_manager, prepare for better dynamic wallet loading/unloading by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #12587 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:19:24 <luke-jr> wumpus: I don't think we can discuss that fairly without him, unfortunately
19:19:36 <promag> I also think we should consider something like #11402
19:19:38 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11402 | [wallet] Use shared pointer for wallet instances by promag · Pull Request #11402 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:19:42 <wumpus> luke-jr: I agree, I think it's a bit single sided like this
19:20:04 <luke-jr> promag: yes, that's one plan I had for down the road
19:20:20 <luke-jr> promag: which is partly why it's important we use a CWalletRef instead of wallet name string ;)
19:21:15 <wumpus> any other topics?
19:21:46 <sipa> lunch?
19:21:51 <luke-jr> XD
19:21:56 <promag> dinner?
19:21:59 <instagibbs> coin selection next steps?
19:22:07 <wumpus> already had both lunch and dinner xD
19:22:11 <instagibbs> a few of us had discussions during coredev, we may want to socialize those ideas?
19:22:13 <Randolf> Just finished lunch.
19:22:19 <wumpus> #topic coin selection next steps
19:22:20 <jtimon> is it still breakfast if it's dinner time?
19:22:30 <luke-jr> kallewoof's stuff, or something else?
19:22:44 <sipa> breakfast is defined as the first meal after waking up; the time of day is irrelevant
19:23:09 <luke-jr> I gotta run :x  bbl
19:23:16 <wumpus> later luke-jr
19:23:20 <achow101> #12605
19:23:21 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12605 | High level road map for coin selection changes · Issue #12605 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:23:25 <instagibbs> so, Branch and Bound was merged(yay), which leaves us with what to do when we cannot find an exact match. Current strategy is to fallback to Single Random Draw as per murchandamus thesis
19:23:37 <instagibbs> with some *, if achow101 wants to continue
19:23:47 <achow101> *current plannned strategy is to use SRD
19:24:02 * Randolf notes that SRD means Single Random Draw
19:24:13 <instagibbs> morcos had any idea to only SRD on coins smaller than target, to slightly bias towards spending smaller coins, for utxo set reasons
19:24:35 <instagibbs> debate as to whether that is even necessary were had
19:25:04 <instagibbs> pure SRD gives the wallet a nice distribution of utxos, which likely feeds to better BnB exact match rates
19:26:16 <instagibbs> that's... about it.
19:26:26 * jtimon wonders if that slight bias could hurt privacy somehow
19:26:43 <sipa> i think SRD may be a privacy issue too
19:26:49 <instagibbs> jtimon, might mark as Core, but right now we hoover tiny inputs
19:27:03 <instagibbs> sipa, versus what?
19:27:33 <sipa> ideally you end up with a strategy that is hard to distinguish from BnB
19:27:54 <jtimon> instagibbs: yeah, I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, just launching questions to the air to see what other people think
19:28:18 <jtimon> what was BnB?
19:28:46 <instagibbs> #10637
19:28:51 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10637 | Coin Selection with Murchs algorithm by achow101 · Pull Request #10637 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:28:58 <meshcollider> BnB stands for Branch and bound
19:29:16 <sipa> instagibbs: if you have 80% of UTXO very close to 1 BTC, then SRD will be very likely to include such outputs, revealing something about your UTXO size distribution
19:29:18 <jtimon> thanks!
19:29:54 <instagibbs> sipa, with a 1BTC target? As oppose to BnB?
19:30:01 <instagibbs> Maybe we can continue post-meeting...
19:30:03 <sipa> yeah
19:31:26 * instagibbs will continue post meeting
19:32:19 <wumpus> ok, anything else for the meeting?
19:33:01 <wumpus> #endmeeting