19:00:23 <wumpus> #startmeeting
19:00:23 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Apr 26 19:00:23 2018 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:23 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:00:25 <instagibbs> meeting?
19:00:26 <instagibbs> hi
19:00:28 <jamesob_> :wave:
19:00:30 <sipa> meeting
19:00:30 <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
19:00:33 <achow101> hi
19:00:38 <sdaftuar> hi
19:00:40 <cfields> hi
19:00:42 <fanquake> hi
19:00:43 <jonasschnelli> hi
19:00:45 <sipa> hi
19:00:45 <wumpus> proposed topics?
19:01:33 <wumpus> #topic high priority for review
19:01:42 <kanzure> hi.
19:01:54 <fanquake> Would suggest #10757 but I'm seeing unicorns..
19:01:58 <wumpus> #12979 #12560 #10757
19:01:59 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10757 | RPC: Introduce getblockstats to plot things by jtimon · Pull Request #10757 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:02:00 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12979 | Split validationinterface into paralell validation/mempool interfaces by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #12979 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:02:03 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12560 | [wallet] Upgrade path for non-HD wallets to HD by achow101 · Pull Request #12560 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:02:06 <wumpus> are currently open and on there
19:02:09 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10757 | RPC: Introduce getblockstats to plot things by jtimon · Pull Request #10757 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:02:12 <instagibbs> proposed topic: the necessity of "totalFee" as an argument for bumpfee
19:02:34 <BlueMatt> I mean we havent really been getting any review on the "high priority" list
19:02:39 <BlueMatt> so not sure the use of bringing it up every week
19:02:55 <wumpus> BlueMatt: if we don't bring it up it's even more pointless I guess
19:03:05 <sdaftuar> yeah we either nag or we give up -- i vote for the former
19:03:20 * sdaftuar nags self
19:03:21 <BlueMatt> I've nagged the last two weeks (sorry wasnt prepared today) but...no dice
19:03:22 <aj> BlueMatt: 10757's had review, and txindex made it in. yours is hard :(
19:03:23 <wumpus> but if it doens't help we can give up on it too, fine with me
19:03:36 <jonasschnelli> Agree. Though "High Priority" is probably the wrong name for that list
19:04:13 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: any idea for a better name?
19:04:20 <sipa> i wonder if the "everyone can get one of their PRs on the list" policy is very good
19:04:41 <wumpus> sipa: any idea for a better policy?
19:04:44 <jonasschnelli> I have no better name
19:04:47 <aj> BlueMatt: and yours needs rebase again. :( worth tracking which non-high-pri PRs conflict with high-pri issues and avoid merging them?
19:04:58 <promag> hi
19:05:04 <BlueMatt> the subsection is "blockers"
19:05:08 <BlueMatt> ie "this is blocking my work"
19:05:09 <jonasschnelli> I think the policy seems pretty fair regarding the lack of a steering commitee
19:05:12 <BlueMatt> which is correct for a few of those
19:05:16 <sipa> BlueMatt: ah yes, that makes sense
19:05:23 <jamesob> aj: sounds like a lot of work
19:05:43 <wumpus> yes "blockers" might be a better name
19:05:49 <aj> jamesob: i have a script that approximates it; haven't been running it regularly, but there's no reason i couldn't
19:05:49 <wumpus> that's why they're high priority
19:05:52 <BlueMatt> aj: you can still review things with trivial conflicts....
19:05:57 <sipa> i started reviewing #12979 but had difficulty following
19:05:59 <wumpus> or supposed to be, anyhow
19:05:59 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12979 | Split validationinterface into paralell validation/mempool interfaces by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #12979 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:06:15 <jamesob> aj: oh interesting
19:06:24 <BlueMatt> sipa: well it got split off of 11775, so its a pure refactor
19:06:32 <BlueMatt> all it is is moving things around, so on its face it looks useless and dumb
19:07:06 <sipa> also, BlueMatt, do you think #11639 may not be closer to merge (as it seems like it may conflict with 12979?)
19:07:10 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11639 | Rewrite the interface between validation and net_processing wrt DoS by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #11639 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:08:26 <BlueMatt> sipa: it is almost certainly closer to merge, but it is *not* blocking me so is not my "high-priority blocker"
19:08:35 <BlueMatt> whereas 12979 is blocking about 10 other things
19:08:40 <sipa> ah, i see
19:08:57 <BlueMatt> however, our high-priority policy has historically been that you can nominate someone else' pr if its blocking you
19:09:06 <BlueMatt> so if thats blocking someone, they can nominate it
19:09:25 <wumpus> sure, you can nominate someone else's pr
19:11:24 <wumpus> also I don't think we have enough other meeting topics every week that not discussing the high priority for review would help
19:11:38 <wumpus> but I'm fine with dropping the topic if there's agreement to do that
19:11:57 <sipa> i'd like to keep it - but if there's not much to say, not much needs to be said about it
19:11:57 <BlueMatt> well we keep coming back to needing *something* to make progress move when you get blocked on something
19:12:09 <BlueMatt> if not the high-priority list, what?
19:12:12 <wumpus> yes, if there's nothing to be said we can just move on
19:12:17 <BlueMatt> and the high-priority list seems to be pretty reliably not working
19:12:29 <wumpus> well one thing got merged from it...
19:12:32 <instagibbs> BlueMatt, for your PRs or for all?
19:12:51 <BlueMatt> yes, but it only got review from like 2 people for several weeks where people were active and it sat on the list
19:12:59 <BlueMatt> instagibbs: all
19:13:00 <wumpus> so is that because it is on the list?
19:13:22 <LukeJr> for all IMO; I'm at least partly to blame though - usually I just pick random PRs without checking the high prio list
19:13:23 <BlueMatt> no, I'm saying about 2 people bothered to review it for many weeks
19:13:28 <BlueMatt> which clearly indicates its not working
19:13:43 <sipa> being on the list doesn't compel people to review
19:13:50 <wumpus> it's clear that things are on the list that have a hard time getting review
19:13:52 <BlueMatt> certainly I'm not great either, but we need something to get people to care about some blockers list
19:13:54 <instagibbs> take it off, see if it gets less review #science
19:13:58 <LukeJr> I think having the list is better than not - just a matter of remembering to use it
19:15:10 <wumpus> anyhow, if this topic is only about how ineffective the list is every week, I'm going to drop it
19:15:34 <BlueMatt> anyway, I'll shut up, instagibbs had a topic
19:15:57 <wumpus> #topic the necessity of "totalFee" as an argument for bumpfee (instagibbs)
19:17:29 * LukeJr pokes instagibbs
19:17:59 * sipa concludes: no necessity of "totalFee" as an argument for bumpfee ?
19:18:34 <instagibbs> ohhi
19:18:35 <instagibbs> sorry
19:18:43 <instagibbs> yes, is it needed
19:18:46 <wumpus> what is this argument used for?
19:18:49 <sdaftuar> it's optional, no?
19:19:09 <instagibbs> sdaftuar, I was hoping to upgrade rbf/cpfp in not too distant future, but it complicates logic to support
19:19:34 <instagibbs> I could just not support any better RBF that uses it, but was wondering if it makes sense regardless
19:19:50 <instagibbs> wumpus, you pay X BTC more in fees, total, rather than bump by feerate
19:20:01 <sdaftuar> not X more, X total, right?
19:20:07 <instagibbs> yes
19:20:52 <wumpus> instagibbs: I suppose that is useful when all of the fee computation happens on the client side?
19:21:00 <sdaftuar> i dunno, i don't feel strongly about it, i think these user interface questions are hard to answer in the abstract
19:21:08 <sdaftuar> so if you have a proposal for some other interface, we should talk about that
19:21:12 <aj> instagibbs: error out if totalFee > old-fee + old-change?
19:21:20 <wumpus> (as the topic is necessity it's good to have some use cases?)
19:21:33 <LukeJr> aj: or do it as CPFP possibly
19:21:35 <instagibbs> aj, hm?
19:21:46 <instagibbs> ah, interesting
19:21:49 <LukeJr> I'm not sure total fee really makes sense when changing the size though
19:22:12 <sdaftuar> yeah i agree that seems like a confusing case at the least
19:22:17 <sipa> agree
19:22:35 <instagibbs> I redid everything to just use CreateTransaction, fwiw
19:22:52 <instagibbs> so it will select more coins, which changes size
19:22:58 <instagibbs> (if needed)
19:23:30 <sdaftuar> one issue we ran into with bumpfee was nailing down all the rquirements up-front. might be worth laying out what constraints we are trying to satisfy as part of the discussion, so we can ensure we're still meeting them all
19:23:49 <LukeJr> instagibbs: considering total fee is optional, we need to work without it regardless; so how does keeping it simplify anything?
19:23:52 <instagibbs> BIP125 constraints are the PITA I think
19:24:04 <instagibbs> LukeJr, I want to get rid of it
19:24:08 <instagibbs> or think about doing so
19:24:10 <LukeJr> oh
19:24:44 <instagibbs> ok, just wanted to hear any good use cases if they thought of them
19:24:55 <sdaftuar> i think if you're changing tx size that's a pretty good argument for dropping it
19:24:57 <LukeJr> I suppose totalFee could be a kind of "if you calculated a higher fee, fail rather than bump; if lower, increase fee to match"
19:25:25 <aj> yeah, what lukejr said
19:25:29 <LukeJr> or even just the former might be the useful part
19:25:30 <instagibbs> If want total fee, I suppose I could just forbid any new coin selection, and fail out otherwise
19:25:49 <instagibbs> backwards compatible without additional cruft
19:25:59 <instagibbs> ok, end
19:26:31 <wumpus> oh I have a topic
19:26:32 <wumpus> #topic Remove safemode
19:26:44 <wumpus> #13090 #10563
19:26:45 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13090 | Remove Safe mode (achow101) by laanwj · Pull Request #13090 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:26:46 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10563 | Remove safe mode by achow101 · Pull Request #10563 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:27:11 <wumpus> this has been open for a long time, safemode was disabled since 0.16, should we complately remove it for 0.17?
19:27:15 <instagibbs> sdaftuar, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12271 please contribute if this issue helps (ok now done)
19:27:52 <LukeJr> I think safemode is a useful concept, but without anyone working to make it useful in practice (ie, detecting actual problem conditions), might as well drop it
19:28:13 <wumpus> it's disabled by default in 0.16 and I've heard no one complaining about it
19:28:22 <achow101> most people don't know it exists
19:28:26 <wumpus> to be honest I don't think anyone cares
19:28:32 <instagibbs> frankly ive never heard of anyone using it, and I still don't know what it does, if anything
19:28:36 <wumpus> and we should drop it to simplify the code
19:28:41 <jonasschnelli> agree...
19:28:44 <jtimon> sorry, late, yeah 10757 got review, thanks
19:28:48 <achow101> instagibbs: it disables a few RPCs related to the wallet
19:28:57 <jonasschnelli> If one cares about, it could be re-written as external RPC layer/proxy
19:29:15 <sdaftuar> wumpus: yep seems reasonable to me as well
19:29:19 <wumpus> I mean the alerts that trigger it aren't reliable in the first place
19:29:29 <wumpus> and then it haphazardly disables some wallet RPCs
19:29:49 <LukeJr> can always add it back if someone does the work
19:29:49 <LukeJr> tbf, if it were useful, and disabled by default, the reaction of someone to not having it would probably be to just enable it, not complain
19:29:49 <LukeJr> (but I don't see how it's useful as-is)
19:30:08 <wumpus> if someone would make the alerts useful and reliable, that'd be a first step :)
19:30:13 <achow101> has safemode ever been triggered before due to a chain fork?
19:30:16 <wumpus> there's -alertnotify!
19:30:51 <wumpus> achow101: not that I know of...
19:31:02 <LukeJr> it might make sense to have a "setsafemode" RPC instead of automatic stuff?
19:31:10 <wumpus> meh
19:31:35 * LukeJr shrugs
19:31:53 <wumpus> I don't think the current selection of RPCs to disable is useful, maybe something to disable all wallet calls then? I don't know - I don't think there is demand for this inpractice
19:31:56 <jtimon> BlueMatt: you make something that seems useless and dumb and isn't supposed to change behaviour and don't ping me for review? I'm disappointed :p
19:32:17 <achow101> What exactly is the purpose of safemode though? If we keep it/change it, what is it's goal?
19:32:20 <wumpus> so anyhow, that was what I wanted t osay
19:32:30 <wumpus> I think everyone is 'meh' about it just like me
19:32:39 <wumpus> other topics?
19:32:44 <sipa> i think it can just be removed
19:33:18 <wumpus> yes, I'd prefer that
19:33:38 <LukeJr> wumpus: walletunload :D
19:33:39 <LukeJr> achow101: ideally, it would detect odd network conditions and disable confirming transactions
19:33:39 <LukeJr> achow101: eg, if there was an invalid chain longer than the best valid one
19:33:39 <LukeJr> (or actually, even more ideal would be to compare the chains, and only confirm transactions common to both..)
19:33:58 <wumpus> #topic walletunload (Lukejr)
19:33:58 <sipa> disabling RPCs is not how the bitcoin ecosystem will deal with an emergency anyway - a lot of infrastructure wouldn't even notice
19:34:34 <promag> I already have unload working without UI reacting
19:34:37 <LukeJr> wumpus: I wasn't suggesting it as a topic
19:34:46 <wumpus> LukeJr: oh...
19:34:58 <sipa> #unload walletunload
19:35:04 <fanquake> maybe topic: cfields any updates on app signing/certs etc? meant to follow up with you from ny
19:35:05 <wumpus> #untopic
19:35:05 <LukeJr> wumpus: just saying it would have the same result as disabling wallet RPCs
19:35:32 <cfields> fanquake: need to poke gmaxwell. He might've forgotten about it
19:35:47 <LukeJr> promag: what happens if you try to use the GUI after unloading its wallet?
19:35:50 <wumpus> LukeJr: ok yes, I understand now :)
19:36:01 <achow101> has anyone seen gmaxwell recently? is he still alive?
19:36:13 <wumpus> he's still alive
19:36:13 <promag> LukeJr: don't know, only tested with bitcoind
19:36:13 <sipa> yes
19:37:03 <promag> LukeJr: after #13097 I'll submit unload in the UI
19:37:05 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13097 | Support wallets loaded dynamically by promag · Pull Request #13097 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:38:05 <wumpus> I think we've run out of topics
19:38:21 <wumpus> #endmeeting