19:04:07 <jonasschnelli> #startmeeting
19:04:07 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Oct 18 19:04:07 2018 UTC.  The chair is jonasschnelli. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:04:07 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:04:13 <jonasschnelli> Topics?
19:04:15 <wumpus> hello
19:04:28 <luke-jr> there he is
19:05:05 <jnewbery> hi
19:05:16 <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
19:06:03 <meshcollider> hi
19:06:30 <promag> topics suggestion, (remove?) address book
19:06:35 <jonasschnelli> #topic high priority list
19:06:36 <jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
19:06:42 <jonasschnelli> anything to add / del?
19:06:52 <instagibbs> hi
19:07:11 <wumpus> ListWalletDir is pretty much mergeable, needs sign-off on the last change
19:08:04 <wumpus> there was some confusion around BerkekleyDB and its endian handling, apparently it writes databases in native endian, but we're not 100% sure the database files are portable between little and big endian
19:08:25 <wumpus> (most likely they are and it's smart enough to interpret databases in alt endian)
19:08:30 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I'll test sometime in the next couple days, I'm pretty sure that it'll just convert it.
19:08:37 <promag> jonasschnelli: I don't mind replacing 14291 with 14350
19:08:43 <sipa> i'd like #14150 on the high priority list
19:08:45 <promag> gmaxwell: that would be cool
19:08:47 <meshcollider> Yeah I'm fairly sure it'll be fine with both
19:08:47 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14150 | Add key origin support to descriptors by sipa · Pull Request #14150 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:08:51 <wumpus> gmaxwell: great !
19:08:58 <jnewbery> Should #14416 be high priority? I don't think there's anything to review, but the issue is important.
19:09:00 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14416 | [WIP] fix OSX dmg issue (10.12 to 10.14) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #14416 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:09:09 <wumpus> jnewbery: sure
19:09:10 <jonasschnelli> sipa: added
19:09:20 <jnewbery> jonasschnelli: any update on that issue?
19:09:42 <jonasschnelli> promag: changed
19:09:48 <promag> jonasschnelli: ty
19:09:51 <meshcollider> I'd like #14454 on there please
19:09:55 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14454 | Add SegWit support to importmulti by MeshCollider · Pull Request #14454 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:09:59 <jonasschnelli> jnewbery: I'm currently investigating... but haven't found the issue yet
19:10:01 <promag> IIRC the idea was to create DS_Store with xenial?
19:10:01 <wumpus> although it's still WIP so normally that doesn't qualify
19:10:16 <jonasschnelli> meshcollider: done
19:10:32 <meshcollider> jonasschnelli: thanks :)
19:10:43 <jonasschnelli> #topic ds_store OSX issue
19:10:54 <jnewbery> wumpus: yeah, it's not high priority for review, but I'd say it's high priority to fix!
19:10:57 <jonasschnelli> i'm currently removing instruction by instruction to figure out, where the issue is
19:11:07 <jonasschnelli> (always. requires a gitian build)
19:11:13 <wumpus> jnewbery: would agree on that
19:11:39 <jonasschnelli> help from cfields would be welcome... but I guess his busy with other things
19:12:44 <jonasschnelli> Anyways,.. I'm on it.
19:12:45 <wumpus> so if anyone knows MacOSX low-level details about DS_store, please help with that issue
19:13:05 <jonasschnelli> #topic (remove?) address book (promag)
19:13:16 <wumpus> it's an undocumented, reverse-engineered format so it's quite hard to get right
19:13:23 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: indeed
19:13:40 <promag> We could remove access to the address book from the File Menu
19:14:01 <promag> so people would have to go to receive
19:14:06 <luke-jr> does the dmg have translations in it?
19:14:20 <instagibbs> ack 14150
19:14:22 <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: Yes
19:14:24 <wumpus> any specific reason to remove this functionality?
19:14:34 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: I wonder if that's related. Do older versions' DMGs work?
19:14:36 <jonasschnelli> #14150
19:14:38 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14150 | Add key origin support to descriptors by sipa · Pull Request #14150 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:14:39 <achow101> promag: isn't that the only way to change labels from the gui?
19:15:02 <promag> 
19:15:05 <wumpus> achow101: you an also edit label from the transaction list
19:15:15 <wumpus> (right button context menu)
19:15:37 <promag> gmaxwell: knows better about the complaints/questions
19:15:42 <jonasschnelli> In the long run, the address book makes little sense to me...
19:15:44 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I don't know the context either,  when I heard it above I assumed because it's been involved with the recent confusion about the get new address removal button and encourages address reuse.
19:15:51 <jonasschnelli> But I guess there are still users using it...
19:15:57 <gmaxwell> okay so that is the context.
19:16:02 <achow101> wumpus: that's... non-obvious
19:16:18 <meshcollider> that requires actually having a transaction then
19:16:24 <promag> but looks like people will reuse addresses not that the "new button" is gone
19:16:34 <promag> s/not/now
19:16:45 <jonasschnelli> *sigh*
19:16:47 <luke-jr> ugh
19:16:48 <wumpus> could re-add that button
19:16:49 <gmaxwell> wumpus: 0.17 really confused a lot of people due to the removal of the new button there.  I've now seen more than a dozen questions about it online (linked some here, previously).
19:17:08 <wumpus> if people miss that, i'm not sure removing even more functionality is the right way forward
19:17:25 <wumpus> let's revert the remove and call it a day, users happy and it's easy
19:17:31 <achow101> concept nack on removing the address book. it'll just make people more confused
19:17:31 <promag> but I think that's because people goes to File menu and then they see the "received addresses"
19:17:36 <gmaxwell> wumpus: as gwillen points out, the 'request payment' button is really not-obvious.
19:17:49 <achow101> promag: instead of removing it, rename it to be more clear?
19:17:50 <jonasschnelli> PR: #12721 (remove)
19:17:51 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12721 | Qt: remove "new" button during receive-mode in addressbook by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #12721 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:18:14 <luke-jr> achow101: we can revert + rename to cover both bases
19:18:27 <achow101> luke-jr: +1
19:18:32 <wumpus> yes
19:18:37 <gmaxwell> I wasn't previously thinking that we should remove the address book, but maybe we should:  What use is it beyond enabling reuse?  I do think if we don't remove it we should revert the removal.
19:18:40 <sipa> i think just adding text to the adress book that says "Use the receive payment tab to create new addresses" would help a lot already
19:18:42 <jonasschnelli> Or we can add a hint: "use Receive tab to create a new address"?
19:18:49 <jonasschnelli> :-)
19:18:56 <wumpus> removing the address book will probably result in even more complaints
19:19:05 <luke-jr> sipa: true
19:19:10 <sipa> but many wallets don't even have a concept of an address book
19:19:22 <gmaxwell> The complaints themselves aren't the concept, the resulting confusion is. :)
19:19:22 <wumpus> not worth it imo unless there's a really good story to do it besides 'it encourages re-use' as that's nothing new
19:19:35 <jarthur> People use the signing feature quite a bit.
19:19:47 <jonasschnelli> oh.. for that. Yes.
19:19:53 <luke-jr> jarthur: misuse* I suspect :/
19:20:04 <gmaxwell> Okay, thats a reason to keep/rename.
19:20:11 <jonasschnelli> What about.. a) warn about address reuse, b) add hint to receive tab for new addresses?
19:20:19 <meshcollider> Theres an issue for renaming btw #14482
19:20:20 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14482 | Better name for "Request Payment" button · Issue #14482 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:20:23 <achow101> topic suggestion: plans for new windows code signing key
19:20:24 <gmaxwell> Users really shouldn't be using it to get addresses to pay for.
19:20:35 <promag> gmaxwell: exactly
19:20:41 <jonasschnelli> Agree
19:20:52 <wumpus> no, they shouldn't, but for better or worse they're used to that
19:21:11 <luke-jr> I'm not really sure a clear rename for it btw
19:21:15 <gmaxwell> Re "request payment" being confusing, I had an argument with multiple people _in here_ because they believed "Request Payment" was somehow BIP70. So I think it's not disputable that its confusing. :P
19:21:18 <wumpus> it's not really easy to change people's behavior
19:21:25 <promag> I think we should improve the UI, remove address book from File menu, improve receive tab
19:21:30 <jonasschnelli> Agree also with gmaxwell
19:21:36 <gmaxwell> promag: +1
19:21:41 <jonasschnelli> "Request payment" is confusing
19:21:56 <jonasschnelli> Yes. Please do that promag
19:21:57 <wumpus> how is it called in other wallets?
19:22:01 <luke-jr> we could add sign message to the request-payment dialog probably
19:22:04 <gmaxwell> it doesn't exist in other wallets.
19:22:05 <jonasschnelli> wumpus "Receive"
19:22:14 <wumpus> well let's rename to that
19:22:15 <gmaxwell> oh you mean getting an address, 'recieve'
19:22:30 <gmaxwell> (my doesn't exist was referring to the address book)
19:22:32 <luke-jr> "Receive" implies you would receive it immediately :x
19:22:35 <jonasschnelli> And then maybe automatically show the next unused address?
19:22:36 <wumpus> if it doesnt' exist then maybe we should remove it too
19:22:48 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: the workflow can stay the same.
19:23:22 <wumpus> I wouldn't change the workflow too much either
19:23:34 <wumpus> lots of people will be used to that workflow too
19:23:38 <gmaxwell> Just change the label to make it more discoverable.
19:23:42 <wumpus> if you change that too much, you'll get the same issue in another place
19:23:50 <jonasschnelli> Wait,.. the tab is already labeled with "Receive", right? We are talking about the button for creating a new address?
19:23:57 <wumpus> yes, the tab is Receive
19:23:58 <wumpus> always has been
19:23:59 <gmaxwell> And the address book, should be moved out of the way... if it's utlity is just sign message it should be treated that way.
19:23:59 <meshcollider> Yep
19:24:26 <jonasschnelli> I think there should be a "new address" button and a "receive specific amount" button where you get prompted for amount / label
19:24:27 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: signing messages only makes sense pre-receive, so even that can be moved somewhere more logical (eg, part of the receive tab)
19:24:34 <promag> jonasschnelli: yes
19:24:49 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: label is always desirable
19:25:01 <wumpus> I think 'make the workflow more apparent' is better than changing it
19:25:06 <jnewbery> meta-topic suggestion: does it make sense to discuss qt UI issues in the general bitcoin core IRC meeting?
19:25:13 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: label should always be availble, but I don't think a parallel button would be bad.
19:25:34 <wumpus> jnewbery: well the UI is part of the code base, if we don't want to discuss it, we should remove it
19:25:42 <sipa> meta-comment: at coredev tokyo it was suggested to have a separate wallet meeting as well, every 2 weeks
19:25:45 <gmaxwell> How about we just discuss nothing, jnewbery because there is no element of the software which is interesting to everyone.
19:25:52 <wumpus> as long as it is part of the code base it should be discussable in the meeting
19:26:10 <wumpus> gmaxwell: exactly
19:26:20 <jonasschnelli> Long term, multiple meeting make sense, until we have that, UI belong here
19:26:22 <jnewbery> My point was more along the lines of what sipa is talking about: the project doesn't scale if everyone discusses everything
19:26:24 <jonasschnelli> +s
19:26:24 <wumpus> it's already hard enough to fill the meetings hour many times
19:26:32 <wumpus> I don't think we should be discussing getting rid of cetain topics
19:26:41 <wumpus> but that's just IMO
19:26:50 <luke-jr> maybe when/if meetings get cut off due to time ;)
19:26:56 <gmaxwell> jnewbery: if we're always running out of time that would be a concern, but we seldom do.
19:27:03 <wumpus> yes, then it's time to prioritize certain topics
19:27:05 <jnewbery> ok, let me rephrase: does it make sense to have a separate meeting for qt issues?
19:27:11 <wumpus> no, I don't think so
19:27:13 <gmaxwell> And it's useful, even if you mostly don't care about something to occassionally get exposed to them.
19:27:50 <wumpus> as soon as the GUI is a aseparate project, that makes sense to reconsider.
19:27:58 <gmaxwell> certantly ignorance about the GUI contributes to problems in the software already... (see my above comment that there were _developers_ that though request payment was bip70).
19:28:30 <wumpus> and to be clear I think it's absurd the GUI and other things are the same repository as consensus code, but that's a wholly differnt issue, I don't think we have any problem in that regard with the meeting
19:28:59 <jonasschnelli> Indeed
19:29:29 <jonasschnelli> #action overhaul the receive page, overhaul the address-book to cure confusion with 0.17
19:29:54 <jonasschnelli> #topic plans for new windows code signing key (achow101)
19:29:58 <promag> ok thanks, I'll add screenshots too
19:30:02 <wumpus> gmaxwell: it's clear most of the developers here don't give a shit about the gui
19:30:06 <wumpus> gmaxwell: always has been
19:30:20 <jnewbery> my other topic suggestion was having a separate wallet meeting (which sipa already mentioned)
19:30:44 <achow101> the windows signing key expires just before the next release is scheduled
19:30:50 <wumpus> it has always been a thankless job maintainging it, lots of respect to jonasschnelli for that :D
19:31:02 <jonasschnelli> Though I should do more. :)
19:31:06 <achow101> IIRC there were plans to do mpc rsa stuff to replace it, did anything come of that?
19:31:14 <jonasschnelli> achow101: I don't think so..
19:31:25 <jonasschnelli> Have you talked wo cfields (current Win signing key owner)?
19:31:32 <jonasschnelli> s/wo/to
19:31:54 <achow101> not yet. I only just noticed as I was looking at the key details today
19:31:58 <meshcollider> I thought he was working on something
19:31:59 <jonasschnelli> Ideally we get new keys also via the Bitcoin Core Code Signing Association (http://bitcoincorecodesigning.org)
19:32:31 <gmaxwell> achow101: I have it working for three parties, but got stuck extending it for more.
19:32:36 <jonasschnelli> achow101: thanks for pointing that out,.. better care about earlier then when its too late
19:33:27 <gmaxwell> achow101: would you lie to try the MPC with me at some point?
19:33:33 <achow101> gmaxwell: sure
19:33:50 <jonasschnelli> Maybe MPC it's not worth it. IMO windows code signing is more or less security theatre...
19:34:17 <wumpus> does it give users problems if it's not signed?
19:34:22 <gmaxwell> Yes.
19:34:29 <achow101> wumpus: windows gives scary warnings
19:34:33 <gmaxwell> you get warnings that the software might be malicious.
19:34:36 <jonasschnelli> I think no-one would recognise if the certificate would be issued to "Bitcoin Cash Code Signing Association"
19:34:53 <jonasschnelli> We need to sign it for UX,.. but much for security reasons.
19:34:53 <meshcollider> jonasschnelli: how difficult is it to get a key for the code signing association then
19:34:57 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: meaning nobody would mind, or it would freak them out?
19:35:00 <meshcollider> I'm unfamiliar with the process
19:35:13 <meshcollider> luke-jr: I'd say it would freak people out tbh
19:35:13 <achow101> luke-jr: I think no one would mind or even notice the name is different
19:35:15 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: he's saying no one would notice, I think thats mostly right.
19:35:34 <meshcollider> Not the different name, but not signing at all
19:35:38 <jonasschnelli> I founded an swiss association with no legal paper, no real address and could get a D-U-N-S address and an iOS apple enterprise program. So.. security means shit here.
19:35:46 <gmaxwell> (though the 'bitcoin foundation' thing did have an unfortunate effect of making people think BCF made the bitcoin software)
19:36:03 <luke-jr> "Bitcoin Cash Code Signing Association" hopefully wouldn't have that confusion
19:36:12 <jonasschnelli> Getting Windows signing key should be a simple task,.. we just need to decide on a cert supplier
19:37:12 <jonasschnelli> Lets wait on cfields though,.. he has the most knowhow here (before any action, buying certs, etc.)
19:37:22 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: it's still more work for scammers than nothing at all! but yes, not much.
19:37:46 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: Yes. But people may think, oh, its code signing, so it must be "secure" (false sense of sec.)
19:38:15 <jonasschnelli> The only difference is that some CA guy clicked to okay button after reading an address (for most CAs)
19:38:16 <wumpus> oh yes I don't disagree the user perception of what signingmeans is completely wrong
19:38:38 <meshcollider> IMO anyone confused by what the code signing means probably isn't aware of code signing at all?
19:38:58 <meshcollider> Users just get software and run it
19:39:02 <sipa> really it's a way to make some platforms shut up about untrusted code
19:39:12 <luke-jr> I suspect nobody would really notice if we stopped codesigning
19:39:12 <wumpus> sipa: yep
19:39:15 <meshcollider> Exactly
19:39:24 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: they would, because they get a big nasty warning
19:39:28 <meshcollider> luke-jr: I disagree, yeah
19:39:35 <luke-jr> maybe if we timed it right, we could use it as an opportunity to teach PGP verification
19:39:39 <jonasschnelli> If we want secure "update", we should finally have a "verificator" function in Core
19:40:13 <jonasschnelli> Some glue code that does gitian verification against a downloaded binary dummy-save
19:40:15 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: a warning they're used to clicking through all the time..?
19:40:25 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: most software is signed.
19:40:34 <achow101> luke-jr: no, it's actually a warning on top of the normal warning
19:40:37 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, maybe it should be an "open source code signing association"
19:40:50 <phantomcircuit> rather than something bitcoin specific? (even if it's only signing bitcoin in practice)
19:41:03 <sipa> we talked about that a while ago
19:41:06 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: jonasschnelli already set it up, for better or worse
19:41:16 <sipa> that it could just be something that signs off on deterministic builds
19:41:18 <meshcollider> phantomcircuit: if we already have the iOS certificate with the bitcoin one the windows one should be the same
19:41:25 <jonasschnelli> phantomcircuit: I think "Bitcoin Core" should be in the name
19:41:27 <luke-jr> although I suppose if there's a desire for a broader codesigning org, we could make another
19:41:43 <sipa> luke-jr: agree
19:41:53 <jonasschnelli> phantomcircuit: its somehow the only binding "guarantee" for the user
19:42:09 <phantomcircuit> this seems likely to be an issue faced by numerous projects
19:42:11 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: ? seems like it would just reaffirm the false sense of security
19:42:21 <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: somehow,.. yes. :)
19:42:32 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: a more obviously-dummy org name might prompt a real security verification
19:42:34 <phantomcircuit> it's certainly no actual security
19:42:42 <luke-jr> maybe we should call it Malware Signing Group
19:42:44 <luke-jr> :P
19:42:48 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, doubtful honestly
19:42:59 <jonasschnelli> heh
19:43:01 <achow101> luke-jr: you wouldn't get issued a cert with that name
19:43:15 <jonasschnelli> Oh.. I'm sure you would
19:43:26 <luke-jr> Check The PGP Signatures, LLC
19:44:36 <jonasschnelli> #topic suggestion was having a separate wallet meeting (which sipa already mentioned) (jnewbery)
19:44:40 <jonasschnelli> -suggestion
19:45:04 <wumpus> would this involve different people than the current meeting?
19:45:15 <achow101> how much wallet stuff is there to discuss?
19:45:18 <jnewbery> This was brought up in Tokyo. People seemed keen to have a separate meeting (perhaps once every two weeks) to discuss wallet issues
19:45:25 <meshcollider> And is it worth it until there's more actual separation
19:45:35 <wumpus> achow101: yes.. exactly.. how much wallet stuff do we discuss
19:45:41 <jonasschnelli> I think it worth it if we run constantly out of time
19:45:44 <wumpus> but if people want that, why not
19:45:50 <luke-jr> just the Core wallet, or wallets in general?
19:46:05 <jnewbery> Code/repo separation is somewhat orthogonal to project separation
19:46:08 <wumpus> luke-jr: wallets in general would make more sense I guess
19:46:13 <meshcollider> Worth noting that if we had a separate meeting, it might promote more discussion even if we don't have it right now
19:46:13 <gmaxwell> the disadvantage is just having to reserve and schedule more time.
19:46:14 <luke-jr> perhaps a S3ND IRC meeting or something
19:46:16 <jnewbery> Bitcoin core wallet
19:46:20 <sipa> wumpus: i think the question is more whether there are topics people don't bring up here because they're too work-in-progress or not relevant enough to bring up for everyone
19:46:22 <wumpus> we need a wallet maintainer...
19:46:26 <instagibbs> gmaxwell, depends on how big the group is
19:46:27 <gmaxwell> but maybe some things about the wallet aren't getting discussed in here.
19:46:52 <meshcollider> wumpus: how do we train someone for that job then
19:46:54 <instagibbs> in Tokyo there were a small handful who discussed some short term improvements, wouldn't be hard to coordinate among those
19:47:26 <wumpus> exactly; it makes sense to coordinate among the people who are interested in having this meeting
19:47:31 <meshcollider> For example I think there would be some good discussion around descriptor stuff in the near future right?
19:47:39 <gmaxwell> If people who want to talk about wallet stuff more want another meeting, great.
19:47:39 <wumpus> if you want to organize a meeting about your part of the code, go ahead
19:47:43 <jonasschnelli> Agree with wumpus
19:47:55 <jonasschnelli> (I'm happy to join that meeting)
19:47:57 * sipa suggests: same time, fridays, every two weeks
19:47:59 <wumpus> meetingbot is here and we'll respect it and shut up during it :)
19:48:10 <jnewbery> a couple of questions: how many people are interested? Should it be in here or a different channel?
19:48:16 <meshcollider> I'm interested
19:48:18 <gmaxwell> It should be here.
19:48:19 <jonasschnelli> we should probably list the meeting(s) somewhere (bitcoincore.org?)
19:48:20 <sipa> i'd rather keep it in this channel
19:48:25 <jonasschnelli> ack
19:48:45 <luke-jr> jnewbery: I'm not entirely disinterested, but I don't think I have time for it
19:48:46 <wumpus> yes, why not this channel
19:48:58 <gmaxwell> If there is anything so important going on that the meeting interrupting it would be a problem, then probably the meeting would be heled off in any case. :)
19:48:58 <achow101> sipa: +1 (re date and time)
19:49:08 <gmaxwell> held*
19:49:21 <sipa> being in this channel may encourage others to participate (or at least lurk and see what's being worked on)
19:49:27 <meshcollider> I was very confused because I thought it *was* Friday, but then I remembered you're all in the wrong time zone
19:49:34 <luke-jr> lol
19:49:49 <jonasschnelli> * has a while thought that meeting could be done in voice via jitsi *duck*
19:49:52 <meshcollider> +1 then
19:49:53 <achow101> meshcollider: at least we're not upside down
19:49:58 <meshcollider> :(
19:50:07 <gmaxwell> What would be bad is if it siphons wallet discussion off into places where fewer people see it.  Keeping it in the same place would be a minor improement.
19:50:13 <jnewbery> so Friday for us would be saturday for meshcollider. Is that ok for you, or would you prefer it on a week day?
19:50:39 <meshcollider> Saturday is probably preferable even, less conflict with lectures
19:50:42 <sipa> (i'm suggesting friday because i already have meetings on all other days around that time)
19:51:02 <sipa> but that's a personal preference and i'm sure i can accomodate other times
19:51:45 <meshcollider> So are we starting this tomorrow then?
19:52:11 <jnewbery> ok, let's try for Friday then. I can't this week or next week. I'm happy to chair, or equally happy if someone else wants to volunteer
19:52:15 <jonasschnelli> We can do a poll?
19:52:40 <gmaxwell> It's probably better to start sooner, the first few meetings of this sort of thing are usually poorly attended. :P
19:52:48 <gmaxwell> better get that out of the way.
19:52:56 <sipa> i'm happy to chair as well
19:53:02 <luke-jr> does GUI move to wallet meetings or stay here?
19:53:17 <sipa> i wouldn't say anything "moves"
19:53:25 <meshcollider> Chair of wallet meeting = new wallet maintainer :D
19:53:29 <jonasschnelli> Wallet GUI in wallet, rest-GUI here?
19:53:38 <jonasschnelli> meshcollider: lol
19:54:01 <gmaxwell> I wouldn't say moves either. We should expect some duplication, with the extended discussion in comittee.
19:54:13 <jonasschnelli> Yes. That's fine I guess.
19:54:16 <gmaxwell> Otherwise, people get forced to attend all meetings, which I think is a non-goal.
19:54:29 <instagibbs> +1
19:54:46 <achow101> ack
19:55:02 <meshcollider> +1
19:55:03 <jnewbery> yeah, the suggestion ceratinly isn't that wallet isn't discussed in regular weekly meetings
19:55:51 <booyah> luke-jr: I would notice last of signs on binaries and/or on git tags. FYI :)
19:56:02 <luke-jr> FWIW, someone is already telling me OOB that there will be outrage if the address book is removed :P
19:56:20 <luke-jr> booyah: huh?
19:56:28 <jnewbery> topic suggestion: I think aj was going to bring up IRC meeting logs on bitcoincore.org today
19:56:33 <jnewbery> not sure if he's here
19:56:43 <jonasschnelli> 3.5min left. :/
19:57:02 <luke-jr> pause the clock?
19:57:03 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: we weren't going to anyways, but what is the use they are referring to.
19:57:36 <gmaxwell> The action was to just refactor the interface some to make it less confusing.
19:57:48 <jnewbery> I guess if aj isn't here there's not much to talk about
19:57:49 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: apparently to "see all their addresses in one place"; I don't really get it
19:58:04 <gmaxwell> Though I'm interested in hearing about what the use of it is.
19:58:12 <gmaxwell> (other than signmessage)
19:58:25 <molz> lol
19:58:36 <booyah> luke-jr: I mean that some people do check signatures on binaries (from bitcoincore.org) and on git. Though now I see you could mean the windows specific signatures on exe, dunno how much people would care about that one
19:58:46 <luke-jr> booyah: rigth
19:58:57 <wumpus> yes, some people like the address book, could have told you so
19:59:54 <molz> gmaxwell, i know some people do save every address they have, like forever, and they save the wallet.dats they have and they like to see all their addresses in the address book, so i told luke in another channel that yes i think they would be mad at you guys if you get rid of the address book
19:59:56 <wumpus> you're going to get complaints if you remove it, that's why I said there's better be a very good reason/story to do so, "it's easy to reuse addresses" is nothing new
20:00:18 <jonasschnelli> #endmeeting good night, good morning or enjoy your lunch