19:00:41 <wumpus> #startmeeting
19:00:41 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Sep 26 19:00:41 2019 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:41 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:00:44 <jonasschnelli> hi
19:00:51 <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator aj Chris_Stewart_5 dongcarl gwillen jamesob ken281221 ryanofsky gleb moneyball kvaciral
19:00:53 <provoostenator> hi
19:00:58 <achow101> hi
19:00:58 <moneyball> hi
19:01:04 <instagibbs> hi
19:01:21 <MarcoFalke> What is the status of 0.17.2 and 0.18.2?
19:01:24 <wumpus> with the 0.19 split-off coming up, I think we should use today's meeting to discuss and triage the still-open issues on the 0.19 milestone (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/37)
19:01:54 <BlueMatt> ack
19:03:01 <provoostenator> I'll try to resist shiny object syndrome and review a bunch of 0.19 soon tm.
19:03:03 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: 0.17.2 is done, still have to upload executables, dunno about 0.18.2
19:03:29 <BlueMatt> provoostenator: welcome to my life
19:03:29 <MarcoFalke> So 0.17.2rc2 is 0.17.2-final
19:03:49 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: eh wait, I mean rc2
19:03:59 <MarcoFalke> heh
19:04:51 <MarcoFalke> What is the status of #14289 ?
19:04:53 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14289 | Unbounded growth of scheduler queue · Issue #14289 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:04:54 <wumpus> #topic 0.19 open issues
19:05:17 <MarcoFalke> Something has been addressed and I am not sure what still remains to be fixed
19:05:53 <wumpus> I don't know either
19:06:14 <BlueMatt> #16849 needs review
19:06:15 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16849 | Fix block index inconsistency in InvalidateBlock() by sdaftuar · Pull Request #16849 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:06:20 <MarcoFalke> Then moving it to another milestone won't help. I'd say close it
19:06:44 <sdaftuar> i'm not aware of any current scheduler queue problems, though i think there are code improvements some have been discussing to ensure no new problems develop? not sure
19:06:50 <BlueMatt> I dont see whay #14289 is on 0.19 - it seems the issue isn't specific anyway?
19:06:52 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14289 | Unbounded growth of scheduler queue · Issue #14289 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:07:13 <wumpus> BlueMatt: MarcoFalke  let's just remoe the milestone
19:07:36 <sdaftuar> re: #16849, i'm curious to get other opinions about what the best fix is
19:07:37 <BlueMatt> right, long-term I think #16323 "solves" the issue wholesale (and other locking/scheduling/queue concerns)
19:07:38 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16849 | Fix block index inconsistency in InvalidateBlock() by sdaftuar · Pull Request #16849 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:07:38 <wumpus> it's a long term improvement aim, not something that needs to be solved before a certain version
19:07:40 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16323 | Call ProcessNewBlock() asynchronously by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #16323 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:07:40 <provoostenator> The  scheduler queue thing's worst symptom has been fixed a while ago
19:07:42 <BlueMatt> but its *definitely* not an 0.19 thing
19:07:44 <MarcoFalke> I'd rather not do #16849  for 0.19. Seems to risky for a validation change that has effects only tests
19:07:46 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16849 | Fix block index inconsistency in InvalidateBlock() by sdaftuar · Pull Request #16849 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:08:36 <sdaftuar> MarcoFalke: only invalidateblock is affected, right? i think it's defensively written.  however it may be an unnecessary fix altogether imo
19:08:37 <BlueMatt> I mean its lower-risk than it appears
19:08:53 <sdaftuar> the bug is essentially non-observable
19:08:56 <BlueMatt> adding extra crap to setBlockIndexCandidates just makes things slower, not broken
19:09:13 <BlueMatt> though of course it could have some other classes of bugs
19:09:32 <sdaftuar> agreed :)
19:09:57 <BlueMatt> not for 19, either, but invalidateblock is also broken in other ways - see #16856
19:09:58 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16856 | Do not allow descendants of BLOCK_FAILED_VALID blocks to be BLOCK_FAILED_VALID by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #16856 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:09:59 <sdaftuar> anyway i mostly want people to chime in on whether we should even bother fixing the "bug"
19:10:29 <MarcoFalke> #16713 is easier to review. I am going to merge that after one more ACK
19:10:31 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16713 | Ignore old versionbit activations to avoid unknown softforks warning by jnewbery · Pull Request #16713 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:11:20 <BlueMatt> MarcoFalke: concept ack
19:11:24 <BlueMatt> does that count? :P
19:11:30 <wumpus> what about #16072?
19:11:31 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16072 | sendtoaddress ignores conf_target (spending whole UTxO with subtractfeefromamount=true) · Issue #16072 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:11:51 <wumpus> it looks like we don't have tests for sendtoaddress with a conf_target at all, so can't be sure it works
19:11:53 <instagibbs> ooooof
19:13:05 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: we defeinitely need to merge one of the versionbits warning fixes
19:13:42 <MarcoFalke> jup, this is a bug
19:14:17 <instagibbs> wumpus, I can dig into that sendtoaddress report later today if you'd like and see what i can find
19:14:37 <wumpus> instagibbs: thanks!
19:14:56 <instagibbs> 3 hour train ride should find some time...
19:15:36 <wumpus> what about #16418?
19:15:37 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16418 | Ensure we have sufficient transaction-relay peers · Issue #16418 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:17:26 <wumpus> it doesn't have an associated PR yet, so it's a bit late
19:17:38 <MarcoFalke> It is mostly brainstorming
19:17:43 <MarcoFalke> Not tied to a release
19:17:50 <wumpus> ok, remove or bump the milestone?
19:17:58 <MarcoFalke> but pointing to an actual (long-term) problem
19:18:03 <MarcoFalke> remove
19:18:05 <MarcoFalke> ? sdaftuar
19:18:18 <wumpus> yes, it's an actual problem
19:18:53 <wumpus> but we're triaging what has to be done for 0.19, not in general
19:19:06 <wumpus> removed the milestone for now, eel free to add a different one
19:19:13 <wumpus> then there's #16485
19:19:15 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16485 | bumpfee.TotalFee removed without replacement · Issue #16485 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:19:41 <MarcoFalke> instagibbs has a fix, but it hasn't received any review
19:19:41 <wumpus> oh that does have a PR, #16727
19:19:43 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16727 | wallet: Explicit feerate for bumpfee by instagibbs · Pull Request #16727 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:19:56 <provoostenator> ^ I'll give that a review
19:20:02 <wumpus> we should try to get that in
19:20:14 <instagibbs> thanks, the original contributor ghosted, which is why it was a bit late
19:20:30 <provoostenator> Initially I was hoping to get kallewoof's thing in first for an easier syntax, but that can wait
19:20:50 <instagibbs> provoostenator, was more controversial than I'd hoped tbh
19:20:59 <MarcoFalke> signet?
19:21:03 <provoostenator> #11413
19:21:05 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11413 | [wallet] [rpc] sendtoaddress/sendmany: Add explicit feerate option by kallewoof · Pull Request #11413 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:21:17 <instagibbs> the string args for sat/kB etc
19:21:23 <provoostenator> ^ At this point it's better to punt that to 0.20
19:21:24 <wumpus> that's really a feature
19:21:54 <instagibbs> orthogonal too, we can always augment 16727
19:21:58 <instagibbs> later
19:22:07 <provoostenator> Indeed
19:23:21 <wumpus> then there's #16950 (and fix PR #16952)
19:23:21 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16950 | gui: crash trying to access info of a removed transaction · Issue #16950 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:23:23 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16952 | gui: make sure to update the UI when deleting a transaction by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #16952 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:23:30 <instagibbs> also a bug, not a *new* one but it's gotten a bunch of review already: #16507
19:23:32 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16507 | feefilter: Compute the absolute fee rather than stored rate by instagibbs · Pull Request #16507 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:23:47 <wumpus> looks like a simple change, but there's some questions if it solves the whole problem
19:24:19 <jonasschnelli> I'd like to address promags point in 16952
19:24:22 <jonasschnelli> So not ready yet but soon
19:24:23 <wumpus> let's keep discussion to what is already tagged with the milestone for now
19:24:35 <instagibbs> apologies
19:24:53 <wumpus> instagibbs: would be nice to get it in, sure
19:25:01 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: ok!
19:26:04 <wumpus> then we have #16939, which is tagged 0.19, but fixes an issue (#15434) that is not tagged 0.19
19:26:05 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16939 | p2p: Delay querying DNS seeds if addrman is populated by ajtowns · Pull Request #16939 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:26:06 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15434 | Querying DNS seeds too frequently · Issue #15434 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:26:36 <MarcoFalke> not a regression bugfix, right
19:26:44 <MarcoFalke> Seems like a feature
19:26:47 <wumpus> it's mostly a "query DNS seeds to often" annoyance, not really a bug
19:26:52 <MarcoFalke> yeah
19:27:22 <wumpus> removing it from the milestone
19:28:13 <wumpus> #16936 is only a test change and should be ready to go after the linter changes are removed from it
19:28:15 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16936 | qa: Fix service flag comparison check in rpc_net test by luke-jr · Pull Request #16936 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:29:09 <wumpus> #16817 is just a simple argument casing change so no worries it can go in
19:29:10 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16817 | rpc: Fix casing in getblockchaininfo to be inline with other fields by dangershony · Pull Request #16817 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:29:47 <wumpus> (but it's critical that it gets into 0.19, because otherwise there will be version incompatiblity)
19:30:37 <MarcoFalke> next topic?
19:30:46 <wumpus> #16689 is a help only change, would be nice to have it in but not necessary
19:30:48 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16689 | rpc: add missing fields to wallet rpc help output by ariard · Pull Request #16689 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:30:53 <wumpus> I think that covered them all
19:30:59 <wumpus> sure, any other topics?
19:31:28 <wumpus> I don't think we need to do "high priority for review"
19:31:49 <wumpus> oh we had a topic from last time: proposed by instagibbs: what to do with change output creation with bech32-default Core wallets: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15560#issuecomment-531796601
19:32:08 <wumpus> #topic what to do with change output creation with bech32-default Core wallets
19:33:01 <instagibbs> uhhh nothing new on that front :)
19:33:12 <achow101> what would be different from setting -addresstype=bech32 today?
19:33:12 <wumpus> maybe there's someone interested in discussing it this week
19:33:20 <wumpus> last week, there weren't many people
19:34:24 <instagibbs> achow101, the main change I was curious about was if someone specifies p2sh-wrapped for address, should we try to match bech32 change
19:34:37 <instagibbs> that's historical behavior that my PR is changing
19:34:42 <instagibbs> via https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16884/commits/f069b9bf55936d3793406f2ab1af107a6e1a40c4
19:35:21 <achow101> the mimicking behavior was for privacy so it's slightly less obvious which address is change
19:35:36 <instagibbs> privacy + small discount
19:36:22 <instagibbs> so the q is should someone asking for p2sh-wrapped be given that "discount and privacy", or should we just respect the choice
19:36:37 <instagibbs> since everyone else will be running bech32
19:37:02 <wumpus> but not immediately
19:37:27 <achow101> I would prefer to keep the match the outgoing address type behavior
19:37:27 <wumpus> and only bitcoin core changes the default here, not every other wallet
19:37:31 <instagibbs> well if people are -1 on it I can remove it and fix tests
19:37:47 <wumpus> instagibbs: I think it makes sense to split it off from the default change itself
19:37:59 <instagibbs> changing tests twice :P
19:38:13 <instagibbs> I can remove it
19:38:41 <wumpus> ok!
19:38:54 <instagibbs> unless I run into a reason I'd forgotten, then we can continue in-thread
19:38:56 <instagibbs> thanks!
19:39:02 <wumpus> any other topics?
19:39:46 <wumpus> ok, please use the remaining 20 minutes to review PRs for 0.19 then :<
19:39:49 <wumpus> #endmeeting