19:03:12 <jonasschnelli> #startmeeting
19:03:12 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Aug 27 19:03:12 2020 UTC.  The chair is jonasschnelli. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:03:12 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:03:14 <jonasschnelli> hi
19:03:14 <MarcoFalke> lekker
19:03:19 <hebasto> hi
19:03:26 <jonatack> hallo
19:03:28 <meshcollider> hi
19:03:31 <sipa> hi
19:03:32 <wumpus> hi
19:03:33 <sipsorcery> hi
19:03:34 <amiti> hi
19:03:38 <MarcoFalke> hi
19:03:44 <achow101> hai
19:04:02 * MarcoFalke waiting for the mass-ping
19:04:08 <jonasschnelli> Am I right that the only proposed topics are form MarcoFalke? (0.19 minor release / signet)?
19:04:17 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: correct
19:04:41 <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 ariard digi_james
19:04:43 <wumpus> amiti fjahr jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55 elichai2
19:05:13 <jonasschnelli> #topic High priority for review
19:05:24 <jonasschnelli> is there anything you want to add or remove or replace?
19:05:37 <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
19:05:42 <MarcoFalke> add #19717 :)
19:05:44 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19717 | rpc: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (mining,zmq,rpcdump) by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #19717 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:06:15 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: replace #19629?
19:06:20 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19629 | refactor: Keep mempool interface in validation by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #19629 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:06:23 <MarcoFalke> jup, removed the other
19:07:12 <jonasschnelli> done
19:07:30 <MarcoFalke> thx
19:07:52 <jonasschnelli> currently 10 blockers, 3 chasing concept ACK (same as last week)
19:08:42 <jonasschnelli> #topic Status of 0.19 minor release (MarcoFalke)
19:09:23 <MarcoFalke> Well, we should probably wrap that up and ship?
19:09:27 <MarcoFalke> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/46
19:09:51 <wumpus> sounds good to me, I had no idea that was ready?
19:09:58 <MarcoFalke> though, there is still some tagged for backport: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=label%3A%22Needs+backport+%280.19%29%22
19:10:36 <jonasschnelli> #19681 looks ready for merge
19:10:38 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19681 | 0.19: Add txids with non-standard inputs to reject filter by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19681 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:11:24 <wumpus> agree
19:12:03 <wumpus> so does #18284?
19:12:04 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18284 | [0.19] scheduler: Workaround negative nsecs bug in boosts wait_until by luke-jr · Pull Request #18284 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:12:42 <MarcoFalke> 18284 isn't a backport, though
19:13:02 <jonasschnelli> if we want to have the http race also fixed in 0.19.2, we should mark #19033 0.19.2,... otherwise move 18856
19:13:05 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19033 | http: Release work queue after event base finish by promag · Pull Request #19033 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:13:07 <wumpus> it's labeled 0.19.2 and targetted for 0.19 thugh
19:13:44 <MarcoFalke> The bug is not a regression in 0.19, so I am not sure if we *need* to fix it
19:14:11 <MarcoFalke> and it doesn't happen on servers
19:14:30 <wumpus> why didn't you never comment that on the PR?
19:14:43 <wumpus> it has only ACKs now
19:14:56 <wumpus> so it looks ready to go at least
19:14:57 <MarcoFalke> ok, will leave a comment now
19:15:40 <wumpus> it's fine with me to not do it at all, but if no one comments that in months that's not very clear to the author
19:15:42 <jeremyrubin> it should only happen if you're mocking the time right?
19:16:22 <jonasschnelli> #19033 is ready for merge IMO.. a backport to 0.19.2 should be easy to fix 18856
19:16:24 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19033 | http: Release work queue after event base finish by promag · Pull Request #19033 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:17:05 <MarcoFalke> jeremyrubin: No only if you hibernate/suspend
19:17:35 <jamesob> Can I have #19806 added?
19:17:36 <jeremyrubin> probably fine to fix then
19:17:38 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19806 | validation: UTXO snapshot activation by jamesob · Pull Request #19806 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:17:47 <jeremyrubin> jamesob: added to 0.19 backport?
19:17:55 <MarcoFalke> high prio
19:17:57 <wumpus> the code change itself looked ok to me
19:17:58 <jonasschnelli> jeremyrubin: sure. Adding...
19:18:14 <jamesob> Oops, we're still on highprio right?
19:18:21 <wumpus> it's always possible to argue it's not *worth* fixing, but I think it's kind of strange if there is already a patch
19:18:45 <wumpus> if it can happen with hiberbate/suspend that seems like a legit issue?
19:18:47 <jonasschnelli> jamesob: no. 0.19.2 (but it's fine)
19:19:00 <MarcoFalke> wumpus: Jup, the code change looks fine obviously. Though, it is also boost. A previous version of the patch forgot to catch and re-throw boost::thread_interrupted
19:19:55 <MarcoFalke> I'd rather have a known bug that is well understood than an newly introduced intermittent unknown bug
19:19:57 <wumpus> is there any urgency to do another 0.19 release at all?
19:20:12 <jeremyrubin> reject filtering?
19:20:24 <MarcoFalke> wumpus: Not really. Not sure how urgent the reject filtering needs to go out
19:20:25 <jeremyrubin> that was the main motivator iirc?
19:20:42 <sipa> i don't think that's urgent
19:22:29 <wumpus> not urgent enough to rush and skip other fixes at least
19:22:30 <jonasschnelli> Anything to add to 0.19.2? (MarcoFalke)
19:23:05 <MarcoFalke> Not really. Everything should be tagged already.
19:23:37 <jonasschnelli> #topic Status of signet implementation in Bitcoin Core (MarcoFalke)
19:24:18 <MarcoFalke> Pretty much a short topic. I only wanted to ask if anyone plans to ACK/NACK/review it.
19:24:28 <jeremyrubin> i played around with the impl yesterday. It's pretty good but currently lacking the contrib tools
19:24:31 <MarcoFalke> From my view it seems close to ready
19:24:40 <jeremyrubin> It was hard for me to fully test it without the contrib tooling
19:25:10 <MarcoFalke> jeremyrubin: I'd say Bitcoin Core is the wrong place to add contrib tools for the signet maintainers.
19:25:21 <MarcoFalke> They can have their own repo
19:25:28 <jeremyrubin> MarcoFalke: disagree -- we should be able to produce blocks for signet
19:25:32 <wumpus> we have a maintainer tools repo just add it there
19:25:42 <jeremyrubin> I don't care where the tools are
19:25:51 <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-maintainer-tools
19:25:53 <jeremyrubin> But I care that I can't test a signet that I created
19:26:01 <sipa> i'm not sure it's really a maintainer tool
19:26:03 <MarcoFalke> I agree they should be public
19:26:24 <jeremyrubin> I'm saying that it's a bit of a merge precondition. I would ACK if I could finish testing it
19:26:33 <wumpus> it's pretty much free for all for anything maintainers need, no need to put signet tools anywhere else
19:26:42 <sipa> the expectations may be unclear, but i hope that over time various private signets get spun up - it could even replace regtest over time
19:26:52 <michaelfolkson> Can't test jeremyrubin? What can't you test exactly?
19:27:10 <jeremyrubin> Well I made my own signet script and network
19:27:10 <MarcoFalke> michaelfolkson: Mining blocks
19:27:15 <jeremyrubin> And i cannot produce blocks
19:27:25 <jeremyrubin> So I can't test peering it and seeing that it works
19:27:32 <sipa> doesn't mean it needs to be in the repo right now, but i don't think it'd be unreasonable to have the scripts for working/spining up a signet in the main repo
19:28:13 <jeremyrubin> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Signet
19:28:18 <sipa> at some point
19:28:40 <wumpus> no big objection either, but I would say that there need to be tests for them if you'd put them in the main repo, there's already too many quasi-unmaintained tools
19:28:54 <sipa> agree
19:28:55 <michaelfolkson> Yeah I'm hazy about what should be in Core, what is covered by Core but I'm sure it will become clearer to me over time
19:29:18 <jeremyrubin> Yeah the tools could be somewhere, I'm just commenting that I can't finish testing and ACK without having block producing scripts.
19:29:18 <sipa> wumpus: yes, let's not merge things that are untested and then go broken without anyone noticing
19:29:23 <wumpus> in any case that doesn't seem necessary for the PR that is open now
19:29:38 <MarcoFalke> If they get added to the repo, I hope they are not written in bash at least *hides
19:29:41 <jeremyrubin> wumpus: one cannot tested ACK the current code
19:29:49 <sipa> jeremyrubin: i don't think that's a blocker for signet itself - the tools are available, right?
19:29:53 <sipa> just not in the PR
19:29:58 <jeremyrubin> I don't think so AFAIK
19:30:04 <wumpus> wait, the tools are not  available *at all*?
19:30:12 <wumpus> okay, that seems like a blocker
19:30:21 <jeremyrubin> I think they are quasi available
19:30:30 <wumpus> why not just ask kallewoof for them
19:30:31 <jeremyrubin> In that they exist against a prior version of Signet
19:30:32 <jonasschnelli> I guess kallewoof is asleep
19:30:36 <jonatack> signet is certainly the PR i've spent the most time doing re-reviews of these past 6 months. it would be nice to begin reviewing follow-ups instead of the whole thing every time.
19:30:42 <jeremyrubin> I think they're still finishing them
19:31:04 <jeremyrubin> And it's fine if we want follow up work to add the full tools
19:31:12 <michaelfolkson> Is it a blocker? There will be future Signet related PRs
19:31:14 <jeremyrubin> but if people are wondering why I haven't ACKd it
19:31:18 <wumpus> in any case, in including the tools in bitcoin core's repo (+tests) should imo not be a requirement for this PR
19:31:27 <jeremyrubin> (which is more or less the current topic)
19:31:29 <wumpus> but they need to be available somewhere
19:31:29 <jeremyrubin> that's why
19:31:36 <sipa> jeremyrubin: seems very reasonable
19:31:42 <jeremyrubin> wumpus: +1, I'm happy with them being anywhere
19:32:29 <jonasschnelli> aren't the tools here: https://github.com/kallewoof/bitcoin/commit/50c839e1d91348408b40b3f8a53e0ef1a7f6da72
19:32:58 <MarcoFalke> jonasschnelli: There was a previous version that signed the block, not transactions
19:33:10 <MarcoFalke> I'd bet the current one would be easier to write from scratch
19:33:14 <sipa> i think it would be good if the signet consensus PR included a trivial python based functional test... even if it's a super simple one with just OP_TRUE as script or so
19:33:32 <wumpus> yes
19:33:59 <sipa> i don't see any actual testing apart from a fuzz test?
19:34:20 <MarcoFalke> sipa: I was planning to write some tests as a follow-up
19:34:38 <michaelfolkson> There is this too for setting up your own Signet https://github.com/kallewoof/signet-platform
19:34:47 <instagibbs> sipa, could have all tests run with --signet, and it handles it in background using generate* aliased? :)
19:35:09 <instagibbs> s/all/some/
19:35:11 <wumpus> re-running every test seems like overkill
19:35:14 <wumpus> right
19:35:15 <MarcoFalke> instagibbs: They'd run for years with that POW
19:35:24 <sipa> yeah, i just want to make sure the signet code is exercised in tests
19:35:30 <sipa> that does not seem to be the case in the current PR
19:35:31 <instagibbs> MarcoFalke, sigregtest ... right
19:35:59 <MarcoFalke> heh, regtest should already mimic mainnet in most params
19:36:05 <jeremyrubin> michaelfolkson: those tools don't seem to be current
19:36:32 <MarcoFalke> Jup, anything that was written before august is outdated
19:36:37 <instagibbs> aj and kallewoof have the current block keys, for final might be worth having keys in EU/US for timezone arbitrage
19:36:57 <michaelfolkson> Volunteering? :)
19:37:15 <instagibbs> I'm moving their timezone, probably, so no
19:37:15 <instagibbs> lol
19:37:32 <instagibbs> voluntelling achow to run a node
19:37:37 <MarcoFalke> ack
19:37:59 <jeremyrubin> instagibbs: nack
19:38:14 <jeremyrubin> I think we shouldn't try to offer signet as any sort of "use the main one thing"
19:38:22 <jeremyrubin> let a thousand ships sail ;)
19:38:45 <michaelfolkson> Disagree. But I will post on the mailing list and you can disagree with me there
19:38:51 <jeremyrubin> ok
19:39:52 <achow101> instagibbs: what am I being voluntold to do?
19:40:11 <jeremyrubin> also note that for signet there's not ~that much value in the current multisig setup
19:40:15 <jeremyrubin> it's 1 of N
19:40:18 <michaelfolkson> Third signer on Signet blocks being mined. Congrats achow101
19:40:24 <jeremyrubin> there's no M of N cordination
19:40:37 <jeremyrubin> so you can literally do a 1 of 1 and send anyone the key
19:40:44 <instagibbs> jeremyrubin, right it's less crucial but "hey bump your server"
19:41:03 <instagibbs> well, then it becomes 1 of 1 over time, anyways, not a huge deal
19:41:39 <achow101> chaincode should run a signet node then
19:41:45 <MarcoFalke> I'd presume it is 1 of 2 to protect against power outages
19:41:48 <jeremyrubin> it's current 1 of 2, which has no security improvement over 1 of 1 where two people know the 1
19:41:59 <instagibbs> it's not security
19:42:00 <instagibbs> it's outages
19:42:03 <instagibbs> hence timezone comment
19:42:06 <instagibbs> not nation :)
19:42:07 <jeremyrubin> it has no outages improvement
19:42:49 <sipa> i think you guys are talking past each other
19:42:50 <jeremyrubin> unless I'm missing something where you want to know which node created the block
19:42:58 <michaelfolkson> It does. If one signer is down blocks can still be mined using sigs from the other signer
19:43:05 <sipa> yeah, i think the only difference is accountability
19:43:07 <instagibbs> "why not" but also "I've stopped caring" :)
19:43:08 <sipa> not sure that matters
19:43:20 <instagibbs> so I'll concede i appear to care less and relent
19:43:33 <jeremyrubin> Yeah I'm not sure how to make my point more clear but I'll cede the balance of my time (too much CSPAN)
19:43:59 <instagibbs> you could softfork out on of the keys(haha)
19:44:22 <instagibbs> (100% not serious)
19:44:27 * jeremyrubin groans
19:45:17 <MarcoFalke> 1 of 2 also gives debugability. (You'll see which miner didn't produce blocks)
19:45:34 <jeremyrubin> you already get that with coinbase message if you want
19:45:38 <sipa> MarcoFalke: yeah, that's commonly called accountability
19:46:32 <jeremyrubin> there's maybe an edge on debuggable v.s. provably accountable if the miner-id is a unverified message
19:47:27 <sipa> i think this is getting off topic
19:47:32 <jonasschnelli> any other last minute topics?
19:47:41 <jonatack> so, signet is near-mergeable, just needs a sanity check functional test?
19:47:45 <jonatack> jonasschnelli: About 0.19.2 backports -- not a bugfix per se but perhaps #19455. It accompanies the cli -generate addition, which was in 0.19.
19:47:48 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19455 | rpc generate: print useful help and error message by jonatack · Pull Request #19455 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:48:10 <luke-jr> re 18284 I don't get why we would intentionally *not* merge a bugfix
19:48:30 <MarcoFalke> luke-jr: Because of the risk that it introduces new bugs
19:48:32 <jonasschnelli> jonatack: 19455 is not really a bugfix?
19:48:32 <luke-jr> it's one thing if people don't give it reviews needed, but once it has review, it doesn't make sense to leave it out
19:48:46 <jeremyrubin> jonatack: I think one should be able to stand up a net and generate blocks, which might be a subset of that functional test. That's my watermark for tested ACK
19:48:51 <wumpus> I don't think it's particularly risky
19:49:08 <jonatack> jonasschnelli: it explains to people that run the former RPC generate that it is now CLI -generate instead
19:49:16 <wumpus> then again I ACKed it
19:50:02 <jonasschnelli> jonatack: I'd say no need to backport this... but no strong opinion.
19:50:21 <jonatack> because several tutorials online still mention rpc generate and it might be confusing for them. Yep, no worry, just mentioning.
19:50:41 <MarcoFalke> Yeah, I see it has two ACKs
19:51:12 <jonasschnelli> jonatack: Yes. That is a good point.
19:51:36 <wumpus> jonatack: I doubt meany people following tutorials will use a new 0.19.x
19:51:56 <jonasschnelli> yeah,.. that
19:51:58 <wumpus> not opposed to backporting it, but, these kind of backport releases tend to be used for old software on servers
19:52:14 <sipa> if used at all
19:52:33 <luke-jr> well, some end users intentionally hold back on major updates too; but still unlikely they'd be using the old version for something like this
19:52:42 <sipa> right
19:52:58 <wumpus> they're definitely downloaded looking at torrent seed server stats etc
19:53:06 <sipa> wumpus: good to know
19:55:02 <jonasschnelli> #endmeeting