12017-05-25T00:10:02  *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  22017-05-25T00:14:17  *** kadoban has quit IRC
  32017-05-25T00:14:21  *** kadoban_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  42017-05-25T00:41:02  *** Apocalyptic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  52017-05-25T00:57:05  *** jtimon has quit IRC
  62017-05-25T01:00:05  *** dermoth has quit IRC
  72017-05-25T01:00:59  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  82017-05-25T01:07:36  <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, no issue for me here
  92017-05-25T01:07:44  <phantomcircuit> 96c850c20913b191cff9f66fedbb68812b1a41ea
 102017-05-25T01:07:59  <sipa> works fine here as well
 112017-05-25T01:08:00  <phantomcircuit> wait this is probably not actual master
 122017-05-25T01:08:01  <phantomcircuit> hmm
 132017-05-25T01:08:05  <sipa> but i think gmaxwell's using qt4
 142017-05-25T01:08:36  *** dstadulis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 152017-05-25T01:35:36  <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, yeah it's broken
 162017-05-25T01:35:41  <phantomcircuit> sipa, yeah i have qt4 also
 172017-05-25T01:36:24  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 182017-05-25T01:39:21  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: Gentoo's 0.14.1-r1 seems to work with any configuration I try; can you be more specific on how to get a failure? Do you have the overlay?
 192017-05-25T01:44:14  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the issue is that it puts  BITCOIND_OPTS="-disablewallet"  in /etc/conf.d even when the wallet useflag is set.
 202017-05-25T01:44:25  <gmaxwell> both the overlay and not.
 212017-05-25T01:47:20  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: aha, interesting. I wonder if we should tolerate/ignore that in such cases
 222017-05-25T01:47:27  <luke-jr> I'll hack the ebuild to get rid of it for now
 232017-05-25T01:47:45  <luke-jr> wait, "even when the wallet useflag is set"? that's to be expected?
 242017-05-25T01:48:21  <gmaxwell> You are saying that when the wallet useflag is set, it should disable the wallet?
 252017-05-25T01:48:22  <luke-jr> (okay, looks like -disablewallet should safely be ignored already too)
 262017-05-25T01:48:43  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it builds with wallet support, but the init script in typical usage wouldn't enable the wallet because it's a system bitcoind
 272017-05-25T01:49:18  <luke-jr> at least, that seems to be the typical assumption users have had before; and it can be changed where people want something else
 282017-05-25T01:49:34  <gmaxwell> This is insanely confusing and imposible to support, I wasted about a half an hour trying to help someone today with this.
 292017-05-25T01:49:34  <luke-jr> ie, when people want bitcoind-with-wallet, they usually run that as a normal user
 302017-05-25T01:49:39  <luke-jr> hmm
 312017-05-25T01:49:54  <luke-jr> I suppose an unused wallet is harmless
 322017-05-25T01:50:00  <gmaxwell> if you don't want to use a wallet you.. exactly!
 332017-05-25T01:51:23  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it's contrib/init/bitcoind.openrcconf in Core itself; do you want to open the PR, or should I?
 342017-05-25T01:52:20  <gmaxwell> I'd rather you do so since I'm not in a position to test it myself.
 352017-05-25T01:54:33  <luke-jr> k
 362017-05-25T01:57:39  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #10451: contrib/init/bitcoind.openrcconf: Don't disable wallet by default (master...openrc_wallet) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10451
 372017-05-25T01:59:19  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ^
 382017-05-25T02:04:01  *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
 392017-05-25T02:08:47  *** PRab has quit IRC
 402017-05-25T02:33:34  *** kadoban_ is now known as kadoban
 412017-05-25T02:41:08  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 422017-05-25T02:43:51  *** talmai has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 432017-05-25T02:53:54  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 442017-05-25T02:56:12  <phantomcircuit> #10420 breaks qt4
 452017-05-25T02:56:14  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10420 | Add Qt tests for wallet spends & bumpfee by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10420 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 462017-05-25T03:01:30  <phantomcircuit> actually maybe not?
 472017-05-25T03:02:36  *** tunafizz has quit IRC
 482017-05-25T03:03:09  *** tunafizz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 492017-05-25T03:11:58  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
 502017-05-25T03:12:21  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 512017-05-25T03:19:14  *** goatturneer has quit IRC
 522017-05-25T03:24:27  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
 532017-05-25T03:26:09  *** talmai has quit IRC
 542017-05-25T03:28:45  *** hourandahalf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 552017-05-25T03:29:10  *** hourandahalf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 562017-05-25T03:30:33  *** hourandahalf has quit IRC
 572017-05-25T03:31:55  *** chikensore has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 582017-05-25T03:34:06  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 592017-05-25T03:36:43  *** chikensore has quit IRC
 602017-05-25T03:37:35  *** chikensore has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 612017-05-25T03:40:27  *** tunafizz has quit IRC
 622017-05-25T03:40:54  *** tunafizz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 632017-05-25T03:42:01  *** goatturneer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 642017-05-25T03:47:00  *** JackH has quit IRC
 652017-05-25T03:49:32  *** tunafizz has quit IRC
 662017-05-25T03:49:39  *** tunafizz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 672017-05-25T03:59:49  *** QBcrusher_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 682017-05-25T04:00:17  *** chikensore has quit IRC
 692017-05-25T04:02:29  *** QBcrusher has quit IRC
 702017-05-25T04:07:48  *** tunafizz has quit IRC
 712017-05-25T04:08:20  *** tunafizz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 722017-05-25T04:14:51  *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 732017-05-25T04:24:37  *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
 742017-05-25T04:26:04  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 752017-05-25T04:29:33  *** str4d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 762017-05-25T04:37:25  *** song_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 772017-05-25T04:51:12  *** song_ has quit IRC
 782017-05-25T05:39:23  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 792017-05-25T05:45:45  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 802017-05-25T05:48:35  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
 812017-05-25T05:50:12  *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
 822017-05-25T05:54:53  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
 832017-05-25T05:59:47  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 842017-05-25T06:00:39  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 852017-05-25T06:01:47  *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 862017-05-25T06:03:42  *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
 872017-05-25T06:03:42  *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 882017-05-25T06:21:42  *** d_t has quit IRC
 892017-05-25T06:30:11  *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
 902017-05-25T06:32:43  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 912017-05-25T06:34:44  *** str4d has quit IRC
 922017-05-25T06:45:15  *** arowser has quit IRC
 932017-05-25T06:47:29  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 942017-05-25T06:56:22  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 952017-05-25T07:19:19  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 962017-05-25T07:27:48  *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
 972017-05-25T07:28:05  *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 982017-05-25T07:31:08  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 992017-05-25T07:50:37  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1002017-05-25T07:55:41  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1012017-05-25T08:21:22  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1022017-05-25T08:28:20  *** riemann has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1032017-05-25T08:44:50  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
1042017-05-25T08:51:45  <phantomcircuit> btw
1052017-05-25T08:51:52  <phantomcircuit> git bisect run is pretty neat
1062017-05-25T08:51:58  <phantomcircuit> (it was 10420)
1072017-05-25T08:55:41  <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: thanks for bisecting.
1082017-05-25T08:56:07  <gmaxwell> ryanofsky: 10420 appears to have broken the build for QT4. See above.
1092017-05-25T08:57:18  <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, tbh i really just wanted to try git bisect run
1102017-05-25T08:57:31  <phantomcircuit> it's neat
1112017-05-25T09:06:04  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1122017-05-25T09:54:33  *** tunafizz has quit IRC
1132017-05-25T09:54:53  *** tunafizz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142017-05-25T10:07:16  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152017-05-25T10:08:56  *** beatrootfarmer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1162017-05-25T10:12:28  *** goatturneer has quit IRC
1172017-05-25T10:22:56  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
1182017-05-25T10:27:58  *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
1192017-05-25T10:29:29  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202017-05-25T11:00:43  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1212017-05-25T11:12:35  *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
1222017-05-25T11:25:06  *** snortblort has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1232017-05-25T11:43:15  *** snortblort has quit IRC
1242017-05-25T11:56:25  *** NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1252017-05-25T11:56:26  *** NewLiberty_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1262017-05-25T12:01:21  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #10454: Fix broken q4 test build (master...pr/qt4ctx) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10454
1272017-05-25T12:07:21  *** NewLiberty_ has quit IRC
1282017-05-25T12:33:53  *** chjj has quit IRC
1292017-05-25T12:35:31  *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
1302017-05-25T12:41:50  *** cryptapus_afk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312017-05-25T12:45:03  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
1322017-05-25T13:00:57  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332017-05-25T13:09:31  *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1342017-05-25T13:14:26  *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
1352017-05-25T13:23:24  *** NewLiberty_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362017-05-25T13:24:28  *** NewLiberty has quit IRC
1372017-05-25T13:37:29  *** jannes has quit IRC
1382017-05-25T13:43:15  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1392017-05-25T13:50:32  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1402017-05-25T13:55:31  *** d_t has quit IRC
1412017-05-25T14:20:16  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #10455: Simplify feebumper minimum fee code slightly (master...pr/bumpmin) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10455
1422017-05-25T14:23:47  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1432017-05-25T14:30:37  *** Joseph__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1442017-05-25T14:30:54  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1452017-05-25T14:33:27  *** NewLiberty_ has quit IRC
1462017-05-25T14:36:17  *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
1472017-05-25T14:38:57  *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1482017-05-25T14:41:00  *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492017-05-25T14:43:45  *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
1502017-05-25T14:56:55  *** goatturneer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1512017-05-25T14:59:42  *** riemann has quit IRC
1522017-05-25T15:00:13  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] earonesty closed pull request #10442: add a -bip148 option (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10442
1532017-05-25T15:00:29  *** beatrootfarmer has quit IRC
1542017-05-25T15:27:23  *** beatrootfarmer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1552017-05-25T15:30:48  *** goatturneer has quit IRC
1562017-05-25T15:31:43  *** beatrootfarmer has quit IRC
1572017-05-25T15:43:25  *** elkalamar_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1582017-05-25T15:45:31  *** elkalamar has quit IRC
1592017-05-25T15:45:48  *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1602017-05-25T15:45:55  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1612017-05-25T15:58:00  *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1622017-05-25T15:59:42  *** timothy has quit IRC
1632017-05-25T16:15:56  *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1642017-05-25T16:46:00  *** arowser has quit IRC
1652017-05-25T16:46:16  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1662017-05-25T16:48:59  *** dstadulis has quit IRC
1672017-05-25T16:51:29  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1682017-05-25T16:51:35  *** beatrootfarmer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1692017-05-25T16:51:36  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1702017-05-25T16:58:29  *** bsm1175321 has quit IRC
1712017-05-25T17:01:44  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722017-05-25T17:02:08  *** juscamarena is now known as Guest72157
1732017-05-25T17:02:48  *** juscamarena_ has quit IRC
1742017-05-25T17:05:21  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752017-05-25T17:05:30  *** belcher has quit IRC
1762017-05-25T17:15:13  *** Joseph__ has quit IRC
1772017-05-25T17:46:28  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
1782017-05-25T17:49:27  *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1792017-05-25T17:53:28  *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
1802017-05-25T17:53:28  *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1812017-05-25T18:15:58  <jonasschnelli> Grml... qt4.
1822017-05-25T18:16:15  <wumpus> don't be angry, let the people that care about fix it
1832017-05-25T18:16:31  <jonasschnelli> Yeah... ideally it would be in our CI
1842017-05-25T18:16:39  <jonasschnelli> otherwise this pops up here and there
1852017-05-25T18:16:52  <jonasschnelli> but right, I don't care about qt4. If people do, then they must fix it.
1862017-05-25T18:18:16  <wumpus> yes, same there, let the people that care about it add it to CI :)
1872017-05-25T18:19:19  <sipa> is Qt4 still intended to be supported?
1882017-05-25T18:19:38  <wumpus> yes
1892017-05-25T18:20:03  <wumpus> but no one of us actually uses it anymore, for a long time
1902017-05-25T18:20:57  <sipa> i believe that gmaxwell's setup had both qt4 and qt5, and configure automatically picked qt4?
1912017-05-25T18:21:42  <jonasschnelli> even worse, I think BlueMatt's PPA builds against qt4?!
1922017-05-25T18:21:57  <wumpus> there's an issue for qt4 eol, but apparently some people are still relying on it, so if they want to spend work on supporting it it's 100% fine by me, just don't expect me to: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8263
1932017-05-25T18:22:20  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
1942017-05-25T18:22:20  <wumpus> if both qt4 and qt5 is installed and detected it should pick qt5
1952017-05-25T18:22:51  <jonasschnelli> during runtime? Do they compatible ABIs?
1962017-05-25T18:23:05  <wumpus> nono at configure time
1972017-05-25T18:23:19  <jonasschnelli> But the PPA is pre-built?
1982017-05-25T18:23:36  <wumpus> sipa was asking about configure, my answer was to that
1992017-05-25T18:23:41  <jonasschnelli> ah. sry
2002017-05-25T18:24:00  <jonasschnelli> Yes. It prefers qt5 since a while.
2012017-05-25T18:24:01  <wumpus> yes, because of an issue with ubuntu unity tray icon handling apparently qt4 works better on some ubuntu versions
2022017-05-25T18:25:02  <wumpus> it's pretty sad, but nothing really to be done about it, except wait for unity to be history
2032017-05-25T18:25:33  <wumpus> this is not a problem with our code, or even qt upstream, but with ubuntu specific plugins
2042017-05-25T18:28:34  <sipa> how about we just remove the tray icon support...?
2052017-05-25T18:28:47  <wumpus> it's possible, but it works fine for other OSes and other linux distros
2062017-05-25T18:29:05  <wumpus> I wouldn't mind removing tray icon support, but this in itself is a lousy reason
2072017-05-25T18:29:58  <wumpus> sure - disabling it specifically for the ppa would work, including a custom patch
2082017-05-25T18:30:04  <sipa> i was about to say that one distro with lousy trayicon support is a bad reason to stick with qt4... except we only stick to qt4 on ubuntu
2092017-05-25T18:30:11  <wumpus> that's up to BlueMatt
2102017-05-25T18:30:15  <wumpus> exactly!
2112017-05-25T18:30:35  <gmaxwell> I don't care about QT4 but I thought we still supported it.
2122017-05-25T18:30:55  <gmaxwell> And as sipa mentioned, I have both installed and it's building against 4.
2132017-05-25T18:31:07  <gmaxwell> (on debian testing)
2142017-05-25T18:31:19  <wumpus> (last time I tried tray icon support on ubuntu 16.04, with self-compiled bitcoin-qt on qt5 it seemed to work fine for me, btw, maybe they've fixed it, at least on some versions... or it's somehow dependent on a combination of circumstances)
2152017-05-25T18:31:20  <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: hmm... bitcoin.m4 should prefere qt5 though... strange
2162017-05-25T18:31:31  <gmaxwell> I suppose it's possible something is screwed up, but it seems to be useful that it is since I keep catching build failures.
2172017-05-25T18:31:40  <sipa> gmaxwell: perhaps you have some tiny dependency missing for qt5?
2182017-05-25T18:31:44  <jonasschnelli> Maybe one of the qt5 libs is missin?
2192017-05-25T18:31:49  <jonasschnelli> +g
2202017-05-25T18:32:06  <jonasschnelli> config.log should probably tell you why...
2212017-05-25T18:32:11  <wumpus> my guess is that the qt5 detection is either broken on your distro, or a required component is missing
2222017-05-25T18:32:19  <wumpus> yeah that'd help
2232017-05-25T18:32:40  <sipa> well there are two independent issues here... building for qt4 should work if it's intended to be supported
2242017-05-25T18:32:47  <sipa> and qt5 should be detected properly for gmaxwell
2252017-05-25T18:33:42  <luke-jr> wumpus: I already tried to add it to CI, and then it was supposed to be part of the daily CI..
2262017-05-25T18:34:03  <wumpus> luke-jr: ok, but it isn't?
2272017-05-25T18:34:32  <luke-jr> I guess someone removed it? Daily CI thing seems to be closed/dead?
2282017-05-25T18:34:40  <wumpus> it's run from a crontab now
2292017-05-25T18:34:50  <wumpus> (a new travis CI feature)
2302017-05-25T18:35:05  <luke-jr> so what happened to the qt4 part?
2312017-05-25T18:35:08  <wumpus> I don't know
2322017-05-25T18:35:30  <jonasschnelli> But I guess cron is not sufficient for qt4 support. We want to know before a merge
2332017-05-25T18:35:42  <luke-jr> I wonder if .. yeah, maybe it should be a primary QA
2342017-05-25T18:36:42  <wumpus> I think the problem back then was that we don't really want to add a new configuration/build for it,and it couldn't be fit into one of the current ones
2352017-05-25T18:36:46  <wumpus> but I might misremember
2362017-05-25T18:37:30  <luke-jr> well, if you want to reopen https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7142 , I can rebase..
2372017-05-25T18:39:38  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj reopened pull request #7142: [WIP] Travis: Test build against system Qt4 (master...travis_qt4) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7142
2382017-05-25T18:41:49  <gmaxwell> wumpus: thanks. I think we need it in build CI or we need to drop support for it.
2392017-05-25T18:42:11  <wumpus> gmaxwell: I'm fine with either
2402017-05-25T18:43:17  <wumpus> I really don't have an opinion on qt4, just refuse to spend time in it myself
2412017-05-25T18:45:30  <wumpus> but I guess it's the same in linux, I doubt e.g. Linus cares personally about all the drivers for ancient devices still in there, but as long as someone is willing to put in the time to keep it working it's better to keep including it instead of nuke it just because, after all it's a community effort
2422017-05-25T18:47:26  <gmaxwell> I don't know if I should care about QT4 or not. (don't know what the deployment rate of QT5 is)
2432017-05-25T18:50:19  <wumpus> I don't know either, this is the last thing qt.io ever posted on qt4: https://blog.qt.io/blog/2014/11/27/qt-4-8-x-support-to-be-extended-for-another-year/
2442017-05-25T18:51:44  <wumpus> never was able to find a real EOL announcement, but it's been dead in the water for a long time
2452017-05-25T18:51:59  *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
2462017-05-25T18:54:57  <wumpus> not that it says much, I know for fact that some industrial systems are still using qt4, even qt3 probably (was the case a few years ago)
2472017-05-25T18:55:44  <luke-jr> FWIW, I looked into adding Qt3 support briefly and decided it would be a pain :p
2482017-05-25T18:56:46  <wumpus> qt5 is much better for multimedia/modern app kind of interfaces, but for simple boring widget interfaces there's only a small difference between qt3 and qt4 and the difference between qt4 and qt5 is negible
2492017-05-25T18:59:10  <gmaxwell> If QT5 is shipping by default on the common linux distributions, perhaps we should stop QT4 support. Even though the difference is small, the effort to keep supporting it is non-trivial.
2502017-05-25T18:59:16  <wumpus> luke-jr: yes the API is quite different, I mean the user experience isn't that different
2512017-05-25T18:59:57  *** marsu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2522017-05-25T19:00:25  <wumpus> gmaxwell: yup qt5 has been the default on linux distros for a few years (don't know exactly how long / since which versions of particular distros though)
2532017-05-25T19:00:39  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: Qt5 doesn't have native look/feel on Qt4-based DEs.. but even that seems dead now
2542017-05-25T19:00:45  <instagibbs> meeting time?
2552017-05-25T19:00:46  <wumpus> but at least in ubuntu 14.04 it already was
2562017-05-25T19:00:52  <wumpus> #startmeeting
2572017-05-25T19:00:52  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu May 25 19:00:52 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
2582017-05-25T19:00:52  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
2592017-05-25T19:00:57  <BlueMatt> sipa: last i heard we were gonna try to just remove the trayicon
2602017-05-25T19:01:08  <jonasschnelli> proposed topic multiwallet-concept
2612017-05-25T19:01:21  <BlueMatt> (since it doesnt seem to be "the thing to do" anymore)
2622017-05-25T19:01:27  <sipa> woah, meeting!
2632017-05-25T19:01:35  <sipa> i totally forgot
2642017-05-25T19:01:38  <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure blue matt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 instagibbs
2652017-05-25T19:01:56  <cfields> hi
2662017-05-25T19:02:00  <wumpus> #topic multiwallet-concept
2672017-05-25T19:03:11  <luke-jr> ..
2682017-05-25T19:03:16  <jonasschnelli> We should think about if we want run-time wallet creation/loading/unloading or per startup -wallet argument.
2692017-05-25T19:03:30  <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: IMO both eventually, but the latter is a good first stpe
2702017-05-25T19:03:31  <jonasschnelli> Also,.. what should we do with rescan/zapwallet/salvage/upgrade
2712017-05-25T19:03:43  <wumpus> yes, in the long term we want both
2722017-05-25T19:03:56  <wumpus> in the short term just do what is realistic for the (not too long!) timespan until 0.15
2732017-05-25T19:03:59  <sipa> i would disable rescan if you have more than one wallet configured
2742017-05-25T19:04:03  <jonasschnelli> the -wallet= approach seems very confusing. You either -usehd on all wallte, -rescan all wallets, etc.
2752017-05-25T19:04:04  <sipa> and use the RPC instead
2762017-05-25T19:04:38  <sipa> or better, remove it
2772017-05-25T19:04:48  <jonasschnelli> We can start with the all or nothing -wallet configuration. But ideally we move it to runtime over RPC
2782017-05-25T19:05:03  <jonasschnelli> also,... creation-flags can then be passed in.
2792017-05-25T19:05:10  <wumpus> yes
2802017-05-25T19:05:11  <sipa> right, all those options that affect the creation of new wallets ideally go into a new-wallet-creation RPC
2812017-05-25T19:05:21  <jonasschnelli> yes
2822017-05-25T19:05:21  <luke-jr> /GUI
2832017-05-25T19:05:24  <sipa> and rescan and upgrade become wallet-specific RPCs
2842017-05-25T19:05:25  <wumpus> so the command line options only work for the default wallet
2852017-05-25T19:05:29  <jonasschnelli> The GUI can be done later
2862017-05-25T19:05:30  <wumpus> that's fine
2872017-05-25T19:05:33  <wumpus> yes
2882017-05-25T19:05:36  <luke-jr> sipa: they already are?
2892017-05-25T19:05:46  <sipa> luke-jr: they're not RPCs
2902017-05-25T19:05:47  <sipa> ?
2912017-05-25T19:05:58  <luke-jr> sipa: rescan is, although maybe not merged in Core yet?
2922017-05-25T19:06:03  <jonasschnelli> I ack luke-jr current PR but deploying that may cause confusion (because of lack of a concept)=
2932017-05-25T19:06:14  <sipa> luke-jr: #7061
2942017-05-25T19:06:17  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7061 | [Wallet] Replace -rescan with a new RPC call "rescanblockchain" by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #7061 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2952017-05-25T19:06:32  * sipa really really really wants to see rescan go away entirely, but fears he cannot win this fight
2962017-05-25T19:06:49  <luke-jr> actually, -rescan might be better with multiwallet
2972017-05-25T19:06:53  <jonasschnelli> Heh. Its just to handy to remove rescan
2982017-05-25T19:07:00  <luke-jr> since you'd want to rescan all the wallets concurrently
2992017-05-25T19:07:14  <sipa> fair point
3002017-05-25T19:07:38  <luke-jr> the overhead for rescanning N wallets vs 1 is minimal IMO
3012017-05-25T19:07:40  <jonasschnelli> Another point is that we should consider wallet flags combined with the new wallet db format we have introduced with the HD chain split.
3022017-05-25T19:08:01  <jonasschnelli> wallet flags would probably better allow to store "creation flags"
3032017-05-25T19:08:07  <sipa> what do you mean by wallet flags?
3042017-05-25T19:08:27  <jtimon> labels?
3052017-05-25T19:08:37  <jonasschnelli> I have first implemented wallet flags here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9662
3062017-05-25T19:08:52  <jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9662/files#diff-b2bb174788c7409b671c46ccc86034bdR1357
3072017-05-25T19:09:35  <jonasschnelli> But maybe it's not required for the current feature set. But think like: "is the wallet using HD", "is it using chain split", .. "are pkeys diables"?
3082017-05-25T19:09:43  <sipa> yup
3092017-05-25T19:09:49  <luke-jr> eh, the wallet already supports that?
3102017-05-25T19:10:00  <sipa> but i think that's orthogonal to the new database format
3112017-05-25T19:10:20  <jonasschnelli> Yes. But we already do a new wallet-format type in 0.15. Ideally we push in everything that usefull for 0.15+
3122017-05-25T19:10:32  <sipa> a new wallet format in 0.15?
3132017-05-25T19:10:34  <sipa> what?
3142017-05-25T19:10:42  <jtimon> sounds too optimistic
3152017-05-25T19:10:48  <jonasschnelli> the HD chain-split is not backward compatible
3162017-05-25T19:10:51  <sipa> oh!
3172017-05-25T19:10:52  <jonasschnelli> Not a new database format.
3182017-05-25T19:10:52  <sipa> ok
3192017-05-25T19:10:53  <wumpus> let's not make multiwallet dependent on a new wallet format
3202017-05-25T19:10:57  <sipa> nvm
3212017-05-25T19:11:02  <wumpus> okay, makes sense
3222017-05-25T19:11:03  <sipa> i thought you were talking about logdb
3232017-05-25T19:11:08  <jonasschnelli> nono...
3242017-05-25T19:11:32  <jonasschnelli> Just saying that the 0.15er wallet.dat files will not be backward comp.
3252017-05-25T19:11:43  <sipa> yeah, sure
3262017-05-25T19:11:46  <jonasschnelli> ideally we push in as much as we can... to avoid the same non -back com. in 0.16
3272017-05-25T19:11:50  <luke-jr> 0.15-created*?
3282017-05-25T19:12:05  <jonasschnelli> 0.15 created.. yes
3292017-05-25T19:12:12  <sipa> i think breaking backward compatibility in major releases is fine
3302017-05-25T19:12:35  <jonasschnelli> Yes. But if we can avoid it with little effort we may want to do it.
3312017-05-25T19:12:40  <jonasschnelli> But lets park this problem for now.
3322017-05-25T19:12:41  <jtimon> but his point is the more we get in now the less we have to break the next time
3332017-05-25T19:12:47  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: if you what to preserve rescan you need to make it faster.  I think rescan is already functionally dead for many users: It takes something like 8 hours on my laptop.
3342017-05-25T19:12:57  <jonasschnelli> Way more important is what we do with -zap/-salvage/-upgrade in multiwallet
3352017-05-25T19:13:18  <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: forbid them with >1 -wallet?
3362017-05-25T19:13:30  <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: yes. why not.
3372017-05-25T19:13:45  <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: I replied to your comment on that PR: I think zap and salvage should ultimately go away or move to another tool. Upgrade, I dunno.
3382017-05-25T19:13:45  <jonasschnelli> How would you run a non-hd and a hd-wallet (seems to be a reasonable use case)
3392017-05-25T19:13:52  <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: agree with you
3402017-05-25T19:13:56  * sipa suggest removing zap in favor of abandontransaction, replacing salvage with a standalone tool, and leaving ugprade to apply to all wallets
3412017-05-25T19:13:58  <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: it just works right now..
3422017-05-25T19:14:20  <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: Can it work? If you call -usehd on a non-hd wallet is stops during init
3432017-05-25T19:14:28  <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: don't set -usehd
3442017-05-25T19:14:37  <jonasschnelli> The its 1 by default
3452017-05-25T19:14:47  <luke-jr> no, it's <whatever> by default, for existing wallets
3462017-05-25T19:14:51  <jonasschnelli> I guess you can't mix right now
3472017-05-25T19:15:06  <luke-jr> I test multiwallet with a combo of HD and non-HD
3482017-05-25T19:15:13  <jonasschnelli> Okay. Sorry then.
3492017-05-25T19:15:14  <sipa> -usehd should go away and become a parameter of the createnewwallet RPC
3502017-05-25T19:15:20  <jonasschnelli> yes
3512017-05-25T19:15:25  <gmaxwell> what sipa said.
3522017-05-25T19:15:49  <luke-jr> createnewwallet won't make 0.15 IMO
3532017-05-25T19:15:54  <sipa> that's fine
3542017-05-25T19:16:16  <jonasschnelli> I once stared with a standalone wallet tool but had problems with circular dependencies (cfields may know more): https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8745
3552017-05-25T19:16:42  <jonasschnelli> Starting with luke-jr's current PR is fine..
3562017-05-25T19:16:56  <kanzure> is there interaction between multiwallet and accounts?
3572017-05-25T19:17:01  <sipa> kanzure: no
3582017-05-25T19:17:06  <cfields> jonasschnelli: i'm sure we could get that worked out
3592017-05-25T19:17:23  <jonasschnelli> cfields: okay. Great
3602017-05-25T19:17:34  <sipa> for the time being, i think that -usehd (if specified) should apply to all wallets, if not specified, every wallet can be whatever it already is
3612017-05-25T19:17:36  <wumpus> yes, that's fine, let's aim to get at least basic multiwallet support in 0.15 though
3622017-05-25T19:17:54  <jonasschnelli> agree
3632017-05-25T19:18:07  <wumpus> not let it slip another release because we want too much from it, or make it conditional on other changes which haven't been done yet
3642017-05-25T19:18:14  <sipa> short topic suggestion: variable naming style
3652017-05-25T19:18:28  <gmaxwell> sha256 hashes for all variables!
3662017-05-25T19:18:31  <jonasschnelli> I just think we should have a (the same) concept in the backhead to avoid extra loops
3672017-05-25T19:18:37  <jonasschnelli> lol
3682017-05-25T19:18:39  <morcos> if this is better offline, fine, but sipa, how would we remove rescan?
3692017-05-25T19:18:45  <kanzure> no abbreviated variable names plzkthx. actually i would take sha256 hashes over abbreviations.
3702017-05-25T19:18:54  <sipa> morcos: let's discuss after the meeting
3712017-05-25T19:18:56  <wumpus> gmaxwell: I was about to suggest xxd on /dev/urandom, but that works for me  too :p
3722017-05-25T19:18:57  <morcos> k
3732017-05-25T19:19:00  <wumpus> #topic variable naming style
3742017-05-25T19:19:04  * cfields would kill for m_ == member
3752017-05-25T19:19:27  <luke-jr> pls don't kill
3762017-05-25T19:19:32  <sipa> i've recently seen several people write patches with variable names that look like they're hungarian, but aren't
3772017-05-25T19:19:45  <sipa> i don't care personally for that particular style, but i like consistency
3782017-05-25T19:19:53  <wumpus> the hungerian onvention should die
3792017-05-25T19:20:03  <sipa> but what to replace it with?
3802017-05-25T19:20:05  <luke-jr> I particularly dislike hungarian-looking names that don't have the hungarian meaning :p
3812017-05-25T19:21:13  <gmaxwell> Greek characters.
3822017-05-25T19:21:16  <sipa> i guess the first question is, do we want any convention specified (in developer-notes) at all, and enforce it in new code?
3832017-05-25T19:21:19  <wumpus> luke-jr: exactly - and that's what happens, because we have abandoned the style a long time ago and don't describe it in the style doc
3842017-05-25T19:21:21  <cfields> any convention that ties a variable to a type is broken imo
3852017-05-25T19:21:22  <luke-jr> Unicode var names?
3862017-05-25T19:21:31  <wumpus> cfields: RIGHT
3872017-05-25T19:21:36  <jtimon> is this about gArgs ?
3882017-05-25T19:21:39  <luke-jr> no
3892017-05-25T19:21:43  <wumpus> people mimic the style but don't know what it means
3902017-05-25T19:21:49  <wumpus> they should stop mimicing the style too
3912017-05-25T19:22:02  <sipa> wumpus: the only way that's going to happen is by prescribing a style to use in new code
3922017-05-25T19:22:06  <cfields> wumpus: well, it's been common practice to mimic the code around your changes
3932017-05-25T19:22:32  <gmaxwell> cfields: yes but mimiking the style of hungarin notation and getting it wrong misses the point of it. :P
3942017-05-25T19:22:36  <sipa> i've come to dislike the "mimick the code around you" suggestion - it does not lead to consistency
3952017-05-25T19:22:43  <wumpus> gmaxwell: haha exactly... something with cargo cults
3962017-05-25T19:22:50  <luke-jr> sipa: okay, let's switch to tabs instead of spaces then
3972017-05-25T19:22:52  <luke-jr> :P
3982017-05-25T19:23:31  <gmaxwell> I'm not aware of any evidence supporting any of these highly structured variable name recommendations as actually providing benefits.
3992017-05-25T19:23:36  <jtimon> sipa: right, people do it naturally, but I don't think it should be a convention
4002017-05-25T19:23:38  <wumpus> gmaxwell: +1
4012017-05-25T19:23:54  <paveljanik> nah, these TAB/spaces wars: delete all indentation and let editor choose the right indentation! ;-)
4022017-05-25T19:23:55  <cfields> gmaxwell: m_foo and g_foo are extremely helpful imo
4032017-05-25T19:23:59  <cfields> but not much else
4042017-05-25T19:24:13  <luke-jr> paveljanik: that's what tabs do
4052017-05-25T19:24:16  <gmaxwell> (esp since pretty much no one is sadistic to encode the full type into the name.)
4062017-05-25T19:24:28  <paveljanik> nono, tabsonly compress. No TABs/spaces...
4072017-05-25T19:24:29  <wumpus> sure, including the scope might be reasonably useful, unlike encoding the type
4082017-05-25T19:24:37  <luke-jr> maybe we should use C++ mangled names
4092017-05-25T19:24:38  <wumpus> but I'm not looking forward to sweeping code style changes
4102017-05-25T19:24:46  <sipa> sigh, nobody is talking about encouraging structured variable name recommendations
4112017-05-25T19:25:09  <wumpus> before you know it there are 10 PRs open for renaming variables (again, after the shadow fiasco)
4122017-05-25T19:25:23  <jtimon> gmaxwell: I've seen some sadistic java code that was close
4132017-05-25T19:25:29  <luke-jr> I like the "style changes only affect new code" policy
4142017-05-25T19:25:33  <sipa> luke-jr: me too
4152017-05-25T19:25:42  <cfields> sipa: maybe suggest the kind of style policy you have in mind? you mean simple things like camelCase vs under_score?
4162017-05-25T19:25:43  <sipa> and even exclude purely moved code
4172017-05-25T19:25:46  <wumpus> yes - feel free to write up a style recommendation for new code
4182017-05-25T19:25:49  <kanzure> would be nice to have style preference mentioned in docs
4192017-05-25T19:25:50  <sipa> cfields: either of those is fine
4202017-05-25T19:25:56  <sipa> cfields: but one, not both
4212017-05-25T19:26:19  <wumpus> and consistency is good, but please don't be a jerk about it, especially not to new contributors
4222017-05-25T19:26:21  <jtimon> ack only one not both
4232017-05-25T19:26:45  <jcorgan> my experience is that code is read far more often than it is written, and especially so if it serves as documentation
4242017-05-25T19:26:51  <sipa> if i had to choose, i'd say under_score - that's what STL uses
4252017-05-25T19:27:05  <jcorgan> when code has disjoint styles, people reading it might wonder if it is different for a reason, or just an accident
4262017-05-25T19:27:13  <jtimon> or maybe camelCaseForVariables, UNDER_SCORE_FOR_CONSTANTS
4272017-05-25T19:27:22  <sipa> and i'm also fine m_X and g_X if that considered useful
4282017-05-25T19:27:32  <morcos> My only real contribution to this discussion is whatever we decide on should be clearly spelled out in developer documentation, so we can just point to it over and over gain.  Otherwise we'll come away with an agreement that means somethign different to each party.
4292017-05-25T19:27:32  <jtimon> since I believe that's closer to what we have
4302017-05-25T19:27:44  <wumpus> morcos: yes yes yes
4312017-05-25T19:27:47  <gmaxwell> I'm not a fan of the camelcase, because then you get things wrong based just on the case. seems weird.
4322017-05-25T19:27:53  <jcorgan> morcos: now when did that happen recently?
4332017-05-25T19:27:54  <luke-jr> camel case isn't bad, but it creates the hungarian confuson
4342017-05-25T19:28:02  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: that too
4352017-05-25T19:28:05  <sipa> camelcase also is easily confused with hungarian
4362017-05-25T19:28:07  <sipa> what luke-jr said
4372017-05-25T19:28:29  <wumpus> morcos: most important to get it into a document in the repository, as to make clear reviewrs aren't forcing their personal style preferences
4382017-05-25T19:28:31  <jtimon> super ack to morcos suggestion, if it's not documented, it is simply not a convention
4392017-05-25T19:29:05  <cfields> morcos: ok, so camelCase today, and hard-fork in a month?
4402017-05-25T19:29:07  <cfields> :p
4412017-05-25T19:29:09  <jcorgan> my heuristic is, if you can't tell that a body of code was written my multiple authors over time, that's a win
4422017-05-25T19:29:16  <luke-jr> let's simply agree for variable names on bit 4. the rest can be subjective.
4432017-05-25T19:29:25  <sipa> so, if i would create a PR that added to the dev documentation "For new code, the following style for variables is encouraged: local_variable for local variables, m_variable for members, g_variable for globals"
4442017-05-25T19:29:40  <luke-jr> local_* seems annoying
4452017-05-25T19:29:50  <sipa> luke-jr: oops, i didn't mean that as a prefix
4462017-05-25T19:29:54  <luke-jr> k
4472017-05-25T19:29:58  <gmaxwell> I still don't know when to ask someone touching code to fix things per documented style or not.  E.g. 10441 cfields introduces both new braced and unbraced iffs in a function that contains both.
4482017-05-25T19:30:14  <sipa> variable, a_variable, j, var, bla, foo, ... all good
4492017-05-25T19:30:26  <morcos> gmaxwell: he should fix that
4502017-05-25T19:30:33  <gmaxwell> okay. I'll nitpick then.
4512017-05-25T19:30:34  <wumpus> gmaxwell: if it's cfields you should certainly make him aware of it, he's supposed to know better :)
4522017-05-25T19:31:00  <cfields> heh, yes. I think that was a mix of matching nearby code and copy/paste
4532017-05-25T19:31:03  * wumpus ducks
4542017-05-25T19:31:10  <jtimon> I think moving away from camel case it's the most disruptive option for local variables
4552017-05-25T19:31:19  <jtimon> but no strong opinion
4562017-05-25T19:31:37  <cfields> i'd certainly never make that mistake again if we added "don't attempt to match nearby code" to the style doc
4572017-05-25T19:31:37  <sipa> it's already often used for loop variables etc
4582017-05-25T19:31:44  <luke-jr> variables were never camel-case..?
4592017-05-25T19:31:47  <jtimon> just saying that it would be nicer if the style was as close as possible to what we have now
4602017-05-25T19:31:57  <cfields> without that, i'd never add another unbraced if :)
4612017-05-25T19:31:59  <wumpus> abandoning the camels for the snakes
4622017-05-25T19:32:02  <sipa> luke-jr: sure some where, CBlockIndex* pindexBlock = ...
4632017-05-25T19:32:08  <luke-jr> sipa: that's just hungarian
4642017-05-25T19:32:24  <sipa> luke-jr: hungarian is just a more constrained camelcase
4652017-05-25T19:32:34  <luke-jr> camelcase is where you use it as a word separater..
4662017-05-25T19:32:41  <sipa> cfields: ack on adding "Do not attempt to match nearby code, unless you're creating a move-only commit"
4672017-05-25T19:32:52  <morcos> sipa: +!
4682017-05-25T19:32:53  <morcos> 1
4692017-05-25T19:32:54  <jtimon> luke-jr: well if camel case it's less common than underscore for variables then my argument goes away
4702017-05-25T19:33:16  <jtimon> I really don't know for sure, was just guessing
4712017-05-25T19:33:20  <sipa> luke-jr: and hungarian is using case as word separator, plus the requirement that the first word is the type :)
4722017-05-25T19:33:55  <morcos> i'll defer to group, but i prefer camel to underscores, but do like at least identifying global variables with g_ or :: or something
4732017-05-25T19:34:13  <luke-jr> gCamel/mCamel wouldn't be terrible
4742017-05-25T19:34:20  <gmaxwell> I would ACK doing something consistent for globals.
4752017-05-25T19:34:36  <sipa> anyway, any comments on those suggestions? encouraging lowercase + underscore for local variables, and m_ for members, g_ for globals, and a mention to not mimick surrounding code?
4762017-05-25T19:34:39  <wumpus> I prefer snakecase like sipa
4772017-05-25T19:34:49  <gmaxwell> One thing I don't like about C++ is that when there is a variable that isn't local I dunno if its coming from the class or if it's a global... without going and digging in other files.
4782017-05-25T19:35:24  <cfields> gmaxwell: hence m_ :)
4792017-05-25T19:35:26  <gmaxwell> so if naming helps disambiguate that I would not be unhappy.
4802017-05-25T19:35:40  <wumpus> for variable names, for method names we should obviously keep sticking to camelcase
4812017-05-25T19:35:48  <morcos> are we ok with combining small words without the udnerscore like feerate or blocksize or something?
4822017-05-25T19:35:51  <sipa> wumpus: agree, and class names as well
4832017-05-25T19:35:55  <wumpus> sipa: yes
4842017-05-25T19:35:56  <sdaftuar> bit_coin right?
4852017-05-25T19:35:56  <sipa> morcos: ack from me
4862017-05-25T19:36:09  <wumpus> sdaftuar: it's better than BitCoin
4872017-05-25T19:36:10  <sipa> one lowercase word is totally fine for local variables
4882017-05-25T19:36:14  <wumpus> yes
4892017-05-25T19:36:17  <cfields> sipa: ack all of the above
4902017-05-25T19:36:18  <luke-jr> I prefer camelcase, except for the annoying conflict w/ hungarian
4912017-05-25T19:36:35  <luke-jr> I don't care strongly tho
4922017-05-25T19:36:56  <sipa> oh, what to do with the cs_* variables we have now?
4932017-05-25T19:37:02  <sipa> do we want an exception for that?
4942017-05-25T19:37:07  <morcos> oh ok, so we're keeping camel for class and method names and snake for variables..  ok someone write it up
4952017-05-25T19:37:13  <gmaxwell> I would be fine with an exception for cs_.
4962017-05-25T19:37:26  <wumpus> cs_ for locks? it's fine with me
4972017-05-25T19:37:33  <sipa> so... g_blockindex g_cs_blockindex?
4982017-05-25T19:37:37  <wumpus> though I still thing the scope is more useful
4992017-05-25T19:37:44  <morcos> but no exception for pblockindex ?
5002017-05-25T19:38:01  <sipa> that's hungarian - dia
5012017-05-25T19:38:02  <sipa> die
5022017-05-25T19:38:05  <sipa> ;)
5032017-05-25T19:38:15  <wumpus> pblockindex could just be block_index
5042017-05-25T19:38:21  <sipa> indeed
5052017-05-25T19:38:23  <wumpus> though we aren't actrually going to rename variables en-messe
5062017-05-25T19:38:24  <cfields> [11:17:50] -*- cfields would kill for m_ == member
5072017-05-25T19:38:24  <cfields> [11:18:13] <luke-jr> pls don't kill
5082017-05-25T19:38:27  <sipa> wumpus: indeed
5092017-05-25T19:38:41  <gmaxwell> cfields: thou shall not kill
5102017-05-25T19:38:48  <sipa> i'll write up a PR, and we discuss there further?
5112017-05-25T19:38:51  <gmaxwell> is all I think luke was saying.
5122017-05-25T19:38:57  <luke-jr> yes
5132017-05-25T19:38:58  <morcos> sounds good
5142017-05-25T19:39:01  <sipa> ok, topic closed
5152017-05-25T19:39:06  <gmaxwell> sipa to do all the work, agreed.
5162017-05-25T19:39:09  <wumpus> I don't want to see any more variable renaming PRs, the Wshadow war made me so tired of that
5172017-05-25T19:39:13  <wumpus> other topics?
5182017-05-25T19:39:19  <luke-jr> BIP148
5192017-05-25T19:39:46  <morcos> next topic
5202017-05-25T19:39:59  <wumpus> I have nothing to say about that, at least
5212017-05-25T19:40:25  <wumpus> but i f you insist
5222017-05-25T19:40:26  <wumpus> #topic BIP148
5232017-05-25T19:40:27  <jonasschnelli> I guess we have already enough comments on the PRs..
5242017-05-25T19:40:32  <sipa> my opinion is that it would go against our principles to merge BIP148 into core
5252017-05-25T19:40:40  <luke-jr> sipa: how so?
5262017-05-25T19:40:59  <BlueMatt> sipa: +100
5272017-05-25T19:41:08  <sipa> i've given my opinion more than enough on existing PRs
5282017-05-25T19:41:25  <sipa> i strongly disagree with the "less safe" argument
5292017-05-25T19:41:26  <wumpus> right, I think everyone already had their say on this
5302017-05-25T19:41:37  <sipa> and we shouldn't encourage forks in the network
5312017-05-25T19:41:43  <sipa> nor is it out place to push for consensus changes
5322017-05-25T19:41:43  <luke-jr> so we should put users at risk by refusing to enforce the new rule?
5332017-05-25T19:41:44  <wumpus> let's merge BIP149 instead
5342017-05-25T19:41:51  <luke-jr> sipa: refusing to merge is what encourages the fork in this case
5352017-05-25T19:41:56  <sipa> luke-jr: i strongly disagree that it puts users more at risk
5362017-05-25T19:42:26  <gmaxwell> wumpus: I brought up 149's timeout on the list, but its author hasn't replied, I think it is needlessly long.
5372017-05-25T19:42:33  <morcos> My opinion closely matches sdaftuars from : https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014377.html
5382017-05-25T19:42:34  <luke-jr> not only does not-merging it encourage a chain split, it also puts users on the side vulnerable to reorg wipeout
5392017-05-25T19:42:48  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I think it's too early
5402017-05-25T19:43:01  <morcos> I'd be in favor of 149, but I think we should start by being a bit more public about the idea and building consensus for it before actually merging
5412017-05-25T19:43:06  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ack, your proposal of 6 months seemed reasonable to me
5422017-05-25T19:43:08  <morcos> And eys I agree we could tweak it a bit
5432017-05-25T19:43:11  <BlueMatt> morcos: +1
5442017-05-25T19:43:16  <wumpus> gmaxwell: yes we need to agree on the timeout at lesat
5452017-05-25T19:43:19  <sipa> luke-jr: the only condition under which it helps users avoid a huge reorg is one under which those who didn't upgrade already experienced a (temporary, but long) fork
5462017-05-25T19:43:53  <jtimon> as said on the mailing list I think bip148 is rushed and that makes it risky, bip8 on the other hand...(although I'm writing suggestions for changing bip8)
5472017-05-25T19:44:01  <luke-jr> sipa: this seems tautological?
5482017-05-25T19:44:37  <jtimon> we can merge bip8 without merging bip149 yet, although the sooner it is released the more secure it will be
5492017-05-25T19:44:39  <sipa> luke-jr: then how is merging it less risky?
5502017-05-25T19:44:49  <sipa> luke-jr: it only helps in case a fork already happened!
5512017-05-25T19:45:06  <sipa> while at the same time encouraging said fork
5522017-05-25T19:45:17  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I haven't seen the kind of support required to justify your position on that; afaict so far no exchange or payment processor of note has said they would stick with 148.  I think you'd have an argument if there was any of that, but right now I think it's hard to distinguish a subsanstive level of support. (And I've seen some clearly malicious parties pumping support for it too.)
5532017-05-25T19:45:18  <luke-jr> sipa: if a fork happens, it puts them on the side that isn't vulnerable to a reorg, and it helps avoid the fork in the first place
5542017-05-25T19:45:24  <sipa> not encouraging it seems far safer than slightly reducing the risk in case it does
5552017-05-25T19:45:36  <sipa> luke-jr: under the assumption a hashrate majority adopts it
5562017-05-25T19:45:40  <sipa> luke-jr: which i think is crazy
5572017-05-25T19:45:54  <gmaxwell> My discussions on reddit with people promoting BIP148 seemed to be because they earniestly believed it was the only choice.
5582017-05-25T19:45:57  <luke-jr> sipa: BIP148 only needs about 25% hashrate to be successful
5592017-05-25T19:45:58  <morcos> At the end of the day I think most of us have no interest in greatly increasing the risk of a devastating currency split.  I think 148 does that..  But 149 has a decent chance of not doing that if there have been no other consensus rule changes in the interim.  But will require consensus building.
5602017-05-25T19:46:10  <gmaxwell> E.g. someone managed to convince them that the project would never adopt something like BIP149.
5612017-05-25T19:46:13  <sipa> morcos: +1
5622017-05-25T19:46:19  <sipa> it will require consensus building
5632017-05-25T19:46:21  <sipa> not discussions here
5642017-05-25T19:46:38  <BlueMatt> yup
5652017-05-25T19:46:46  <jtimon> gmaxwell: ack on making the period shorter
5662017-05-25T19:46:47  <gmaxwell> which seemed really weird to me, because I thought it was pretty obvious that a 149-like thing would be done.
5672017-05-25T19:47:08  <petertodd> gmaxwell: it's only obvious if people say that
5682017-05-25T19:48:24  <morcos> And to be clear, I think we'd all like to activate segwit via UASF before we could do so with BIP149 (and it would be feasible I think to build support in a shorter time frame), but we just don't have the technical bandwidth to code that up safely in time.
5692017-05-25T19:48:34  <wumpus> I think that wasn't obvioius, no
5702017-05-25T19:48:36  <luke-jr> if businesses get to decide protocol changes, then I guess bit 4 SW it is
5712017-05-25T19:49:36  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: there is a big difference between saying 'businesses get to decide' and saying that the fact that virtually no industry participant is resolute with 148 is a strong sign the support isn't significant enough. If 148 and six months or a year on its clock that would be another matter.
5722017-05-25T19:49:39  <sipa> gmaxwell: i don't think it's obvious that BIP149 will happen at all
5732017-05-25T19:49:39  <morcos> luke-jr: no one even knows what bit 4 SW is?  we might like it, what if its compatible with BIP141 segwit...  lets not make decisions based on a single line in a medium post.
5742017-05-25T19:49:40  <luke-jr> in the meantime, a sizable portion of the community will be enforcing BIP148, and with success eventually replacing the non-compliant chain
5752017-05-25T19:50:01  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it's only virtually none if you exclude the ones who have supported it
5762017-05-25T19:50:12  *** Joseph__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5772017-05-25T19:50:24  <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: that's speculation
5782017-05-25T19:50:29  <petertodd> luke-jr: while technically the result of bip148 may be a reorg, in practice if there is a non-trivial split the result will be two currencies, as someone will launch a currency based on a checkpoint
5792017-05-25T19:50:30  <jonasschnelli> You can't measure "community"
5802017-05-25T19:50:33  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: maybe I'm just not aware then.
5812017-05-25T19:50:34  <sipa> luke-jr: i hope you're right, but my expectation is that every economically relevant full node will revert away from bip148 code hours after the hashrate fails to adopts it
5822017-05-25T19:50:49  <morcos> luke-jr: I would hope that BIP148 and BIP149 supporters are able to agree at least that they should all support the same thing.
5832017-05-25T19:51:04  <luke-jr> sipa: Bitfury has already agreed to enforce BIP148 if the bit-4 thing doesn't activate Segwit by August
5842017-05-25T19:51:08  <petertodd> sipa: depends on how much hash rate... lots of incentive for exchanges to support it and let the two coins trade against each other
5852017-05-25T19:51:24  <jonasschnelli> sipa: I guess they have also agree (among others) to run Classic
5862017-05-25T19:51:31  <jonasschnelli> (meant luke-jr)
5872017-05-25T19:51:34  <sipa> luke-jr: well, i hope you're right
5882017-05-25T19:51:47  <sipa> but i'm very skeptical about that
5892017-05-25T19:52:34  <sipa> topic suggestion: high-priority PRs?
5902017-05-25T19:52:38  <luke-jr> if we're divided in opinion on this, we should at *least* give users the choice, even if they want to stick to Core releases
5912017-05-25T19:52:44  <gmaxwell> If 148 managed to get the kind of support needed to result in avoiding a chain split, I'm fine with that. But I think it's a very poor and needlessly risky approach.
5922017-05-25T19:52:52  <sipa> luke-jr: users already have a choice to not run Core
5932017-05-25T19:52:56  <morcos> luke-jr: you already have a release process, release Knots with the option.
5942017-05-25T19:53:01  <luke-jr> sipa: many don't want to choose that
5952017-05-25T19:53:13  <jonasschnelli> maybe for a reason?
5962017-05-25T19:53:14  <sipa> luke-jr: for good reasons, because we don't do reckless things
5972017-05-25T19:53:16  *** NewLiberty_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5982017-05-25T19:53:18  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: then perhaps because the realize that we've usually had good judgement...
5992017-05-25T19:53:23  <kanzure> what was the default in the bip148 paramflag pull request?
6002017-05-25T19:53:29  <petertodd> kanzure: false
6012017-05-25T19:53:32  <jcorgan> off
6022017-05-25T19:53:34  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: and in this case, we disagree on that judgement.
6032017-05-25T19:53:38  <petertodd> kanzure: I wouldn't have concept acked it otherwise...
6042017-05-25T19:53:55  <BlueMatt> alright, next topic
6052017-05-25T19:53:57  <jtimon> alright, sent suggestions to change bip8 to the mailing list...
6062017-05-25T19:54:07  <sdfkjs23> deciding what choices users do or do not get seems overly political to me, if core developers want to make a political statement that's fine, but pretending to be neutral and not allowing an optional switch for bip148 seems disingenuous
6072017-05-25T19:54:14  <kanzure> with context of "default off" some of the above comments make less sense
6082017-05-25T19:54:39  <cfields> oh, quick topic suggestion: 0.14.2
6092017-05-25T19:54:41  <jonasschnelli> sdfkjs23? You can offer it yourself by forking and deploying or patching?
6102017-05-25T19:54:49  <gmaxwell> jtimon: I don't think we should change BIP8 generally: the reason we can do a shorter termination with SW is because we've already done one deployment-- so we know what the uptake looks like and how fast it went the first time.
6112017-05-25T19:54:52  <petertodd> sdfkjs23: there's a multiple of optional switches that we could add to be neutral - we're not going to add them all, thus we have to make some kind of (hopefully conservative) political statement
6122017-05-25T19:54:59  <cfields> (sorry, forgot all about it. we can pick it up after the meeting)
6132017-05-25T19:55:02  <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: too many people (and especially companies) refuse to run anything unless Core releases it
6142017-05-25T19:55:06  <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: it sucks, but it's reality
6152017-05-25T19:55:22  <gmaxwell> sdfkjs23: Offering users settings we believe will harm third parties and the user is not 'neutral'.
6162017-05-25T19:55:23  <kanzure> luke-jr: they want default-off merged and that's what will get them interested in bip148?
6172017-05-25T19:55:27  <wumpus> #topic 0.14.2
6182017-05-25T19:55:32  <jtimon> gmaxwell: the changes are just for providing warnngs in unkown deployments, like bip9 did
6192017-05-25T19:55:37  <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: But core is consensus among devs for a reason. And I guess we mostly (never?) merged controversial consensus changes
6202017-05-25T19:55:37  <gmaxwell> sdfkjs23: if users want 'neutral' they have a copy of GCC, they can write their own node.
6212017-05-25T19:55:44  <petertodd> gmaxwell: +1
6222017-05-25T19:55:46  <wumpus> let's do a 0.14.2 soon, even if just for the UPNP CVE
6232017-05-25T19:55:47  <gmaxwell> (want neutral in that sense)
6242017-05-25T19:55:53  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: we don't all believe that in this case. some of us admit that it's riskier to NOT enforce BIP148
6252017-05-25T19:55:57  <wumpus> (of course we want to include some other fixes as well)
6262017-05-25T19:56:04  <gmaxwell> sdfkjs23: sofware worth running is always opinionated in many ways, even if you don't realize it.
6272017-05-25T19:56:07  <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: it's controversial to fail to enforce the softfork now
6282017-05-25T19:56:26  <gmaxwell> wumpus: ack on 0.14.2 I think there are a couple other fairly modest fixes that could be backported.
6292017-05-25T19:56:31  <cfields> I'd like to suggest a quick 0.14.2 for the upnp and recent peer visibility fix from marcos, along with whatever else has piled up in the meantime
6302017-05-25T19:56:35  *** Joseph__ has quit IRC
6312017-05-25T19:56:40  <cfields> heh, far too slow
6322017-05-25T19:56:41  <sipa> sounds good to me
6332017-05-25T19:56:53  <jonasschnelli> ack 0.14.2 ... there is also an important GUI fix
6342017-05-25T19:56:54  <sdfkjs23> if that's what the main core developers want to say sure, but it's pretty clear that core is then the implementation as defined by this small group here, it is their vision and not open really to general community.
6352017-05-25T19:56:58  <morcos> yes i think we could use more public notice on the peer visibility fix
6362017-05-25T19:57:13  <wumpus> ok, please mark anything that should be backported to 0,14,2 as such
6372017-05-25T19:57:19  <wumpus> (or ask us to do it)
6382017-05-25T19:57:24  * jonasschnelli looking...
6392017-05-25T19:57:41  <cfields> thanks, will do
6402017-05-25T19:57:42  <morcos> even people who have connections, but are behind NAT are going to want to upgrade b/c eventually they wont' have connections (maybe.. i can't remember now)
6412017-05-25T19:57:57  <sdaftuar> incoming connections*
6422017-05-25T19:58:01  <morcos> yes sorry
6432017-05-25T19:58:20  <gmaxwell> morcos: yes, so for backport the visiblity fix, cfields open PR with the connection stuff..
6442017-05-25T19:58:48  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10231 (closed 0.14.2 milestone... needs backport)
6452017-05-25T19:58:55  <jonasschnelli> (should apply IMO)
6462017-05-25T19:59:28  <cfields> jonasschnelli: ah, good one if it backports cleanly
6472017-05-25T19:59:34  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: that one is correctly marked, will port those in one go at some point (at lesat the ones that cleanly apply or need only small changes)
6482017-05-25T19:59:35  <sipa> sdfkjs23: it's open source, anyone can repackage the software in any way they like, and i encourage everyone to do so (as long as they don't misrepresent the choices made)... but Bitcoin Core as a project has established some practices, and those include not accepting consensus rule changes without broad support and weighing the risks - it seems most people in this room now believe that bar isn't
6492017-05-25T19:59:38  <luke-jr> sdfkjs23: in this case, it seems it's a minority of pessimistic devs holding back a softfork that the community largely wants and most of the devs are okay with merging, putting users who trust us collectively at a risk they shouldn't be :<
6502017-05-25T19:59:41  <kanzure> sdfkjs23: open-source does not mean the project must "merge anything", it means you can compile whatever patches you want.
6512017-05-25T19:59:41  <sipa> met for BIP148
6522017-05-25T20:00:19  <wumpus> it's time
6532017-05-25T20:00:21  <wumpus> #endmeeting
6542017-05-25T20:00:21  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu May 25 20:00:21 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
6552017-05-25T20:00:21  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-25-19.00.html
6562017-05-25T20:00:21  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-25-19.00.txt
6572017-05-25T20:00:21  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-25-19.00.log.html
6582017-05-25T20:00:22  <jonasschnelli> sdfkjs23: with your argument we could not reject optional hard-fork proposals? Right?
6592017-05-25T20:00:34  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I think you're pusing the same kind of irresponsiblity as classic did, just this time it happens to be in favor of changes I want.  But I still reject it just the same, the purpose of the system is to come to consensus. Intentionally splitting it is in no ones interest except that of opponents to bitcoin.  If you had an order of magnitude more support than I've seen (and perhaps I've mi
6602017-05-25T20:00:40  <gmaxwell> ssed some of it) OR months more to gain it-- I'd have a different view.
6612017-05-25T20:00:52  <jtimon> luke-jr: sdfkjs23 not merging bip148 is not taking a position against segwit or uasf, it's just being conservative
6622017-05-25T20:00:52  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: the split is LESS likely by merging BIP148; it isn't a hardfork
6632017-05-25T20:01:08  <luke-jr> jtimon: it's not conservative when it increases the risk
6642017-05-25T20:01:11  <sipa> luke-jr: i think you're insane
6652017-05-25T20:01:22  <sdfkjs23> i've been following development for some time, i was under the false impression that core was intended to be the 'reference' client, just a generalized client that is neutral towards any consensus changes
6662017-05-25T20:01:24  <jtimon> luke-jr: but we don't accept your premise
6672017-05-25T20:01:26  <BlueMatt> luke-jr: wut
6682017-05-25T20:01:27  <sipa> a split is less likely by merging a consensus change a few months agead of time?
6692017-05-25T20:01:27  <paveljanik> luke-jr, in reality, it can even be much worse. People could signal UASF but not enforce it.
6702017-05-25T20:01:28  <kanzure> gmaxwell: i think luke-jr is arguing that there is support for bip148 if default-off bip148 is merged. but only on condition of that sort of endorsement from core.  seems like a chicken-egg scenario, so perhaps caution is warranted.
6712017-05-25T20:01:31  <luke-jr> great, now we get ad hominems as argument
6722017-05-25T20:01:40  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I don't think it's that precise to say that it isn't a hardfork.  In the sense that there is a nearly guarenteed hardfork (a miner violating it) which will happen.
6732017-05-25T20:01:53  <sipa> luke-jr: apologies for the ad hominem... but i believe your argument it nonsense
6742017-05-25T20:02:13  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: with softforks we have historically staged things to minimize the risk of block orphaning, so no hardforked blocks.
6752017-05-25T20:02:33  <luke-jr> paveljanik: the signal is irrelevant
6762017-05-25T20:02:40  <gmaxwell> kanzure: I haven't seen that.
6772017-05-25T20:02:57  <kanzure> haven't seen evidence of community requiring endorsement from core by merging?
6782017-05-25T20:03:05  <BlueMatt> luke-jr: if it were true that a vast, vast majority of users, businesses, and miners were not only supporting 148 but actually honestly committing to running it irrespective of what their peers do, maybe, but that is blatanly obviously not the case
6792017-05-25T20:03:22  <paveljanik> luke-jr, yes. I also do not think where people get "large support" in the community for BIP148 etc.
6802017-05-25T20:03:24  <jtimon> gmaxwell: I disagree, I see it as a controversial softfork
6812017-05-25T20:03:30  <sipa> sdfkjs23: bitcoin core implements bitcoin's consensus rules... we need to make a judgement about what those rules are, as they can change and are not under our control
6822017-05-25T20:03:31  <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it seems to be the case, perhaps minus businesses
6832017-05-25T20:03:43  <gmaxwell> sdfkjs23: nonsense. we are not netural. E.g. We support Bitcoin and are not ambivilant towards things that would damage it.   Would you suggest the project also merge a switch that if set allows mtgox to make 600k bitcoin out of thin air to replace the losses, 'neutral' right?
6842017-05-25T20:03:44  <luke-jr> BlueMatt: maybe it's not obviously the case, but it certainly isn't obviously NOT the case
6852017-05-25T20:03:59  <morcos> luke-jr: even you think only 10% of nodes are running bip148 right?
6862017-05-25T20:04:00  <gmaxwell> jtimon: you have a lot of weird opinions.
6872017-05-25T20:04:03  <BlueMatt> luke-jr: would you like me to buy you a plane ticket so you can talk to people?
6882017-05-25T20:04:04  <luke-jr> jtimon: Segwit itself is a controversial softfork; that's only a barrier for hardforks
6892017-05-25T20:04:06  <BlueMatt> I'd be happy to
6902017-05-25T20:04:22  <BlueMatt> you spend too much time on reddit and not talking to real people, I think
6912017-05-25T20:04:23  <sdfkjs23> gmaxwell, you have a bad habit of using outrageous counter examples, they aren't analogous, please stick to the actual issues at hand
6922017-05-25T20:04:23  <kanzure> BlueMatt: you can also talk with people over the internet. travel is not required.
6932017-05-25T20:04:27  <luke-jr> morcos: so far, and that's in a short timeframe since binaries were released
6942017-05-25T20:04:38  <luke-jr> BlueMatt: go talk to CodeShark, who reports a lot of support in NYC
6952017-05-25T20:04:52  <gmaxwell> sdfkjs23: welcome to /ignore -- don't enter my channels and then lecture me on how I should debate.
6962017-05-25T20:05:00  <kanzure> sdfkjs23: it's only outrageus for your position from your argument-- that was the point.
6972017-05-25T20:05:02  <jtimon> gmaxwell: fair enough, but I think they aren't so weird, they are actually quite simple: what causes chain splits (apart from mistakes) are controversial rule changes, not whether they are hf or sf
6982017-05-25T20:05:02  <BlueMatt> luke-jr: I live in NY, and strongly beg to differ
6992017-05-25T20:05:15  <sdfkjs23> i'm being civil, and this isn't *your* channel this channel is for core development discussion
7002017-05-25T20:05:28  *** gmaxwell has left #bitcoin-core-dev
7012017-05-25T20:05:32  <sipa> sdfkjs23: and we've now far strayed from that topic, imho
7022017-05-25T20:05:39  <sipa> none of this discussion belongs here
7032017-05-25T20:05:43  <jcorgan> gentlemen, please
7042017-05-25T20:05:50  <petertodd> sipa: quite correct
7052017-05-25T20:05:51  <morcos> luke-jr: I think a lot of people support the concept of a UASF, but I actually made it a point to ask people wearing UASF hats what that meant to them..   And many actively preferred BIP149 or something else to BIP148
7062017-05-25T20:05:51  <luke-jr> jtimon: what causes chain splits are negligent or malicious miners who fail to enforce the rules
7072017-05-25T20:05:56  <sipa> if it's clear that BIP148 is accepted by the ecosystem, then obviously it will be implemented
7082017-05-25T20:06:05  <sipa> usually we don't discuss consensus changes here at all
7092017-05-25T20:06:07  <petertodd> morcos: indeed, I prefer bip149
7102017-05-25T20:06:25  <luke-jr> morcos: preference isn't the question, though. BIP148 is happening, so the question is how many will support and go along with it
7112017-05-25T20:06:26  <petertodd> luke-jr: we have to design systems that are robust to negligent and malicious miners
7122017-05-25T20:06:36  <sdfkjs23> bip148 was brought up as the topic -- it appears the current argument against it (it is hard to follow because this changes very rapidly) is that there isn't enough 'community' support even though no one can argee on how to even measure it
7132017-05-25T20:06:46  <luke-jr> petertodd: and BIP148 does, so long as people enforce it
7142017-05-25T20:06:49  <jtimon> luke-jr: let's say halfthe users want to increase the monetary limit to 22 M but the other half doesn't: both chains will be mined and used
7152017-05-25T20:07:01  <luke-jr> jtimon: that's not a softfork
7162017-05-25T20:07:05  <sipa> sdfkjs23: a consensus change merged a few months before it happens is madness
7172017-05-25T20:07:16  <sipa> we hardly have time to create a release in that time
7182017-05-25T20:07:17  <luke-jr> sipa: yet you want to delay the merge longer?
7192017-05-25T20:07:17  <jonasschnelli> sdfkjs23: this channel is specific for bitcoin-core (the client) development. General bitcoin protocol and consensus discussion shall happen in #bitcoin-dev
7202017-05-25T20:07:18  <jtimon> that is a controversial hardfork, let me think of a controversial softfork example
7212017-05-25T20:07:34  <sipa> luke-jr: my expectation is that bip148 will not have any effect, but i hope i'm wrong
7222017-05-25T20:07:35  <sdfkjs23> a switch which woudl easily allow the community to opt in is now being rejected by 3 or 4 core developers because they find it dangerous
7232017-05-25T20:07:39  <luke-jr> jtimon: in this case, it's not controversial anyway
7242017-05-25T20:07:45  <jtimon> let's say half the users want to some aml softfork feature
7252017-05-25T20:07:50  <sipa> sdfkjs23: then don't run Core; i beg you
7262017-05-25T20:08:01  <luke-jr> at least not more controversial than Segwit itself
7272017-05-25T20:08:13  <sipa> the maintainers of this software shouldn't determine what the network's consensus rules are
7282017-05-25T20:08:13  <jtimon> luke-jr: to me it is controversial on grounds of the deployment plan alone
7292017-05-25T20:08:20  <jtimon> like bip109 was
7302017-05-25T20:09:09  <jtimon> I mean, that was controversial for other reasons too, but I think you get my point
7312017-05-25T20:09:13  <luke-jr> I don't.
7322017-05-25T20:09:15  <Lauda> which is why Core should add opt-in consensus proposals, not opt-out
7332017-05-25T20:09:26  *** sipa has left #bitcoin-core-dev
7342017-05-25T20:09:45  <morcos> luke-jr: sdfkjs23: Lets be clear, the resistance here isn't against UASF, or even a UASF for segwit.  It's against the particular activation methodology and schedule for BIP148.  It would behoove us all to try to build support from current BIP148 activists for 149 or another more cautious path
7352017-05-25T20:10:13  <jonasschnelli> morcos: +1
7362017-05-25T20:10:19  <jtimon> +1
7372017-05-25T20:10:51  <kanzure> luke-jr: have you considered something like bip148 except with best chain tip selection weighted by segwit-signalling? instead of blanket rjeection of all blocks, you'd get competing long reorgs, which is arguably better than rejecting all blocks.
7382017-05-25T20:11:08  <kanzure> wait, no, not better.
7392017-05-25T20:11:10  *** grubles has quit IRC
7402017-05-25T20:11:11  <luke-jr> What "activation methodology" besides UASF are you referring to?
7412017-05-25T20:11:18  <kanzure> it's better so long as your confirmation threshold is longer than the reorg length :P
7422017-05-25T20:11:19  <jcorgan> this is #bitcoin-dev or even #bitcoin territory, can we please get back to business
7432017-05-25T20:11:37  <morcos> luke-jr: you could help, if you wanted to avoid a split, by making the argument that at this point BIP148 doesn't HAVE to happen.   Since you are such an advocate for 148, maybe others would take some advice from you if you felt another path safer
7442017-05-25T20:11:42  <luke-jr> kanzure: I couldn't change BIP148 if I tried.
7452017-05-25T20:11:50  <jonasschnelli> What jcorgan said...
7462017-05-25T20:11:54  <kanzure> luke-jr: i said "something like bip148"
7472017-05-25T20:11:58  <luke-jr> morcos: the ONLY way to avoid the split is to make sure BIP148 succeeds. It WILL happen. Nobody can change that.
7482017-05-25T20:12:12  <morcos> ok. yeah i'm done discussing in this channel.  agreed.
7492017-05-25T20:12:26  <jtimon> if I proposed something like bip148 but actiavting next week instead of august, would you ack that if some users support it?
7502017-05-25T20:12:29  <luke-jr> and BIP149 is NOT safer anyway.
7512017-05-25T20:12:50  <jtimon> of course it is, but yeah, let's go #bitcoin or something
7522017-05-25T20:12:58  <luke-jr> jtimon: it's not "some users", it's a LOT of users, perhaps even a majority already
7532017-05-25T20:13:41  <petertodd> luke-jr: chances are the majority of bitcoin users aren't on any social media at all you know...
7542017-05-25T20:13:45  <jtimon> well, if "a LOT of users" supported my like-bip148-but-next-week proposal
7552017-05-25T20:13:47  <petertodd> luke-jr: they may not even speak english
7562017-05-25T20:14:01  *** grubles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7572017-05-25T20:14:02  *** grubles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7582017-05-25T20:14:39  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7592017-05-25T20:18:30  <paveljanik> luke-jr, from where you get "a lot of"?
7602017-05-25T20:22:11  <instagibbs> discussion has been moved to #bitcoin, fwiw...
7612017-05-25T20:28:48  <paveljanik> great. I can't follow such intense communication though :-)
7622017-05-25T20:30:25  *** deego has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7632017-05-25T20:33:35  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
7642017-05-25T20:43:35  *** dstadulis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7652017-05-25T20:46:26  <morcos> sipa: are you interested in briefly describing how we'd do away with rescan?
7662017-05-25T20:47:43  <sipa> morcos: requiring birthdays on all imports
7672017-05-25T20:48:50  <sipa> and rescanning on demand, rather than explicitly
7682017-05-25T20:51:55  <morcos> sipa: i've found that sometimes there is a need to import multiple keys in a short period.  forcing that to happen in a single importmulti call is a bit cumbersome
7692017-05-25T20:52:43  <morcos> it can be easier to do a batch of all the imports with rescan false, and then later do 1 explicit rescan
7702017-05-25T20:52:59  <morcos> anyway, thats just my opinion
7712017-05-25T20:54:24  *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
7722017-05-25T20:54:55  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7732017-05-25T20:55:04  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
7742017-05-25T20:57:07  <sipa> morcos: rescanning could also move to a background job
7752017-05-25T20:57:17  <sipa> which just restarts if needed
7762017-05-25T20:57:33  <jtimon> that sounds simpler
7772017-05-25T20:59:34  <jtimon> maybe a rescanning progress bar in the gui, seems very usable, and maybe in the rpc if you ask for imported stuff that needs rescaning and rescan is in progress, throw an error
7782017-05-25T20:59:37  <morcos> i don't know about simpler, but yeah a better design
7792017-05-25T20:59:52  <jtimon> yeah, I guess I meant simpler to use
7802017-05-25T20:59:57  <da2ce7> On a slightly related topic, what contingency planning is there for the case that BIP148 has a non-zero hash-power?
7812017-05-25T21:00:25  <da2ce7> That would force all the non-bip148 nodes to checkpoint for continued safe operation.
7822017-05-25T21:00:38  <da2ce7> Is there a way to distribute such a checkpoint in a safe manner?
7832017-05-25T21:01:15  <da2ce7> Or dose Bitcoin Core not want to merge in such code?
7842017-05-25T21:01:24  <jtimon> if bip148 gets the hashrate majority we don't need to do anything
7852017-05-25T21:01:46  <jtimon> we will reorg to their chain
7862017-05-25T21:02:05  <da2ce7> jtimon, what happens if it has 10%.  Then all non-BIP148 nodes are zombie until they checkpoint.
7872017-05-25T21:02:15  <sipa> ??
7882017-05-25T21:02:34  <jtimon> no, no zombie, we go on with the majority chain which is also valid to us
7892017-05-25T21:02:58  <da2ce7> This is fine, except the risk is asymmetrical.
7902017-05-25T21:03:11  <sipa> da2ce7: i don't understand what risk you're even talking about
7912017-05-25T21:03:34  <da2ce7> Because if at any date in the future the BIP148 chain overtakes, the non-BIP148 chain will be wiped out.
7922017-05-25T21:03:46  <sipa> yes?
7932017-05-25T21:04:33  <jtimon> that's what I said, if it gets the hashrate majority non-bip148 nodes will follow their chain, no problem
7942017-05-25T21:04:57  <jtimon> I mean, apart from maybe a big reorg
7952017-05-25T21:05:21  <da2ce7> If I disagreed with BIP148, I would checkpoint so my transactions wound't face the wipeout risk.  The same if for example if BIP148 as replaced with "evil softfork".
7962017-05-25T21:05:38  <jtimon> I will wait and see with my node
7972017-05-25T21:06:05  <sdfkjs23> a large reorg will cause issues for everyone not paying attention -- or anyone who goes along with cores deployment at this time. essentially core development team is handling the risk for the end client instead of allowing the client to manage the risk with a optional switch.
7982017-05-25T21:06:23  <da2ce7> If Bitcoin XT was a soft-fork, I would checkpoint so that my node would NEVER reorg onto their chain, even if they gain a majority hashrate.
7992017-05-25T21:06:29  <sipa> you can use invalidateblock
8002017-05-25T21:06:38  <sipa> to force your node onto another chain
8012017-05-25T21:07:50  <jtimon> oh, I didn't know that option
8022017-05-25T21:08:33  *** Giszmo1 has quit IRC
8032017-05-25T21:10:47  <da2ce7> My personal view is that the risks involved in BIP148 (a partial fix) are less than the risks covert CVE-2017-9230 continuing for a minimum of another 6mth.  So I have decided to run BIP148 on my nodes.
8042017-05-25T21:12:51  <da2ce7> However it is always a trade-off of risks between mitigating a security vulnerability and the risks of the deployment of the security mitigation.
8052017-05-25T21:12:53  <sdfkjs23> core should probably note in the release notes that running their software after august 1st could result in a large reorg
8062017-05-25T21:16:41  <da2ce7> It is my view that the miners who don't use covert asicboost have a very strong incentive to support the swiftest deployment of any mitigation of CVE-2017-9230, including BIP148.  Hence, I expect the mining power for BIP148 to be similar to the mining power that signals for SegWit now.
8072017-05-25T21:17:14  <da2ce7> At this hash-rate the changes of BIP148 failing are very small.
8082017-05-25T21:18:39  <da2ce7> *chances.
8092017-05-25T21:24:25  <da2ce7> I'm assuming that the miners who support SegWit are don't just support it out of the "good of their heart" but because it partly-mitigates a unfair competitive advantage against them.
8102017-05-25T21:30:28  *** NewLiberty_ has quit IRC
8112017-05-25T21:39:22  *** quark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8122017-05-25T21:39:44  *** quark is now known as Guest26217
8132017-05-25T21:39:59  <jtimon> I really feel I'm missing something here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/15ac75f65e6712339f13dd55b401d1b13a94ab41#commitcomment-22285343 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c10271e46f9bba621c4a9943e53d87a792836be5
8142017-05-25T21:41:02  <jtimon> I don't know much about the p2p part, but I really don't get it
8152017-05-25T21:42:25  *** Guest26217 is now known as quarkionk
8162017-05-25T21:43:16  *** quarkionk has quit IRC
8172017-05-25T21:43:29  <da2ce7> I have been taken back by the core developers from the lack-of-response to my posts on AsicBoost, now CVE-2017-9230. I would have expected that there would be some sort of announcement about the risks and possible mitigation of an accepted Security Vulnerability.  - I have not received any negative feedback; In my mailing list post I received three positive responses.  - Yet, here I'm met with silence.
8182017-05-25T21:44:06  <jtimon> oh, I didn't read this part in the bip: "This deployment is incompatible with the BIP9-segwit deployment and should not be run concurrently with it.", but I really don't understand why, please, help undesrtanding very welcomed
8192017-05-25T21:47:06  <sipa> da2ce7: i don't know what you think we can do?
8202017-05-25T21:48:08  <da2ce7> Well, at least say: "No you are stupid! The risk of another 6 to 9 mth of Covert ASICBOOST are far-less than the risks of being seen to support BIP148".
8212017-05-25T21:48:40  <jtimon> I think we could deploy the proposed fix to covert asicboost with bip8 pretty fast, but maybe still not august
8222017-05-25T21:48:51  <sipa> that's something the whole ecosystem needs to decide on
8232017-05-25T21:49:13  <jtimon> I mean, miners could accelerate it, I mean the max deployment time
8242017-05-25T21:50:43  <jtimon> but for segwit there's already an ongoing activation coordination deployed in many nodes
8252017-05-25T21:52:34  <sipa> da2ce7: my personal opinion is that bip148 is reckless even if it succeeds...
8262017-05-25T21:53:26  <sipa> it being a solution for some forms of asicboost is not nearly a reason to abandon safe practices
8272017-05-25T21:53:45  <sipa> but that's my personal opinion, and others may have another
8282017-05-25T21:53:47  <deego> newbie q: how can it just succeed. It has to first be committed, right? right now, it's just a B I "proposal", right?
8292017-05-25T21:54:04  <Chris_Stewart_5> sipa: Would you support BIP148 that *only* solves covert ASICBOOST? No segwit stuff involved
8302017-05-25T21:54:25  <sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: my problem with bip148 is its deployment, not its rule changes
8312017-05-25T21:54:37  <jtimon> right, if that's the urgency let's do just that faster without taking unnecessary risks
8322017-05-25T21:54:40  <sipa> it being about asicboost or segwit is orthogonal
8332017-05-25T21:55:20  <sipa> deego: it's open source; bitcoin core is a software project, we don't decide or try to tell people what code they should run
8342017-05-25T21:55:38  <Chris_Stewart_5> gotcha. I'm interested in solving covert asicboost first because I doubt we are going to get support from the mining majority to solve that, but I'm fairly confident the economic majority would support it
8352017-05-25T21:55:40  <jtimon> I wouldn't be sure how to write the code, but it is said that the pre-segwit fix of covert asicboost is simple to implement
8362017-05-25T21:55:45  <sipa> and it's not just a proposal... there is software out there that implements bip148
8372017-05-25T21:55:54  <Chris_Stewart_5> if we are going to do some sort of UASF..
8382017-05-25T21:56:21  <deego> sipa: i see, thanks
8392017-05-25T21:56:46  <jtimon> Chris_Stewart_5: I'm all for adding a bip8 deployment for the covert asicboost fix, and its final activation can be earlier than nov 2017 I think
8402017-05-25T21:57:26  <Chris_Stewart_5> jtimon: I like that idea. When is the next release scheduled for core?
8412017-05-25T21:57:35  <da2ce7> For me, BIP148 is a reasonable for an emergency soft-fork. Are we fixing an emergency security vulnerability?  The more I study CVE-2017-9230, the more I'm inclined to say Yes.
8422017-05-25T21:57:45  <jtimon> I mean, I say this because I expect a patch with very little changes, perhaps I'm being too optimistic
8432017-05-25T21:58:31  <da2ce7> There is no faster potentially viable rollout of this partial mitigation.
8442017-05-25T21:58:32  <jtimon> I believe 14.2 when it's ready, but you could even put it in a 14.3 if this is not ready by the time 14.2 is released
8452017-05-25T21:58:49  <da2ce7> With core support it goes to about 100% viable.
8462017-05-25T21:59:04  <sipa> da2ce7: i don't understand the need for emergency
8472017-05-25T21:59:45  <da2ce7> Bitcoin isn't Bitcoin if there is only one miner.  AsicBoost has a exponentially growing advantage for miners who adopt it.
8482017-05-25T21:59:54  <sipa> please
8492017-05-25T22:00:13  <da2ce7> So it's effect starts off small, but as miners re-invest profit, the effect gets larger.
8502017-05-25T22:00:15  <jtimon> I generally disregard claimed needs for emergency, but the simpler it is, the less conservative you need to be with deployment schedules I think
8512017-05-25T22:00:16  <Chris_Stewart_5> da2ce7: I think it would be wise to separate the concerns of segwit and covert asicboost
8522017-05-25T22:00:16  <sipa> don't use the word exponential where you just mean big
8532017-05-25T22:00:43  <sipa> yes, the effect of asicboost may be terrible - or may not exist at all
8542017-05-25T22:00:52  <sipa> and i would very much like to fix it
8552017-05-25T22:01:13  <sipa> but not with a hasty patch that encourages forking the chain
8562017-05-25T22:01:13  <jtimon> Chris_Stewart_5: I agree on separating concerns, I believe that was precisely what gmaxwell's proposal was about
8572017-05-25T22:01:36  <sipa> we're better than that
8582017-05-25T22:01:38  <da2ce7> I mean, if you have a constant factor advantage in mining, over time that advantage is exponential against your competition that doesn't have this constant factor advantage.  -  Unless my understanding of the gamer-theory is wrong.
8592017-05-25T22:03:28  <jtimon> sipa: let's say (as an example, not an actual proposal) the asicboost fix is included in 14.3 with bip8, minimum activation by miners august, final activation dec 2017, would you say that is conservative enough?
8602017-05-25T22:03:57  <sipa> jtimon: with clear community acceptance
8612017-05-25T22:04:02  <Chris_Stewart_5> da2ce7: Are you talking about generically using the deployment mechanism specified in BIP148, or BIP148 itself? BIP148 only pertains to segwit IIRC
8622017-05-25T22:04:17  <sipa> jtimon: it's not a boolean
8632017-05-25T22:04:34  <sipa> jtimon: but the riskier a change is, the higher the bar for acceptance
8642017-05-25T22:04:43  <da2ce7> Chris_Stewart_5: SegWit is the only well-tested partial-mitigation of CVE-2017-9230 I know of.
8652017-05-25T22:04:56  <da2ce7> So I mean BIP148, activating SegWit.
8662017-05-25T22:04:59  <sipa> and i think bip148 is both high risk, and with very unclear support
8672017-05-25T22:05:36  <Chris_Stewart_5> sipa: Would worst case be similar to what happened a few years back with BIP66 (or 62)?
8682017-05-25T22:05:48  <jtimon> sipa: fair enough, yeah, I'm all for community acceptance, maybe I'm over optimistic about the community wanting the covert asicboost fix
8692017-05-25T22:07:16  <Chris_Stewart_5> da2ce7: Yeah, but I think we need to deal with realities of the baggage that comes along with segwit
8702017-05-25T22:07:21  <jtimon> but from my conversations with users, it seems pretty clear to everyone that nobody would oppose to such a change unless is benefitting directly from covert asicboost, which nobody seem to claim
8712017-05-25T22:07:36  <da2ce7> jtimon, I have no idea how the time to validate the asicboost fix faster than deploying SegWit.  The logical soft-fork afterwards with BIP 8 would be to make Witness Commitments non-voluntary.
8722017-05-25T22:07:38  <Chris_Stewart_5> I think we all agree segwit is awesome, but we can't stall progress of the system anymore based on the deployment of segwit
8732017-05-25T22:07:44  <sipa> i think segwit is much more widely accepted than asicboost being a problem
8742017-05-25T22:08:29  <jtimon> da2ce7: I think gmaxwell described it in his proposal, but sadly I don't know how to translate his specification into code
8752017-05-25T22:09:18  <jtimon> by it, I mean activate  asicboost fix before sw
8762017-05-25T22:09:29  <Chris_Stewart_5> I don't think there has been any consensus rule changes since segwit has been deployed, I think fixing covert asicboost would be a good way to get that ball rolling again
8772017-05-25T22:10:00  <da2ce7> Since SegWit is not controversial, we can deploy it as a partial mitigation of asicboost.
8782017-05-25T22:10:22  <jtimon> Chris_Stewart_5: me too, but yeah, as sipa points out, assuming community support and reasonable dates
8792017-05-25T22:12:04  <sipa> da2ce7: totally agree, i just don't think bip148 is a good or likely succesful way of doing that
8802017-05-25T22:14:02  <da2ce7> sipa, do you think that my assumption that the miners who signal for SegWit now are likely doing it because they want the partial-fix to AsicBoost Deployed?  If so, would they reasonably support a BIP148 soft-fork?
8812017-05-25T22:22:20  <sipa> da2ce7: i honestly don't know
8822017-05-25T22:23:40  <da2ce7> this we can agree on. :)
8832017-05-25T22:24:39  <da2ce7> I'm going to try and refine this assumption with more evidence.  With 33% mining support, I think that doing BIP148 is remarkably safe in the face of an active exploit.
8842017-05-25T22:25:39  <sipa> 33% of mining support, excluding miners who already signal segwit?
8852017-05-25T22:27:15  <da2ce7> I mean, 33% total.  For upgraded node, the remaining 67% doesn't exist.  - The network effects for a 33% soft-fork are huge. Because of the asymmetrical wipeout risk.
8862017-05-25T22:27:26  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8872017-05-25T22:27:54  <da2ce7> The only risk is that the 67% explicitly attacks the smaller chain. However this is grounds for an immediate change of PoW.
8882017-05-25T22:29:38  <Chris_Stewart_5> da2ce7: I don't think so. An immediate change of PoW for the majority of miners following the old rules? Seems rash to me
8892017-05-25T22:30:35  <da2ce7> Chris_Stewart_5, no they are not following the old rules, they implement the soft-fork, except at the same time attack the smaller chain maybe by producing 0tx blocks.
8902017-05-25T22:31:15  <da2ce7> This is what I mean by an 'explicit attack'.
8912017-05-25T22:33:01  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8922017-05-25T22:33:30  <Chris_Stewart_5> da2ce7: So you would encourage an extended chain split, which could last forever? I don't think I would support that. We need to remain on one chain
8932017-05-25T22:34:30  *** marsu has quit IRC
8942017-05-25T22:34:47  <da2ce7> Chris_Stewart_5 for any other exploit I would encourage a chain split to fix the exploit, In this case is no different.  If the miners could make 2btc extra each block, then I would soft-fork with less than 50% to fix this bug.
8952017-05-25T22:35:42  <da2ce7> Even if the miners +2btc chain could last for a longer time.
8962017-05-25T22:41:42  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8972017-05-25T22:42:07  <da2ce7> I'm going to sleep now.  Goodnight all.
8982017-05-25T22:56:38  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8992017-05-25T23:15:22  *** Squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9002017-05-25T23:16:45  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
9012017-05-25T23:38:38  *** jannes has quit IRC
9022017-05-25T23:47:54  *** jchrome has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9032017-05-25T23:48:38  *** jchrome has quit IRC
9042017-05-25T23:49:04  *** jchrome has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9052017-05-25T23:58:30  *** abpa has quit IRC