12017-09-13T00:05:07 *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22017-09-13T00:05:37 *** PRab has quit IRC
32017-09-13T00:14:34 *** ndrst has quit IRC
42017-09-13T00:16:02 *** strid has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
52017-09-13T00:16:23 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
62017-09-13T00:17:57 *** Guest65485 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
72017-09-13T00:26:41 *** strid has quit IRC
82017-09-13T00:28:44 *** meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
92017-09-13T00:32:51 *** Murch has quit IRC
102017-09-13T00:36:20 *** satoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112017-09-13T00:39:44 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
122017-09-13T00:39:45 *** satoshi has quit IRC
132017-09-13T00:39:55 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
142017-09-13T00:40:17 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] promag opened pull request #11316: [qt] Add use available balance in send coins dialog (master...2017-09-add-use-available-balance) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11316
152017-09-13T00:45:25 <esotericnonsense> er, this seems like the most reasonable place to ask, apologies if not - what's the deal with slack.bitcoincore.org?
162017-09-13T00:45:49 <esotericnonsense> (or bitcoincore.org in general; is it endorsed?)
172017-09-13T00:46:44 <meshcollider> Yes, its the website given in the readme https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/README.md
182017-09-13T00:47:49 <esotericnonsense> cool, thanks meshcollider
192017-09-13T00:51:15 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
202017-09-13T00:52:21 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212017-09-13T00:53:40 *** dabura667 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
222017-09-13T00:53:48 <achow101> esotericnonsense: bitcoincore.org is the bitcoin core's website
232017-09-13T00:54:01 <achow101> the slack channel is Bitcoin Core's slack channel. It's mostly for random shit, not development
242017-09-13T00:54:11 <achow101> go there for laughs and trolling
252017-09-13T00:54:19 <esotericnonsense> slack is invented for random shit
262017-09-13T00:54:36 * esotericnonsense is currently trying to figure out the irc gateway to avoid falling into the trap of pressing the meme buttons
272017-09-13T00:54:43 <esotericnonsense> :) thanks
282017-09-13T00:56:27 *** belcher has quit IRC
292017-09-13T00:59:01 <gmaxwell> 17:54:01 < achow101> the slack channel is Bitcoin Core's slack channel.
302017-09-13T00:59:14 <gmaxwell> No it is a _community_ slack which is almost completely unused by actual developers.
312017-09-13T00:59:26 <gmaxwell> I know you and luke use it, most of the developers do not.
322017-09-13T00:59:41 <gmaxwell> A wish btcdrak would close it, it has caused a lot of drama and harm.
332017-09-13T01:00:03 <StopAndDecrypt_> gmaxwell, difference between this and #bitcoin-dev ?
342017-09-13T01:00:07 <gmaxwell> it was created against active opposition by a number of developers.
352017-09-13T01:00:23 <esotericnonsense> it is currently breaking my irc client enumerating the 6000+ users in every chat
362017-09-13T01:00:35 <sipa> #bitcoin-dev is about bitcoin; #bitcoin-core-dev is about development of one specific software project
372017-09-13T01:01:16 <achow101> gmaxwell: it was created by an admin of bitcoincore.org
382017-09-13T01:01:41 <achow101> it is arguably created by "Bitcoin Core"
392017-09-13T01:03:08 <gmaxwell> StopAndDecrypt_: We used to use bitcoin-dev. Then one day Mike Hearn was a real jerk, in particular faulting wumpus for being 'indecisive', wumpus told him to cut it out, mike kept it up. Wumpus banned him. (so much for indecisive). Then out of nowhere jgarzik, who for who knows what reason still had access, unbanned mike hearn. So most of the developers simply left.
402017-09-13T01:03:53 <gmaxwell> sipa: I don't think thats fair to say, -- a channel for bitcoin that hardly has any of the most active people isn't much of one.
412017-09-13T01:04:32 <esotericnonsense> i've disconnected now because it basically dosed my irc bouncer, that was shortlived
422017-09-13T01:04:57 <meshcollider> yeah that was the first channel I joined, but its pretty inactive, that's why sipa pointed me to this one instead
432017-09-13T01:05:53 <gmaxwell> it's confusing to people for sure. It's not completely inactive though, a while back I was going to close it down if it went a week with no discussion but it didn't quite make it.
442017-09-13T01:07:25 *** Cory has quit IRC
452017-09-13T01:07:41 <esotericnonsense> my interpretation was that this channel was for direct work on the bitcoin codebase whilst bitcoin-dev was for general bitcoin-related development e.g. wallets, merchant integration, etc
462017-09-13T01:07:50 <esotericnonsense> but yeah, it's pretty dead in there
472017-09-13T01:11:34 <gmaxwell> esotericnonsense: it can't be that without the most active developers involved, and at the time people with admin access there were behaving disrespectfully to these people. (Access is since changed.) None of us have much interest in wheel warring, if a venue has become unproductive for us to use, we won't use it. For something like a bitcoin tech discussion if the most active of the tech peo
482017-09-13T01:11:40 <gmaxwell> ple leave, it's going to die.
492017-09-13T01:12:01 <esotericnonsense> indeed
502017-09-13T01:14:03 <gmaxwell> There is this open venue toxic culture problem, where people will show up and behave abusively, and if you kick them out it's ZOMG CENSORSHIP but if you don't kick them out, competent people just won't bother with the place and thus it eventually dies.
512017-09-13T01:14:17 *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
522017-09-13T01:15:22 <gmaxwell> big reason I opposed the slack, beyond it being a commercial propritary venue and primarily web only, is that it was creating yet another venue where either your tolerate abuse or suffer drama when you punt people.
532017-09-13T01:17:32 *** pohvak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
542017-09-13T01:21:38 <aj> slack's theoretically a bit more friendly to less technical people than irc, so i kinda liked the thought for that, but i think they're all secluded in private dragonsden channels or whatever now leaving the public ones for full-time drama
552017-09-13T01:22:45 <sipa> i think it's fine for communities to use slack as a medium if they like to do so... i just don't think it should be 'officially' bitcoin core's slack
562017-09-13T01:22:53 <sipa> especially when few developers use it
572017-09-13T01:24:50 <meshcollider> speaking of weird things on the bitcoincore website, whats the point of this? https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/
582017-09-13T01:24:52 *** pohvak has quit IRC
592017-09-13T01:25:45 <aj> yeah... when it was started the meme it was trying to address was "core is great, it just doesn't communicate well", but without dev participation slack doesn't really solve that problem much...
602017-09-13T01:28:17 <aj> meshcollider: counter to the "support" list on http://web.archive.org/web/20160118073735/https://bitcoinclassic.com/ i think
612017-09-13T01:28:24 <gmaxwell> aj: we should have just put embedded web irc links on the site. e.g. the webchat link at the top https://opus-codec.org/development/
622017-09-13T01:29:08 <gmaxwell> arguably web slack is nicer, but it would avoid fragmenting the community.
632017-09-13T01:29:25 <meshcollider> why not remove the slack from the site then?
642017-09-13T01:29:54 <gmaxwell> ACK
652017-09-13T01:30:37 <meshcollider> btcdrak will not like that though
662017-09-13T01:30:53 <StopAndDecrypt_> anybody who needs to communicate and has value to contribute would know how to at least establish contact
672017-09-13T01:31:05 <StopAndDecrypt_> communication isnt difficult, its a litmus test, i dont even code
682017-09-13T01:31:07 <aj> gmaxwell: plus a link to the botbot archives; it'd only miss out on push notifications then
692017-09-13T01:32:05 <aj> meshcollider: the website's managed by github, a pull request with a bunch of dev acks seems like a reasonable thing to do to me
702017-09-13T01:33:08 <meshcollider> drak is like lead maintainer of that repo though isnt he
712017-09-13T01:33:18 <gmaxwell> StopAndDecrypt_: well we also want to talk to users! and some aren't going to figure out how to get on IRC. I think the freenode webchat is sufficient.
722017-09-13T01:33:35 <sipa> meshcollider: what repo?
732017-09-13T01:33:43 <meshcollider> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/graphs/contributors
742017-09-13T01:33:45 <aj> meshcollider: yeah; wumpus is lead maintainer of the bitcoin repo, doesn't mean either of them don't care what other people think
752017-09-13T01:35:05 *** wxxs has quit IRC
762017-09-13T01:35:31 <instagibbs> bitcoincore.org is mostly a venue for posting FAQs, blog post versions of announcements for releases and the like
772017-09-13T01:38:05 <StopAndDecrypt_> gmaxwell, well yeah, there's people who want to reach in, and then there's reaching out for feedback. reddit helps, but nobody should feel obligated to post on reddit, especially when a lot of it is just to dismiss some wild claim being made. it's helpfull though.
782017-09-13T01:50:55 *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
792017-09-13T01:57:57 *** ula has quit IRC
802017-09-13T02:00:44 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
812017-09-13T02:01:22 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
822017-09-13T02:13:28 *** chjj has quit IRC
832017-09-13T02:19:58 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
842017-09-13T02:29:05 *** chjj has quit IRC
852017-09-13T02:42:01 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
862017-09-13T02:42:17 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
872017-09-13T02:46:46 *** ossifrage has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
882017-09-13T02:48:58 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
892017-09-13T03:13:13 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
902017-09-13T03:33:09 *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
912017-09-13T03:33:10 *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
922017-09-13T03:48:08 *** zmin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
932017-09-13T03:57:57 *** luke-jr has quit IRC
942017-09-13T04:38:25 *** meshcollider has quit IRC
952017-09-13T05:05:22 *** asoltys has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
962017-09-13T05:25:30 *** meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
972017-09-13T05:34:58 *** chjj has quit IRC
982017-09-13T05:50:02 *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
992017-09-13T05:51:08 *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1002017-09-13T05:57:03 *** tErik_mc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1012017-09-13T06:06:51 *** JackH has quit IRC
1022017-09-13T06:20:46 *** arubi has quit IRC
1032017-09-13T06:44:02 *** tknp has quit IRC
1042017-09-13T06:46:35 *** StopAndDecrypt_ has quit IRC
1052017-09-13T06:47:16 *** StopAndDecrypt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1062017-09-13T06:47:49 *** StopAndDecrypt_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1072017-09-13T06:51:35 *** StopAndDecrypt has quit IRC
1082017-09-13T06:52:17 *** tripleslash has quit IRC
1092017-09-13T06:56:07 *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102017-09-13T07:07:24 *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1112017-09-13T07:27:28 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1122017-09-13T07:30:29 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gmaxwell opened pull request #11318: Put back inadvertently removed copyright notices (master...fix_copying) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11318
1132017-09-13T07:31:34 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142017-09-13T07:32:40 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152017-09-13T07:39:35 *** StopAndDecrypt_ has quit IRC
1162017-09-13T07:40:49 *** tripleslash has quit IRC
1172017-09-13T07:41:26 *** StopAndDecrypt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182017-09-13T07:44:54 *** StopAndDecrypt has quit IRC
1192017-09-13T07:45:14 *** StopAndDecrypt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202017-09-13T07:45:20 *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1212017-09-13T07:45:48 *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222017-09-13T07:46:40 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1232017-09-13T07:56:33 <CodeShark> the Core slack is a necessary outlet for shits and giggles...and a tremendous amount of great comms have taken place there, albeit not always in the general chat channel
1242017-09-13T07:57:05 <CodeShark> I have been able to get a hold of a LOT of people through that Slack that would not come on IRC
1252017-09-13T07:57:53 <CodeShark> most of it via other channels or private chats
1262017-09-13T07:58:14 <CodeShark> without it it would have been near impossible to coordinate several important efforts
1272017-09-13T07:59:27 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: I think it is toxic for our community. Case in point: people like you that we never see here, and yet many people think you are a high profile developer.
1282017-09-13T07:59:37 <gmaxwell> Because of your much higher level of activity on the slack.
1292017-09-13T07:59:58 <CodeShark> the communications are necessary
1302017-09-13T08:00:14 <CodeShark> without them, people just make shit up...and it's often unfavorable
1312017-09-13T08:00:59 <CodeShark> and there's a lot more to the Bitcoin Core project than just submitting pull requests and doing code review
1322017-09-13T08:02:32 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: Which is why having the split is not acceptable.
1332017-09-13T08:04:37 <CodeShark> I was working on my own Bitcoin implementation and codebase prior to this whole hard forking insanity and decided to volunteer most of my time to help Bitcoin Core instead. prior to that I use to come here more, but I realized that many people still needed basic information
1342017-09-13T08:05:52 <sipa> sure, but why does that need to happen under the "Bitcoin Core" name?
1352017-09-13T08:06:25 <gmaxwell> I'm thankful for your help but the lack of communication is a serious problem.
1362017-09-13T08:06:55 <CodeShark> for better or worse that was the brand that people recognized. I would prefer people make the distinction between implementation and consensus rule definitions, but that's just not how much of the public perception works right now
1372017-09-13T08:07:08 <CodeShark> have tried hard to change that, but there's tremendous resistance
1382017-09-13T08:07:58 <CodeShark> FWIW, now that segwit is active I'd rather shift efforts back to building stuff rather than putting out fires
1392017-09-13T08:08:03 <gmaxwell> That response is a bit shocking.
1402017-09-13T08:08:58 <CodeShark> not sure what lack of communication you're referring to - you mean the fact I don't come here nearly as much as I did a couple years ago?
1412017-09-13T08:09:20 <gmaxwell> Because what it sounds like is that the focus is actually a "bitcoiners for sanity" which then borrowed our project's name and reputation, but doesn't actually care to advance its positions or even communicate closely with it.
1422017-09-13T08:09:27 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1432017-09-13T08:10:19 <CodeShark> I try my best to keep abreast of important developments within Bitcoin Core and do my best to communicate them
1442017-09-13T08:10:35 *** alreadylate has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1452017-09-13T08:10:38 <CodeShark> and get paid $0 for it
1462017-09-13T08:10:41 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: that most of the slack people are effectively not involved in the project itself in any serious ongoing capacity, including not hanging out here. It has serious negative results, like you carrying around a we'd never use BIP9 message again, which is entirely not what I'm thinking and I doubt its what other people are thinking.
1472017-09-13T08:11:08 <gmaxwell> So it's going to be an inevitable messaging circus when we do.
1482017-09-13T08:11:38 <CodeShark> I wasn't the only one that carried that message
1492017-09-13T08:11:46 <gmaxwell> I've been thankful for the positive contributions for sure! but the disconnection is a serious liability.
1502017-09-13T08:11:46 <CodeShark> many contributors seem to feel that way
1512017-09-13T08:12:05 <gmaxwell> let me guess, luke-jr. ... The slack needs to go away.
1522017-09-13T08:12:36 <CodeShark> the slack is necessary as an outlet for people
1532017-09-13T08:12:58 <sipa> CodeShark: the fact that you have that impressions and i don't probably means there is a communications failure :)
1542017-09-13T08:13:27 <CodeShark> ok, then perhaps we can do more to fix that
1552017-09-13T08:14:21 <gmaxwell> There appears to be a serious split brain problem.
1562017-09-13T08:14:33 <CodeShark> it's hard to shift gears, sure
1572017-09-13T08:14:39 <gmaxwell> I've spent time talking to some other people who are mostly in the slack and hearing radically different views on things.
1582017-09-13T08:16:18 <CodeShark> I just saw Bitcoin Core viciously attacked a couple years ago and hostile parties form...and did whatever I could to communicate basic principles. it's impossible to get everyone aligned on all the details, but the priority was around trying to at least have a coherent overarching message
1592017-09-13T08:17:00 <sipa> a message that includes "nobody wants a full mempool" ?
1602017-09-13T08:17:12 <CodeShark> that was not my message...
1612017-09-13T08:17:48 <CodeShark> but in the big scheme of things at this moment, it is a detail that is still hard to communicate
1622017-09-13T08:18:03 <gmaxwell> I'm not criticising the helpful moves, but we can't afford a split brain.
1632017-09-13T08:19:01 <CodeShark> I believe #bitcoin-core-dev should focus more on tech developments and code. we have other channels for things like media strategy
1642017-09-13T08:20:14 <sipa> today seems to be an exception, the topic here is hardly ever about anything else
1652017-09-13T08:21:13 <CodeShark> indeed - so if you want tighter coordination on other stuff I would suggest participating in these other channels more. I don't want to spam this channel with issues that are not directly related to engineering
1662017-09-13T08:22:16 <gmaxwell> I don't think it's acceptable for the comms stuff to continue with virtually no input from the people actively involved with the software project, under the projects name.
1672017-09-13T08:22:21 *** chjj has quit IRC
1682017-09-13T08:22:40 <gmaxwell> The liability is simply too great. Plus it's an outright misrepresentation.
1692017-09-13T08:22:52 <CodeShark> you know how to reach me - I always value your input
1702017-09-13T08:23:21 <gmaxwell> Permitting that kind of thing is 80% of why gavin turned into such a circus, we are making the same mistake again but scaled up.
1712017-09-13T08:23:39 <gmaxwell> The fact that the people involved don't suck doesn't make it that much better. :)
1722017-09-13T08:24:24 *** zmin has quit IRC
1732017-09-13T08:24:26 <CodeShark> I just wanted to build good products atop bitcoin and decided to support the Bitcoin Core project however I could because it's the most stable, most reliable, most secure implementation of validation and relay
1742017-09-13T08:24:38 <CodeShark> I would prefer to continue building good products
1752017-09-13T08:24:46 <CodeShark> I didn't ask for these other jobs
1762017-09-13T08:24:58 <gmaxwell> In any case, I think my core ask is rally simple: lets end the splitbrainness. I'm not asking you to stop your advocacy, I'm generally thankful for it.
1772017-09-13T08:25:35 <sipa> CodeShark: gmaxwell is not saying "CodeShark is doing a bad job"; he's saying "it's scary that there is a disconnect between these two communities"
1782017-09-13T08:25:36 <gmaxwell> But if things are going to operate under the projects name they must be at least somewhat coordinated with the project contributors. Having a totally siloed comms enviroment makes that almost impossible.
1792017-09-13T08:25:46 <gmaxwell> what sipa said!
1802017-09-13T08:26:24 <CodeShark> ok, fixing this disconnect is a reasonable goal
1812017-09-13T08:26:36 <gmaxwell> I think you've done an amazing job and considering how little communications there are I'm surprised that there have been so few wtf-is-he-saying events, a testament to your skills.
1822017-09-13T08:27:16 <gmaxwell> yea! that is all I'm really going for.
1832017-09-13T08:29:03 <CodeShark> in any case, there's going to be a tremendous amount of bullshit lobbed around - it's part of the curse of being one of the people who most knows about a subject. most of what you hear other people say about it is wrong
1842017-09-13T08:29:33 <CodeShark> so it's important to set priorities and figure out what messages are most important to get out...and to just accept that there will be some noise no matter what
1852017-09-13T08:30:03 <CodeShark> but I'm willing to do what I can to help improve this
1862017-09-13T08:31:04 <CodeShark> most of the technical inaccuracies people lob around ultimately don't really have much of an impact because they aren't the ones actually working on the code
1872017-09-13T08:31:52 <CodeShark> but there are some high level narratives that are key - such as the notion that changing consensus rules is inherently hard, incompatibilities that partition the network lead to chain splits, etc...
1882017-09-13T08:33:09 *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
1892017-09-13T08:34:13 <CodeShark> whether we use BIP8 or BIP9 or something else isn't nearly as important - although I do think it's important that users feel empowered to resist hostile miners
1902017-09-13T08:34:42 <CodeShark> and that deterrents exist against hostile miners
1912017-09-13T08:34:52 *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1922017-09-13T08:38:25 *** meshcollider has quit IRC
1932017-09-13T08:42:05 *** meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1942017-09-13T08:55:49 <gmaxwell> absolutely, but saying that we would not use BIP9 again is an error. I expect we would with an explicit stated outright plan to BIP8 after if user adoption was very strong but miners did not activate. These are technical details, sure. But unfortunately what got quoted was that BIP9 wouldn't be used again.
1952017-09-13T08:58:57 *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
1962017-09-13T09:05:57 *** tErik_mc has quit IRC
1972017-09-13T09:15:10 <CodeShark> things can always change. I think the overarching goal here is to convey that users choose consensus rules, not miners. and bip9 sends conflicting messages
1982017-09-13T09:15:34 <CodeShark> but if the situation changes, perhaps bip9 becomes viable again
1992017-09-13T09:16:48 <CodeShark> I think we all agree that BIP9 for segwit caused some serious problems
2002017-09-13T09:17:59 <mryandao> why not just run a XMPP bridge?
2012017-09-13T09:18:13 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: I don't agree.
2022017-09-13T09:18:55 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: I think people on slack echochambered themself into a corner about that. The obvious thing to do after BIP9 was BIP8, just as part of the process.
2032017-09-13T09:18:57 *** Anduck_ is now known as Anduck
2042017-09-13T09:19:41 <gmaxwell> In doing it furthered a conflicting message. BIP9 was never 'miners choose'. It's just an activiation mechenism.
2052017-09-13T09:19:49 <gmaxwell> And it's still by far the safest one.
2062017-09-13T09:20:38 <gmaxwell> It can be delayed, but we should have a position that consensus rule changes take non-trivial amounts of time.
2072017-09-13T09:20:39 <CodeShark> safe as long as miners don't use it to hold a popular upgrade hostage subject to insane shifting demands
2082017-09-13T09:20:46 <gmaxwell> No. Safe even if they do.
2092017-09-13T09:21:23 <gmaxwell> Segwit being activated in under a year is really really fast. It's much faster than major changes happen in widespread internet protocols that don't have consensus implications or the same consequences of failure.
2102017-09-13T09:21:29 <CodeShark> I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I believe ceding the narrative and going on the defensive was far riskier.
2112017-09-13T09:21:45 <gmaxwell> No, I don't think we will. On this point I think my comments are reflecting the shared view of the project.
2122017-09-13T09:22:00 <gmaxwell> (though obviously I haven't polled everyone for their latest views)
2132017-09-13T09:22:15 <CodeShark> bip8 would have allowed the nya to dominate headlines
2142017-09-13T09:22:55 <gmaxwell> Ah, no that isn't my point, my point is that slack communities narative about segwit delays was wrong from the start.
2152017-09-13T09:23:15 <gmaxwell> NYA wouldn't have even existed if not for BIP149.
2162017-09-13T09:23:29 *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2172017-09-13T09:23:36 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2182017-09-13T09:23:37 <gmaxwell> We should have just taken a consistent position that delays are normal and expected and if miners won't activate something users near univerally want, too bad.
2192017-09-13T09:24:03 <gmaxwell> NYA was specifically created to take BIP148's success and turn it into something else.
2202017-09-13T09:24:39 <gmaxwell> On the plus side, it let us keep a narative high ground of not supporting hasty changes just because we're impatient.
2212017-09-13T09:24:52 <CodeShark> tried that...but everyone was getting impatient for segwit activation and further revelations regarding some miner motives made status quo intenable
2222017-09-13T09:25:02 <CodeShark> *untenable
2232017-09-13T09:25:08 <gmaxwell> that was a direct response to the slack echo chamber.
2242017-09-13T09:25:28 <CodeShark> I believe a chain split was imminent. We got BCH
2252017-09-13T09:25:56 <gmaxwell> For example, one of your top contributors (who sent me some very nasty remarks) told me that Bitcoin Core was _never_ going to force a segwit activation and so BIP148 was the _only_ option.
2262017-09-13T09:26:08 <gmaxwell> Again, a direct response to BIP148 (they even said so in the announcement! :) )
2272017-09-13T09:26:28 <gmaxwell> If there hadn't been that community schism people wouldn't have been left with any doubt that it would get activated.
2282017-09-13T09:26:31 <CodeShark> probably the best possible outcome we could have gotten
2292017-09-13T09:27:35 <gmaxwell> Regardless of hindsight, there has been significant miscommunication and misunderstanding which is avoidable.
2302017-09-13T09:27:47 <CodeShark> it was mostly about empowering users over miners when it comes to consensus rule changes
2312017-09-13T09:28:42 <CodeShark> but sure, perhaps we can do better in the future
2322017-09-13T09:43:48 *** BashCo has quit IRC
2332017-09-13T09:43:58 *** __Hubert__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342017-09-13T09:44:49 *** OdaNobunaga has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2352017-09-13T09:50:27 <OdaNobunaga> I've been following the various the "bitcoin core" slack on a daily basis (mostly its various UASF channels) since last March, and I think that there's a lot of amplification going on, but at the same time the most vocal contributors there are well aware that they're an extreme minority and that they can't possibly have everything go their way; I w
2362017-09-13T09:50:27 <OdaNobunaga> ould say that part of that amplification is kind of self-deprecatory.
2372017-09-13T09:51:35 <OdaNobunaga> But the I've been surprised to see it being called "the bitcoin core slack" as the discussion there mostly isn't technical, and its biggest contributors aren't core devs
2382017-09-13T09:52:02 *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
2392017-09-13T09:52:02 <OdaNobunaga> So yeah the slack may have a branding problem
2402017-09-13T09:53:08 *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2412017-09-13T09:53:36 <gmaxwell> I tried before to get it braned as the NotBitcoinCore slack. :)
2422017-09-13T09:55:04 <OdaNobunaga> I think that if we want the discussion there to remain mostly unmoderated, it will fatally remain troll-heavy, and so devs/sensible people won't use it too much
2432017-09-13T09:55:09 <gmaxwell> but even absent the branding problem, it still has the problem of splitting the community. :(
2442017-09-13T09:55:11 <CodeShark> I would like to give a name to the movement that favors the conservative approach to consensus rule changes and general avoidance of incompatibilities unless the technical benefits greatly outweigh the costs...and to distinguish it from the Bitcoin Core FOSS project
2452017-09-13T09:55:31 <OdaNobunaga> So it can either be a meme echo chamber or a serious place for discussion
2462017-09-13T09:55:37 <CodeShark> but it's been very hard to do this...and for the time being we were fighting a common enemy
2472017-09-13T09:55:58 <OdaNobunaga> On the Slack we kind of call that the "user driven" bitcoin (I've seen that being used a few times)
2482017-09-13T09:56:08 <gmaxwell> OdaNobunaga: IRC has many channels.
2492017-09-13T09:56:31 <gmaxwell> many of the developers are usually in #bitcoin.
2502017-09-13T09:57:01 <OdaNobunaga> CodeShark: Yes, there should be a name for this movement, I absolutely agree.
2512017-09-13T09:57:24 <OdaNobunaga> Perhaps there could be different moderation rules for different channels on the slack
2522017-09-13T09:58:12 <gmaxwell> please get bitcoin core's name off it before doing anything else with moderation... so tired of being blamed for moderation actions in stuff we have no control over.
2532017-09-13T09:58:58 <OdaNobunaga> gmaxwell I agree
2542017-09-13T09:59:41 <gmaxwell> FWIW, I think if someone wants to create new low noise venues the right way isn't with moderation, but invite-only write access.
2552017-09-13T10:00:24 <gmaxwell> The hysteria about people being blocked comes from a false expectation that they have a prior right to say whatever they want. I have a weakly tested hypothesis that this issue doesn't exist for venue were ability to post isn't automatic.
2562017-09-13T10:01:00 <CodeShark> gmaxwell: FWIW I vehemently opposed much of the moderation policy that took place there...but just found ways to work around it. now that segwit is active on mainnet I think we have more options here
2572017-09-13T10:01:48 <CodeShark> perhaps a rebranding is in order
2582017-09-13T10:05:21 <gmaxwell> which would still leave us with a split community. Why is it that you don't see this as a problem
2592017-09-13T10:05:45 <CodeShark> depends on how it's done
2602017-09-13T10:07:16 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2612017-09-13T10:08:07 <CodeShark> I see the Bitcoin Core software project as part of a wider movement
2622017-09-13T10:08:46 <gmaxwell> one which you seem to be interested in usurping by using our name, to be blunt.
2632017-09-13T10:08:58 <CodeShark> not at all
2642017-09-13T10:09:04 <gmaxwell> That how its playing out.
2652017-09-13T10:09:53 <OdaNobunaga> I agree with gmaxwell, it's hard to see what the slack has to do with bitcoin core
2662017-09-13T10:10:05 *** tErik_mc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2672017-09-13T10:11:02 *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2682017-09-13T10:11:02 <CodeShark> I have barely been in the slack recently
2692017-09-13T10:11:17 <gmaxwell> In one week in 2011 the dev channel here had 191 distinct after talkers, last week it had 52. There is a direct decline in participation by different parties on IRC correlated with the introduction of the slack.
2702017-09-13T10:11:27 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2712017-09-13T10:12:00 <gmaxwell> (I just picked the first week in the top of one of my 2011 logs)
2722017-09-13T10:12:02 <OdaNobunaga> CodeShark: Perhaps we should come up with a word to refer to the "decentralisation first"/user-driven/cypherpunk movement within bitcoin, and rename the slack after it
2732017-09-13T10:12:05 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2742017-09-13T10:12:06 <CodeShark> gmaxwell: I think it was just a temporary situation
2752017-09-13T10:12:18 <CodeShark> crisis mode
2762017-09-13T10:12:38 <gmaxwell> OdaNobunaga: the whole thing is the _fking_ bitcoin project, dude. Bitcoin.
2772017-09-13T10:12:55 <CodeShark> but not everyone agrees on what Bitcoin is
2782017-09-13T10:13:04 <gmaxwell> The software project here is the _bitcoin_ project, Bitcoin core is the name of the reference client, it's not the only thing the project does.
2792017-09-13T10:13:46 *** tErik_mc1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2802017-09-13T10:14:04 <CodeShark> I could have used my company name instead to promote crap - but I wanted to help the Bitcoin Core project. this isn't about me
2812017-09-13T10:14:10 <gmaxwell> So what you're doing, ape with ak47 style, is setting up a schism between the people working on the system, who've been the same people working it since 2011... and a newer community in a different venue that excludes most of those folks.
2822017-09-13T10:14:24 <gmaxwell> It's all largely okay now, but it's a bad setup.
2832017-09-13T10:14:34 <gmaxwell> It's basically asking for gavin like drama squared.
2842017-09-13T10:15:06 <gmaxwell> You've said that you respected my opinion, but I've raised these concerns many times.
2852017-09-13T10:15:22 <CodeShark> I would prefer to step back from this role and work on building shit
2862017-09-13T10:15:27 *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
2872017-09-13T10:15:35 <CodeShark> but until I stepped into it, we had people like roger dictating narrative
2882017-09-13T10:16:00 *** tErik_mc has quit IRC
2892017-09-13T10:16:22 <gmaxwell> This seems to be unrelated to my comments.
2902017-09-13T10:16:36 <CodeShark> not sure I understand your critique
2912017-09-13T10:17:20 <gmaxwell> It isn't a complaint about you, it's a complaint about the split community and the insistance on keeping it.
2922017-09-13T10:17:43 *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2932017-09-13T10:18:48 <CodeShark> ideally we could separate implementation from consensus rules from the sociopolitical movement
2942017-09-13T10:19:06 <gmaxwell> lets imagine for a moment that roger ver ran that slack... and wasn't, so far, doing anything with it... just letting it be. Would you not be concerned that _the_ meeting place for all those people was in his hands?
2952017-09-13T10:19:15 <CodeShark> for better or worse, it all sort of concentrated around the Bitcoin Core project because that's where the best protocol experts were
2962017-09-13T10:19:38 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: yea great, so you're basically trying to setup the "sociopolitical movement" that doesn't include its longest standing members.
2972017-09-13T10:19:49 <CodeShark> no, far from that
2982017-09-13T10:20:13 <gmaxwell> As far as I am concerned: It is the _bitcoin project_. As far as I am concerned there is no bitcoin core project. Bitcoin Core is a piece of software.
2992017-09-13T10:20:32 <CodeShark> the higher the stakes, the more people will try to divide us
3002017-09-13T10:20:58 <gmaxwell> ... why would they have to, 'we' seem to be dividing ourselves just fine, and you seem to be insisting on preserving the divide.
3012017-09-13T10:21:07 <CodeShark> how?
3022017-09-13T10:21:13 <gmaxwell> "ideally we could separate"
3032017-09-13T10:21:27 <CodeShark> but we can't get everyone to agree on everything
3042017-09-13T10:21:37 <CodeShark> the best we can do is get them to agree on some basic stuff
3052017-09-13T10:21:43 <CodeShark> and that's even asking for a lot
3062017-09-13T10:22:15 <gmaxwell> That doesn't have anything to do with getting rid of the split community venues or not.
3072017-09-13T10:22:31 <CodeShark> trying to force people to stick together even if they disagree is unhealthy, IMHO
3082017-09-13T10:23:11 <CodeShark> there are different economic interests, different visions, different understandings (and there's also a lot of FUD)
3092017-09-13T10:24:03 <CodeShark> about the best option we had to keep the network together is to help promote the Bitcoin Core project since it is by far the most responsible and most reliable when it comes to avoiding consensus failures
3102017-09-13T10:24:16 <gmaxwell> So you are trying to say that the slack disagrees with the community here and most of the people actually writing the software and supporting it all these years?
3112017-09-13T10:24:47 <CodeShark> most of the disagreements are ultimately immaterial, IMHO - there's a strong alliance in terms of overall general vision and philosophy
3122017-09-13T10:24:48 *** alreadylate has quit IRC
3132017-09-13T10:25:01 <CodeShark> perhaps the branding is still an issue
3142017-09-13T10:26:06 *** alreadylate has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3152017-09-13T10:27:16 <OdaNobunaga> During last spring and summer the mood on the slack was "Core is too soft", "merge UASF already", but overall they support the vision of core devs
3162017-09-13T10:27:35 <gmaxwell> Who knows if they do.
3172017-09-13T10:28:07 <gmaxwell> Since the communication isn't actually there.
3182017-09-13T10:28:48 <CodeShark> I think I've had good communications with many of the people who have been in the Slack
3192017-09-13T10:28:50 <OdaNobunaga> If we're talking public relations and community mood, it's what's being said publicly that matters
3202017-09-13T10:28:54 <CodeShark> and I agree with OdaNobunaga's assessment
3212017-09-13T10:29:08 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: yes with _YOU_. You whom we were already criticizing for being a bit disconnected!
3222017-09-13T10:29:21 <CodeShark> you know how to get a hold of me
3232017-09-13T10:29:30 <gmaxwell> I know how to speak to a brick wall too.
3242017-09-13T10:29:50 <gmaxwell> Both currently appear to be acomplishing about equal amounts.
3252017-09-13T10:30:46 <CodeShark> I'll be totally blunt here - I deeply respect your domain knowledge and breadth of understanding and have learned tremendously from you...but I also strongly disagree with the public relations strategy the Bitcoin Core project had a couple years ago
3262017-09-13T10:30:57 <gmaxwell> OdaNobunaga: point there being that they might not have actually been saying those things if they would like, you know, actually talk to people. I recently had a long conversation with someone who has mostly been on slack for the past couple months and there was a lot of mutual surprise at what people were thinking.
3272017-09-13T10:31:24 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: if you "strongly disagree" then you have no business using our name and speaking for it.
3282017-09-13T10:31:36 <gmaxwell> That is just dishonest.
3292017-09-13T10:31:42 <CodeShark> I always say I'm speaking for myself
3302017-09-13T10:31:49 <CodeShark> when it comes to controversial issues
3312017-09-13T10:32:35 <CodeShark> and I always try to give credit to all the top contributors as best as I can
3322017-09-13T10:33:47 <CodeShark> I have invested FAR more of my time promoting Bitcoin Core than Ciphrex in the last two years
3332017-09-13T10:33:58 <CodeShark> and get paid nothing for it
3342017-09-13T10:34:31 <CodeShark> using the name was because otherwise what am I promoting? for better or worse, the Bitcoin Core project was where the greatest protocol expertise was concentrated
3352017-09-13T10:35:09 <OdaNobunaga> Regarding the "will Core use BIP9 again" thing, I agree there's a huge disconnect between what the community (on slack and to a lesser extent reddit) thinks of what core will do (never do it again) vs. your idea of using BIP9 with BIP8 as fallback
3362017-09-13T10:35:32 <CodeShark> perhaps BIP9 will be used again - but for now, BIP9 feels very demoralizing to many users
3372017-09-13T10:35:52 *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3382017-09-13T10:35:52 <CodeShark> it makes them feel powerless against hostile miners
3392017-09-13T10:35:54 <OdaNobunaga> So yeah there's not a very good communication between core and the venues on this issue (and other protocol level issues)
3402017-09-13T10:36:24 <CodeShark> the technical details of activation mechanisms took a back seat to giving users more of a voice
3412017-09-13T10:36:32 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: your uncoordinated comments on that will _directly_ goof up efforts to do otherwise. Instead of having a consistent, empowering, position, we're now forced into a mess.
3422017-09-13T10:36:43 <CodeShark> howso?
3432017-09-13T10:37:53 <gmaxwell> Says one thing, does another-- which will drive the headline; rather than the message of the complete arc which is user empowering. It'll just be "core backs down and does BIP9 anyways".
3442017-09-13T10:38:34 *** seone has quit IRC
3452017-09-13T10:38:43 <CodeShark> actively alienating people doesn't help either, gmaxwell
3462017-09-13T10:39:18 <gmaxwell> Splitting the community does exactly that!
3472017-09-13T10:39:18 <CodeShark> especially people who have proven helpful, even if they don't always agree on everything or even understand everything
3482017-09-13T10:39:41 <CodeShark> it wasn't me who split the community
3492017-09-13T10:39:49 <CodeShark> I did everything I could to help heal it
3502017-09-13T10:40:01 <CodeShark> including traveling around the entire world at my own expense to talk to all the major players
3512017-09-13T10:40:11 <OdaNobunaga> I think it would be great to have a way of following core devs's discussions regarding protocol changes, like the table that listed devs' opinions regarding BIP148, 149, segwit2x etc.
3522017-09-13T10:40:13 <gmaxwell> what.. no you're confused about what I meant there.
3532017-09-13T10:40:44 <gmaxwell> By splitting the community I mean creating a parallel and seperate Bitcoin Core chat community and directing traffic there instead of where the actual bitcoin project people are.
3542017-09-13T10:40:53 <gmaxwell> Thats the split I'm referring to.
3552017-09-13T10:41:15 <CodeShark> I think drak is the one you need to talk to ;)
3562017-09-13T10:41:16 <gmaxwell> It results in not having a consistent and widely understood set of expectations about how things progress.
3572017-09-13T10:41:42 <gmaxwell> You're the one that showed up here vigorously arguing not to fix it, which is why it's you I'm arguing with. Not otherwise!
3582017-09-13T10:41:55 <CodeShark> I'm just a guest like anyone else on the Core slack
3592017-09-13T10:42:04 <gmaxwell> OdaNobunaga: Tables don't replace actually talking to each other.
3602017-09-13T10:42:06 <gmaxwell> :)
3612017-09-13T10:42:08 <CodeShark> I have no moderator privileges, do not administer it in any way
3622017-09-13T10:42:21 <gmaxwell> OdaNobunaga: you don't learn that people are in no way timid from a table. :)
3632017-09-13T10:42:36 <OdaNobunaga> Yeha I'm thinking more of a kind of wiki of devs' opinions and debates than a table
3642017-09-13T10:42:55 <gmaxwell> OdaNobunaga: well the debates are mostly on IRC, you're welcome to also join them! :)
3652017-09-13T10:42:57 <OdaNobunaga> Perhaps I could work on something like that
3662017-09-13T10:44:02 <OdaNobunaga> Yes of course, but even the enlightened hodler would probably want something more simple and less time consuming than following the debates, perhaps we need a layer of vulgarisation and popularisation between these debates and the general public
3672017-09-13T10:44:26 <gmaxwell> OdaNobunaga: absolutely. well in theory thats what industry press is supposed to do.
3682017-09-13T10:45:29 <OdaNobunaga> Yeah but I think it's too low granularity and doesn't transcribe nuances well
3692017-09-13T10:45:41 <CodeShark> there are very few good journalists out there - they usually go with whatever story they are first presented with and don't do much research
3702017-09-13T10:45:49 <OdaNobunaga> Though I would love to see Bitcoinmagazine doing something like that
3712017-09-13T10:45:49 *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3722017-09-13T10:45:58 <CodeShark> it takes a proactive approach to make sure they use good sources
3732017-09-13T10:46:14 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: I'm not trying to show any lack of thanks for your help; But I am very concerned with the ongoing splitting and isolation created by having this core slack with few people active in core around it. That isn't your doing, but you started the conversation defending it... so thats the only reason I'm arguing with you about it.
3742017-09-13T10:46:49 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3752017-09-13T10:48:17 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: sorry if I made you feel unappricated. But your comments also did the same to me; e.g. not showing understanding of my concern, and seemingly being okay with isolating the "sociopolitical movement" from me, because apparently I'm guilty of the crime of being a bit fluent in software. :)
3762017-09-13T10:48:27 *** BashCo has quit IRC
3772017-09-13T10:48:32 <CodeShark> I think it's good for there to be forums where people can discuss stuff that isn't necessarily deep down in the code and can congregate for the sense of feeling as part of a larger community
3782017-09-13T10:48:49 <CodeShark> or if not good, at least a necessary part of the human condition
3792017-09-13T10:48:57 <CodeShark> and fighting against this is fighting against human nature
3802017-09-13T10:49:03 *** OdaNobunaga has quit IRC
3812017-09-13T10:49:08 <gmaxwell> Good thing I never said anything of the sort!
3822017-09-13T10:49:51 <gmaxwell> There are dozens of non-technical bitcoin channels on IRC-- ones that also get participation from many of the longest standing bitcoin users and technical contributors too.
3832017-09-13T10:51:28 <gmaxwell> My interest in Bitcoin is primarily political, the same is true for (I assume) most of the technical contributors.
3842017-09-13T10:52:45 <gmaxwell> The greatest insult rbtc uses against me is "You're a great coder."
3852017-09-13T10:55:01 *** goatpig has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3862017-09-13T10:55:14 <CodeShark> I'm not trying to say you should only focus on code. on the contrary, I think you're a great source of inspiration to the movement when you do things like give public talks or write good blog posts
3872017-09-13T10:55:22 <midnightmagic> God I hate reading that one..
3882017-09-13T10:56:01 <CodeShark> I think you should write more blog posts and give more talks and do more videos and interviews and argue less on reddit ;)
3892017-09-13T10:56:03 <gmaxwell> Too bad hundreds of people never get to talk to me because they've been siphoned off into a Bitcoin Core chat group that I'm not in.
3902017-09-13T10:56:54 * midnightmagic randomly hugs everybody
3912017-09-13T10:57:15 <CodeShark> gmaxwell: you chose not to participate in that slack group
3922017-09-13T10:57:36 <gmaxwell> I choose to not screw over my community by personally contributing to the split!
3932017-09-13T10:58:16 <midnightmagic> Each individual, non-correlatable channel of communication divides attention from the others. :-( I would argue it's not much of a choice anyway due to the security implications in Slack.
3942017-09-13T10:58:46 <midnightmagic> *gently and with good cheer argue
3952017-09-13T10:58:59 *** intcat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3962017-09-13T10:59:35 <CodeShark> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHHitXxH-us
3972017-09-13T11:00:17 <intcat> gmaxwell: nobody is preventing you from joining the slack, you can even do it with an irc client ;)
3982017-09-13T11:00:35 <gmaxwell> 03:57:35 < gmaxwell> I choose to not screw over my community by personally contributing to the split!
3992017-09-13T11:01:42 <intcat> meanwhile people like me who prefer connecting to irc over tor so as to not expose IP to anyone lurking in bitcoin-related channels and suffering frequent disconnects as a result cant unfortunately follow all discussion here
4002017-09-13T11:01:49 <gmaxwell> And trying to move everyone there wouldn't be realistic or wise, because web chat is really hated by many people; and because it's a commercial platform with an unknown lifetime, which might well just decide to sell that slack to ver tomorrow for all we know, and all the other assorted issues.
4012017-09-13T11:02:35 <gmaxwell> intcat: you can plumb your tor circuts through more reliable nodes to reduce that problem FWIW.
4022017-09-13T11:03:43 <gmaxwell> I've generally found that in most interesting channels there is far too much volume to read the backscroll in any case, you can just read the last bit and get linked things as needed.
4032017-09-13T11:10:38 <midnightmagic> intcat: The IRC bridge fails to post updates to comments. At best, it is a dim and opaque link into the slack chat.
4042017-09-13T11:12:14 <intcat> midnightmagic: i suppose... if the argument is about being excluded from conversations its better than nothing though
4052017-09-13T11:12:19 <midnightmagic> intcat: There are ways of achieving reliability over Tor but your latency suffers a lot. :-(
4062017-09-13T11:24:53 *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4072017-09-13T11:25:05 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
4082017-09-13T11:27:12 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4092017-09-13T11:29:37 *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4102017-09-13T11:30:15 *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
4112017-09-13T11:37:39 *** rockhouse has quit IRC
4122017-09-13T11:39:33 *** rockhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4132017-09-13T11:41:53 *** ula has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4142017-09-13T11:42:24 * esotericnonsense feels like this isn't an issue unique to the current situation, there must be other examples of where slack has reduced participation by developers
4152017-09-13T11:44:38 <esotericnonsense> you would see similar effects if you had say a reddit /r/bitcoincoredev group vs. a mailing list or a usenet group, i personally just don't feel it lends itself as readily to constructive discussion
4162017-09-13T11:45:09 <esotericnonsense> not because of the audience, more the sort of 'social norms' that evolve as a result of the interface itself
4172017-09-13T11:45:56 <molz> gmaxwell, the Core slack has bridges to this channel and #bitcoin-dev, many people on the slack read these channels and more informed of what's going on with the development than you know, and if not for the slack, these people would never join IRC or know what's going on with the bitcoin development
4182017-09-13T11:47:49 <esotericnonsense> why are the ircc bridges are omnidirectional? is it a restriction in slack itself or was that chosen?
4192017-09-13T11:47:58 <esotericnonsense> argh. why are the irc bridges omnidirectional*
4202017-09-13T11:48:52 *** newbold has quit IRC
4212017-09-13T11:49:17 *** newbold has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4222017-09-13T11:50:56 <gmaxwell> molz: that kind of thing doesn't work, there are incredible misconceptions that come from just not talking. As far as never find it... http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=bitcoin works pretty well for public chat.
4232017-09-13T11:51:36 <gmaxwell> molz: and clearly they often _don't_ know whats going on, since getting glimpses of a highly technical channel, just isn't the same as joining people for casual chat.
4242017-09-13T11:52:44 <molz> gmaxwell, what would you suggest? you want to close the core slack and force everyone to join IRC? the only channel they can talk is #bitcoin but even that channel is not for everything one can discuss
4252017-09-13T11:53:40 *** Aaronvan_ is now known as AaronvanW
4262017-09-13T11:54:18 <gmaxwell> molz: there are lots of channels, and people can create more. As far as what I suggest, I don't know, thats why it's a discussion-- but I think the current situation is double plus ungood.
4272017-09-13T11:54:59 *** lari has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4282017-09-13T11:56:28 <molz> gmaxwell, i'm a long time IRC fan, and i can appreciate what IRC can do, i still suggest people to seek tech help on IRC if no one can help them on the slack, but there's one thing i've noticed: not many people like being on IRC with just tech
4292017-09-13T11:56:52 <molz> s/tech/text
4302017-09-13T12:13:44 *** OdaNobunaga has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4312017-09-13T12:21:56 *** OdaNobunaga has quit IRC
4322017-09-13T12:26:53 <Chicago> Excuse my cynicism, but I look at Slack the same way as systemd. They both fit a need for some people but are being overwhelmingly adopted and pushed out to the masses as the one true way, needlessly. No doubt if you want to capture new eyeballs, its hard to avoid Slack -- but if people are taught how to use an IRC client, they tend to use it rather than the freenode webchat interface.
4332017-09-13T12:31:37 <meshcollider> fwiw I agree with gmaxwell, and I appreciate the newspeak reference ;)
4342017-09-13T12:33:05 <meshcollider> esotericnonsense: do you mean unidirectional?
4352017-09-13T12:35:43 *** dabura667 has quit IRC
4362017-09-13T12:41:39 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4372017-09-13T12:55:07 *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4382017-09-13T12:56:44 <BashCo_> Okay I've read the past several hours of scrollback, minus some missing chunks due to flaky internet and IRC's inherent lack of persistent messaging. Despite this, I'd like to share my opinion on the matter of disjointed yet supportive communities on separate platforms. I'll preface this by saying I'm more active on Slack than on IRC.
4392017-09-13T12:56:50 <BashCo_> The 'Core' entity is bigger than just developers. Thankfully it is filled with a lot of supporters, many of whom find IRC inaccessible and unengaging. They use Slack because it provides a modern interface accessible on various platforms, including mobile.
4402017-09-13T12:56:54 <BashCo_> Slack offers message persistence without the hassle of an IRC bouncer, and superior media integration. Freenode webchat and desktop clients are woefully inadequate IMHO. Plus the privacy implications of using freenode, which automatically shares your IP address unless you research how to request unaffiliated.
4412017-09-13T12:56:58 <BashCo_> For end users, Slack provides a better experience hands down. It's not intended primarily for developers, but for community members, although devs are strongly encouraged to pop in every once in a while. I do wish that there was an equivalent FOSS solution.
4422017-09-13T12:57:03 <BashCo_> https://rocket.chat is pretty comparable to Slack and open source. It would require hosting and maintenance, and we would need to migrate the Slack userbase which is not impossible.
4432017-09-13T12:57:08 <BashCo_> The reason for the decline in IRC participation is likely because it's seen as an outmoded form of communication. It has its strengths, but they do not outweigh the benefits provided to end users on modern platforms.
4442017-09-13T12:57:12 <BashCo_> I'm also puzzled by the notion that the Slack channel is bad for the 'Core' brand. Sure there was some some silly dragonsden drama, but most people saw that it was basically fabricated. Dragonsden has actually morphed into a meme that some people are proud to be a part of. Really the channel just provides a better signal-to-noise ratio.
4452017-09-13T12:57:18 <BashCo_> If you think the Slack is toxic for our community, then I think you're missing out on a lot of great interaction, and that perspective is short-sighted IMO. Furthermore, I don't see any proposed solution beyond attempting to herd 6000 accounts into this dev channel (dev channel, not community channel. topic encourages observation.). Good luck conducting weekly dev meetings with all that noise. Imagine if all of reddit/Twitter ha
4462017-09-13T12:57:18 <BashCo_> ppened on github/mailinglist.
4472017-09-13T12:57:23 <BashCo_> Lots of talk about communication problems, but the reality is that Core devs have a massive audience that several devs are not embracing simply because the audience prefers a platform that mets their comfort standards. If Slack has inaccurate information, it's partly because devs are choosing not to engage with that audience. Go to the audience.
4482017-09-13T12:57:38 <BashCo_> The 'split communities' (IRC/Slack/Twitter/reddit/etc) are a simple reality that we have to come to terms with. Maybe it's unfortunate that 'Core' is in the Slack team name, but plain 'Bitcoin' is apparently being squatted. Even that would not solve anything since most people will still prefer Slack over IRC. /sorryforflood
4492017-09-13T12:57:58 *** BashCo has quit IRC
4502017-09-13T12:59:47 <pigeons> I don't buy the non-technical users don't like irc thing, look at DALnet
4512017-09-13T13:02:01 <Chicago> ... and the minute an IRC based community capitulates to Slack, along will come the Slack killer and a new platform with another closed system and closed protocol will demand your participation.
4522017-09-13T13:05:12 <BashCo_> I'm reasonably technical and I explained that Slack is superior in ways that are appealing to end users. The proprietary nature is unfortunate, hence my rocket.chat suggestion.
4532017-09-13T13:18:35 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
4542017-09-13T13:19:03 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4552017-09-13T13:21:48 *** griswaalt[m] has quit IRC
4562017-09-13T13:21:49 *** kewde[m] has quit IRC
4572017-09-13T13:24:53 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
4582017-09-13T13:25:27 *** alreadylate has quit IRC
4592017-09-13T13:25:46 *** herzmeister[m] has quit IRC
4602017-09-13T13:26:10 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4612017-09-13T13:29:07 *** drizztbsd has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4622017-09-13T13:29:25 *** timothy has quit IRC
4632017-09-13T13:29:30 *** drizztbsd is now known as timothy
4642017-09-13T13:30:30 *** sdaftuar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4652017-09-13T13:33:19 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #11319: [qa] Fix error introduced into p2p-segwit.py, and prevent future similar errors (master...2017-09-fix-p2p-segwit) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11319
4662017-09-13T13:40:34 *** sontol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4672017-09-13T13:42:48 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
4682017-09-13T13:45:58 *** griswaalt[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4692017-09-13T13:46:22 <sontol> sorry to disturb you all
4702017-09-13T13:46:43 *** wxxs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4712017-09-13T13:46:43 <sontol> but I feel the need to defend Eric
4722017-09-13T13:47:20 <sontol> (ironically I never used the slack, I just happen to see the convo in time)
4732017-09-13T13:47:37 <sontol> I think it is really important to educate people on the hard facts
4742017-09-13T13:47:44 <sontol> Even if that will result in something that you don't plan for (e.g BIP148)
4752017-09-13T13:48:03 <sontol> gmaxwell: please don't act as if you're innocent in this case
4762017-09-13T13:48:11 <sontol> had you kept mum about ASICBOOST and propose BIP149-like activation proposal animosity towards Bitmain won't go through the roof
4772017-09-13T13:48:20 <sontol> and people would be calmer
4782017-09-13T13:48:33 <sontol> I'd also appreciate it if the current contributors stop pulling the age card (I've been doing this longer than you so my opinion carries more weight)
4792017-09-13T13:48:45 <sontol> That's the same trick that was pulled by Gavin's supporters
4802017-09-13T13:48:58 <sontol> I'd worry that this same trick would be used against let's say Alex Morcos (sorry to use your name, just an example)
4812017-09-13T13:49:07 <midnightmagic> not the best place for it, dude.
4822017-09-13T13:49:19 <MarcoFalke> I feel like this conversation should be held in another place
4832017-09-13T13:49:20 <sontol> yeah I know
4842017-09-13T13:49:28 <sontol> normally I keep mum
4852017-09-13T13:49:34 <sontol> but since this happen here
4862017-09-13T13:49:47 <sontol> I feel it is necessary to bring it here
4872017-09-13T13:49:52 <sontol> I will keep quiet
4882017-09-13T13:49:55 <sontol> after this
4892017-09-13T13:50:03 <midnightmagic> He's over in #bitcoin too, last I checked.
4902017-09-13T13:50:04 * midnightmagic points
4912017-09-13T13:51:27 *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4922017-09-13T13:52:41 *** kewde[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4932017-09-13T13:52:42 *** herzmeister[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4942017-09-13T13:58:04 *** ryanofsky_ is now known as ryanofsky
4952017-09-13T14:00:57 *** sontol has quit IRC
4962017-09-13T14:04:52 *** morcos has quit IRC
4972017-09-13T14:07:13 <esotericnonsense> meshcollider: yes, unidirectional. oops :)
4982017-09-13T14:08:00 *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4992017-09-13T14:10:47 *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5002017-09-13T14:26:01 *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5012017-09-13T14:27:01 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
5022017-09-13T14:28:09 *** Aaronvan_ is now known as AaronvanW
5032017-09-13T14:29:48 <achow101> what's holding up 0.15.0 now? release notes?
5042017-09-13T14:39:18 <MarcoFalke> achow101: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-process.md#after-3-or-more-people-have-gitian-built-and-their-results-match
5052017-09-13T14:39:20 <MarcoFalke> :)
5062017-09-13T14:39:50 <MarcoFalke> wumpus might still be traveling
5072017-09-13T14:45:09 *** wxxs_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5082017-09-13T14:45:33 *** wxxs has quit IRC
5092017-09-13T14:45:40 *** wxxs_ is now known as wxxs
5102017-09-13T14:53:39 <achow101> MarcoFalke: ah, I didn't realize wumpus might still be traveling
5112017-09-13T14:55:24 *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
5122017-09-13T14:59:42 *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
5132017-09-13T15:04:56 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5142017-09-13T15:08:06 *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5152017-09-13T15:08:46 *** timothy has quit IRC
5162017-09-13T15:13:21 *** fluidjax has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5172017-09-13T15:20:59 *** rockhouse has quit IRC
5182017-09-13T15:23:04 *** SopaXorzTaker is now known as Xanukkah
5192017-09-13T15:25:34 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
5202017-09-13T15:29:09 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dooglus opened pull request #11320: Include the wallet name in log messages relating to wallets (master...wallet_name_in_log) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11320
5212017-09-13T15:37:48 <BlueMatt> BashCo: a large part of what led to the xt issue was people speaking "on behalf of the technical project" saying things that were 180deg from what people who actually contributed to the technical project viewed...148 is an example of what happens in situations like that, many people seem to still think that 148 was somehow connected to or pushed by core contributors, when, in fact, it was pretty much luke and a bunch of people in the
5222017-09-13T15:37:49 <BlueMatt> "Core Slack" (which is not connected to Core)
5232017-09-13T15:38:10 <BlueMatt> it is very dangerous for these things to coninute to be needlessly linked
5242017-09-13T15:38:58 <BlueMatt> and the "splitbrain community" issues greg raised are also critical here - as the Bitcoin community grows Bitcoin becomes harder to change, and thats good, but it should not do so needlessly simply because parts of the community do not sufficiently communicate with other parts
5252017-09-13T15:39:47 <BlueMatt> while I understand the migration from Reddit and IRC to some extent, pushing folks towards Slack has, in large part, simply added yet another disconnected venue for Bitcoin discussion, creating yet another fork of the community whcih does not sufficiently communicate with other parts
5262017-09-13T15:43:07 <achow101> BlueMatt: I think that a lot of people on slack wouldn't be engaged in the community otherwise. I think many users find slack to be more user friendly than IRC with more features that they want to use (e.g. ability to post images)
5272017-09-13T15:43:35 <achow101> s/the community/any bitcoin related discussion community/
5282017-09-13T15:43:54 <BlueMatt> yes, there is a tradeoff to be made here
5292017-09-13T15:44:23 *** OdaNobunaga has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5302017-09-13T15:45:04 <BlueMatt> I absolutely agree there is some value in it, but some active steps should be taken to a) make clear this is not somehow a community related to bitcoin core (the technical project) and b) try to enforce lack of splitbrain
5312017-09-13T15:45:18 <BlueMatt> I dont know what all the steps are for b, but its something we should be cautiously aware of and try to address
5322017-09-13T15:46:00 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] mess110 closed pull request #11314: [tests] Add abortrescan RPC test (master...add-abortrescan-rpc-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11314
5332017-09-13T15:46:47 <achow101> It's hard to avoid splitbrain when there are multiple distinct communities
5342017-09-13T15:47:49 *** GAit has quit IRC
5352017-09-13T15:48:10 <OdaNobunaga> It's been suggested (today on the slack) to rebrand the slack into something not connected to core, for example "bitcoincommunity" or something like that (the bitcoin subdomain of slack is already taken)
5362017-09-13T15:48:47 *** GAit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5372017-09-13T15:50:41 <BashCo> Before saying the Slack isn't connected to Core, we would need to define the Core entity. It's often said that Core as an entity has indistinct boundaries by design. By saying Slack is not 'connected' to Core, you're defining a hard boundary which happens to exclude thousands of people.
5382017-09-13T15:50:44 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: more Core developers supported 148 than opposed it
5392017-09-13T15:51:20 <luke-jr> (but more importantly, it shouldn't matter)
5402017-09-13T15:51:39 <luke-jr> BashCo: Core isn't an entity at all
5412017-09-13T15:52:02 <luke-jr> it's code
5422017-09-13T15:52:11 <BashCo> I understand Core was in a tight spot re BIP148. People said it had to come from the users, and it did. Thankfully it was a great success.
5432017-09-13T15:54:18 <BashCo> luke-jr: you're referring to the codebase. I think Core is more than that. Core also includes email contributions and community support.
5442017-09-13T15:56:34 <BashCo> If Slack isn't connected to Core, I wonder if anyone will spearhead a robust rocket.chat server as an 'official' Core community, or if devs really expect their supporters to just lurk on IRC.
5452017-09-13T15:56:36 <luke-jr> BashCo: I don't agree. The latter is simply the Bitcoin community.
5462017-09-13T15:57:08 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5472017-09-13T15:58:59 <BashCo> yeah fair enough. The Bitcoin community also has ambiguously defined boundaries. Lucky for Core, a large contingent of those communities support Core. That's why I think it's short sighted to pressure those communities to disband in favor of inferior platforms.
5482017-09-13T15:59:52 <luke-jr> I don't agree IRC is inferior ;)
5492017-09-13T15:59:57 <BashCo> Instead, I think those who are 'connected to Core' should go to their audience and engage directly.
5502017-09-13T16:01:16 <BashCo> I know, and I understand why many here agree with you. But the fact remains that there are too many disadvantages for most users who are otherwise quite happy on their platform of choice.
5512017-09-13T16:01:28 <OdaNobunaga> Slack is much better than IRC if you want to engage with an audience of mostly non-technical/not-so-technical people
5522017-09-13T16:03:21 <BashCo> Keep in mind that a lot of people within the community try to avoid participating on Github, mailing lists, and core-dev because they're viewed as developer sanctuaries. Not a place for memes, emojis and lame jokes with friends.
5532017-09-13T16:05:44 <esotericnonsense> i agree with luke on the boundary. it seems rather odd to me. i'm not sure that watercooler chat needs to be 'officially sanctioned'
5542017-09-13T16:06:58 *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5552017-09-13T16:07:01 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
5562017-09-13T16:07:13 <BashCo> can a non-entity officially sanction anything?
5572017-09-13T16:07:26 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
5582017-09-13T16:08:10 <esotericnonsense> i'm struggling to find accurate wording here
5592017-09-13T16:08:26 *** meshcollider has quit IRC
5602017-09-13T16:09:15 <harding> It seems to me that the desire is not to drive all users to the same interactive communication platform, but rather for all developers to communicate with each other (and users) from the same platform to ensure the opinions expressed there are represenative of the whole project (including disagreements, nuances, and other important details).
5612017-09-13T16:09:30 <esotericnonsense> yes, indeed
5622017-09-13T16:09:32 *** Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5632017-09-13T16:10:29 <esotericnonsense> the problem seems to be that slack naturally attracts more casual users and irc naturally attracts development (with overlap of course). this doesn't seem surprising to me, it matches what I see in other communities
5642017-09-13T16:11:44 <esotericnonsense> it seems to me that outreach from one group to the other has to be deliberate and won't happen accidentally simply as a result of that
5652017-09-13T16:13:19 <esotericnonsense> in particular dev work benefits from a reduction in noise, irc can be distracting enough as it is!
5662017-09-13T16:13:31 <BashCo> So how to bridge that divide? Devs have opportunities to write blogs, reddit posts, podcast interviews, schmooze in Slack and get down to business in IRC. But some devs shy away from those avenues for understandable reasons.
5672017-09-13T16:14:37 <BashCo> I guess my point is that those connected to Core can bring their voice to disjointed communities through various means.
5682017-09-13T16:15:44 <chainhead> Rename it to Core Community slack
5692017-09-13T16:17:37 *** luke-jr has quit IRC
5702017-09-13T16:18:22 <harding> BashCo: isn't that treating the symptom, when the problem is the disjointed communities in the first place? I believe the argument here, which I agree with, is that communication is going from users <-> some devs <-> rest of the devs, where it should really be going from users <-> all devs.
5712017-09-13T16:18:26 <BashCo> gmaxwell's meetup vid covering 0.15 was really popular. a 'sunday talk show' circuit covering various bitcoin media outlets could get a great response, but I understand it has the negative effect of placing devs on pedestals and creating PR spokesmen.
5722017-09-13T16:18:54 <esotericnonsense> i agree with harding. there's always going to be a reduction in information transfer that way.
5732017-09-13T16:18:57 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5742017-09-13T16:19:24 <esotericnonsense> i suppose my personal view is that if you are interested and want to know about something, the onus is on you to find the relevant channels and use them, if they'
5752017-09-13T16:19:49 <esotericnonsense> if they're actually inaccessible (work going on behind closed doors) that is a different matter entirely, but i'm not seeing that
5762017-09-13T16:20:04 <BashCo> harding: I don't know how to get all redditors, Tweeters, Slackers, bloggers, etc to a single platform, so I'm treating that problem as incurable.
5772017-09-13T16:20:29 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5782017-09-13T16:20:48 <MarcoFalke> Indeed, and some devs prefer not to, as well
5792017-09-13T16:20:49 <harding> BashCo: as I said above, I think the desire is not to get all Bitcoin users on the same platform; merely to get all developers on the same platform.
5802017-09-13T16:21:29 <harding> That way there's a single source of reference for communication with the project.
5812017-09-13T16:21:45 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/96ac26e56627...8df48b36ed32
5822017-09-13T16:21:46 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fadd0c1 MarcoFalke: [qa] zapwallettxes: Wait up to 3s for mempool reload
5832017-09-13T16:21:46 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8df48b3 MarcoFalke: Merge #11308: [qa] zapwallettxes: Wait up to 3s for mempool reload...
5842017-09-13T16:21:50 <harding> interactive communication *
5852017-09-13T16:22:31 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #11308: [qa] zapwallettxes: Wait up to 3s for mempool reload (master...Mf1709-qaZap3s) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11308
5862017-09-13T16:23:04 <BashCo> esotericnonsense: on the other hand, if you're displeased with your supporters, the onus is on you to seek them out and educate them. Besides, it's not so much that they want to chat with devs, but to chat with fellow supporters.
5872017-09-13T16:23:54 <MarcoFalke> harding: I don't think there should be a "single source of reference for communication"
5882017-09-13T16:24:07 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
5892017-09-13T16:24:15 <MarcoFalke> some devs might prefer not to communicate with users or communicate with them by other means
5902017-09-13T16:24:25 <BashCo> harding: I think it's up to those connected with the Core non-entity to find a way to amplify their message across all platforms.
5912017-09-13T16:27:37 <harding> MarcoFalke: is your argument that devs shouldn't be forced to participate on IRC (which I agree with) or that it's bad for there to be a single place (perhaps with multiple channel) where devs do all of their interactive communication?
5922017-09-13T16:28:39 <MarcoFalke> Both
5932017-09-13T16:29:48 <harding> BashCo: so he who self-promotes the best represents the project the most? That doesn't sound desirable to me.
5942017-09-13T16:32:44 <harding> MarcoFalke: I can't think of a compelling reason why a single congregating point for interactive discussion about the project would be bad. Could you explain more about why you think that?
5952017-09-13T16:33:12 *** rockhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5962017-09-13T16:33:42 <BashCo> harding: that's the conundrum. there can't be any 'official' Core communities (or spokesmen) which are not sanctioned by the intentionally ambiguous Core non-entity which may or may not have the ability to sanction anything at all.
5972017-09-13T16:34:40 <chainhead> A single point can't be everything to everyone, it makes sense to have different communications channels to suit different types of audiences
5982017-09-13T16:35:59 <chainhead> Personally I'm banned from Core Slack but I still think it makes sense to exist, and having a single community would also mean then I would be banned from everywhere
5992017-09-13T16:36:04 <harding> BashCo: that's an argument about what it is or is not possible to enforce. I think the important point is about what contributors to the Bitcoin Core project, mainly developers, choose to do regarding interactive communication.
6002017-09-13T16:37:42 <afk11> harding, it might be a problem if it's touch to connect from your phone..
6012017-09-13T16:37:48 <afk11> tough*
6022017-09-13T16:38:35 <MarcoFalke> harding: It would force anyone who wanted to participate to that single place. So contributors to the project who prefer not to "register" with that place are excluded. Also, it gives the impression that dicsussion that happens in other places is consequently unrelated to the project
6032017-09-13T16:40:17 <BashCo> agreed. my personal opinion is that there are opportunities for developers to do more on that front. But I've seen a lot of reluctance in that regard, primarily because devs don't want to be viewed as spokesmen for the project.
6042017-09-13T16:41:20 *** OdaNobunaga has quit IRC
6052017-09-13T16:44:19 *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6062017-09-13T16:45:04 <harding> MarcoFalke: there are no means for enforcement, and likely any contributor who has trouble connecting to IRC in a manner they find suitable need only ask for help and some gracious person will provide it. Regarding your second point, I think that's an advantage at avoiding having a small group of contributors speak inappropriately for the larger share of contributors.
6072017-09-13T16:47:34 <harding> BashCo: indeed no one decent wants to be *the* spokesperson for the project, but I think many contributors are comfortable talking about the project when surrounded by other contributors who will correct any inaccuracies. That's an advantage of having a single point of congregation for interactive communication.
6082017-09-13T16:47:35 *** wxxs has quit IRC
6092017-09-13T16:48:35 *** wxxs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6102017-09-13T16:52:38 <esotericnonsense> hm. i think i've managed to dump core by sending an odd RPC request somehow.
6112017-09-13T16:53:03 *** rockhouse has quit IRC
6122017-09-13T16:53:19 *** luke-jr has quit IRC
6132017-09-13T16:54:03 <BashCo> harding: there's a notable personality who expressed interest in hosting as many Core devs as possible on a weekly podcast. I think it was a 5-min interview with one dev (or more) per week. This would allow many contributors to speak about the project without a single spokesperson emerging. I think it's a good opportunity but that recurrent dev participation would be hard to muster.
6142017-09-13T16:55:02 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6152017-09-13T16:57:30 *** wxxs_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6162017-09-13T16:57:50 <BlueMatt> <luke-jr> BlueMatt: more Core developers supported 148 than opposed it <-- you keep saying that, I'm still far from convinced it is true
6172017-09-13T16:58:13 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8df48b36ed32...42973f834445
6182017-09-13T16:58:14 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0063d2c John Newbery: [tests] Make p2p-leaktests.py more robust
6192017-09-13T16:58:14 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 42973f8 MarcoFalke: Merge #11078: [tests] Make p2p-leaktests.py more robust...
6202017-09-13T16:58:16 <chainhead> It doesn't really matter too much either way
6212017-09-13T16:58:18 <harding> BashCo: I think I must've made my point poorly, because that's the exact opposite of what I intended to encourage. Certainly, people who want to do podcasts should feel free to do them, but the current problem isn't too few separate opinions but too many, or rather that individual opinions are being presented outside of the context of general group opinion.
6222017-09-13T16:58:53 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #11078: [tests] Make p2p-leaktests.py more robust (master...p2p_leaktests_robust) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11078
6232017-09-13T17:00:40 *** wxxs has quit IRC
6242017-09-13T17:00:40 *** wxxs_ is now known as wxxs
6252017-09-13T17:02:36 <BashCo> then maybe a blog where each dev makes PRs until wumpus merges them, but only after consensus has been reached.
6262017-09-13T17:04:50 <BashCo> it's difficult to distill the general opinion of a non-entity.
6272017-09-13T17:04:59 <wxxs> BashCo: how about a decentralized solution with an intermediary layer of volunteer spokesmen, who are good at interacting with users and filtering the noise
6282017-09-13T17:08:32 <BashCo> wxxs: sounds great to me. a git blog with several spokesmen who can convey and elaborate on that message to various platforms? I don't know if that meets harding's criteria though.
6292017-09-13T17:15:46 <esotericnonsense> is libevent only used for RPC/rest/torcontrol?
6302017-09-13T17:16:59 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #10881: trivial: fix various pyflakes/vulture warnings (master...vulture) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10881
6312017-09-13T17:37:22 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #11323: mininode: add an optimistic write and disable nagle (master...optimistic-mininode) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11323
6322017-09-13T17:39:12 <cfields_> jnewbery: you may be interested in ^^. I have no clue if that's safe with asyncore.
6332017-09-13T17:43:05 *** vicenteH has quit IRC
6342017-09-13T17:44:16 *** rockhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6352017-09-13T17:45:13 <jnewbery> cfields_ : I'll take a look. I wouldn't call myself an asyncore expert (nor do I want to become one - it's pretty strongly deprecated in favour of asyncio), but I can definitely kick the tires.
6362017-09-13T17:45:14 *** rockhouse has quit IRC
6372017-09-13T17:46:16 <cfields_> jnewbery: ah, good to know.
6382017-09-13T17:46:53 *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6392017-09-13T17:58:40 <MarcoFalke> jnewbery: I'd Concept ACK an pull getting rid of it ;)
6402017-09-13T17:58:49 <MarcoFalke> s/an/a/g
6412017-09-13T18:04:54 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6422017-09-13T18:06:51 *** atroxes has quit IRC
6432017-09-13T18:07:58 <jnewbery> MarcoFalke : I'd love to, but I think we've had enough refactor churn in the test_framework for the time being!
6442017-09-13T18:08:06 *** atroxes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6452017-09-13T18:08:19 <jnewbery> once everything's settled for a bit I might take a shot at it
6462017-09-13T18:09:44 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
6472017-09-13T18:12:23 <cfields_> jnewbery: well that PR (which presumably asyncio would nullify) shaves a nice chunk of time off of the tests. So it wouldn't be purely a refactor, at least.
6482017-09-13T18:14:31 *** morcos has quit IRC
6492017-09-13T18:15:08 *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6502017-09-13T18:16:56 *** morcos has quit IRC
6512017-09-13T18:17:39 *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6522017-09-13T18:20:27 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/42973f834445...7fcd61b2613c
6532017-09-13T18:20:27 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 77aa9e5 Wladimir J. van der Laan: test: Check RPC argument mapping...
6542017-09-13T18:20:28 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7fcd61b MarcoFalke: Merge #10753: test: Check RPC argument mapping...
6552017-09-13T18:20:52 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #10753: test: Check RPC argument mapping (master...2017_07_rpc_argument_check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10753
6562017-09-13T18:22:04 <jnewbery> cfields_ : yes, sounds good. I was referring to ripping out asyncore and replacing with asyncio as being a bit too churny at this point. Definite concept ACK for any small change that can shave minutes of test runs.
6572017-09-13T18:24:12 *** afk11 has quit IRC
6582017-09-13T18:24:28 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6592017-09-13T18:27:34 *** rockhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6602017-09-13T18:30:38 *** rockhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6612017-09-13T18:33:10 *** Xanukkah has quit IRC
6622017-09-13T18:33:29 *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6632017-09-13T18:43:50 *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
6642017-09-13T18:58:33 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
6652017-09-13T19:03:43 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6662017-09-13T19:06:07 *** sanada has quit IRC
6672017-09-13T19:12:49 <BlueMatt> are there any known bugs in 0.15 that -resetguisettings will fix that result in a segfault on startup on linux?
6682017-09-13T19:12:58 *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
6692017-09-13T19:14:19 <achow101> BlueMatt: related to 11117?
6702017-09-13T19:14:39 <BlueMatt> in 15?
6712017-09-13T19:15:07 <achow101> sorry, 11171
6722017-09-13T19:15:24 <BlueMatt> I was under the impression that was windows only?
6732017-09-13T19:15:52 <achow101> It was experienced on windows, but that does not mean it was limited to that
6742017-09-13T19:16:09 <achow101> it looks like it could have been a qt issue
6752017-09-13T19:16:27 <achow101> so possibly affecting all platforms
6762017-09-13T19:22:43 *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6772017-09-13T19:23:52 *** sanada has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6782017-09-13T19:24:52 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6792017-09-13T19:30:08 *** Dizzle has quit IRC
6802017-09-13T19:44:20 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
6812017-09-13T19:45:17 <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: I have a suggestion for a bit of a change to how #10200 works. "Pipeline mode". When CNB is called, it generates a template and then uses your comparison function to decide between a new template and a cached one. If it uses the cached one, it does not need to perform a TBV at all. It returns the result. If fees increased at all, It TBVs and caches the new template.
6822017-09-13T19:45:20 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10200 | Mining: Skip recent transactions if fee difference is small by sdaftuar · Pull Request #10200 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6832017-09-13T19:45:30 <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: so this would serve the dual purpose of getting TBV out of the critical path.
6842017-09-13T19:46:04 <gmaxwell> On a cold start it could just return the template with new transactions, or it could do what your code currently does if the additional complexity isn't great.
6852017-09-13T19:46:07 <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: i had some thoughts along those lines as well, but i wasn't sure how to square that with the caching that gbt already does
6862017-09-13T19:46:18 <sdaftuar> introduce two caches i guess?
6872017-09-13T19:46:54 <gmaxwell> yes, I think so. That outer cache is just to prevent outside stuff from DOS attacking by accident. It could be made much shorter.
6882017-09-13T19:48:10 <gmaxwell> I was thinking about this because I'm working on some new block relay stuff where you send a template, then template differentials as it changes, then a template differential to the full block when it eventually shows up. And for that it would be useful if templates were changing less often, and also if the one you were using was a slightly old one.
6892017-09-13T19:49:05 <gmaxwell> (my motivator is primarily mining off blocksat, but this could eventually make a BIP152 HB mode like transmission smaller and faster too)
6902017-09-13T19:49:33 <sdaftuar> with the cache approach you're suggesting, you would scrap the time-based logic altogether in addPackageTransactions, is that right?
6912017-09-13T19:49:53 <sdaftuar> i think the downside to that is that the first template after a block is found might needlessly include recent transactions
6922017-09-13T19:50:24 <sdaftuar> i kind of thought that the gbt caller could already do the caching that i think you're suggesting
6932017-09-13T19:50:24 *** brianhoffman__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6942017-09-13T19:50:52 <gmaxwell> Yes, -- so my thought on that was is that we'd scrap that, however it could be kept for the first one on a cold cache but I am not sure if its worth the code complexity.
6952017-09-13T19:52:03 <sdaftuar> i think scrapping it is fine, but i also think we could scrap all of this and just suggest that gbt callers do it. or move it all into gbt...
6962017-09-13T19:52:16 <sdaftuar> maybe that's the easiest thing
6972017-09-13T19:52:22 <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: well the gbt caller can't create a new non-TBV template and see if it pays a lot more fees. If you mean the GBT layer caching, it could, but there are often many callers... and that also requires them to be well behaved.
6982017-09-13T19:52:47 <sdaftuar> oh, i see
6992017-09-13T19:53:39 <gmaxwell> (I think expecting them to be well behaved is a bad idea, someone will spin up three pool daemons, they'll run in a fairly tight loop and prevent bitcoin from processing blocks, and wonder why they're getting orphan blocks)
7002017-09-13T19:54:22 <sdaftuar> yeah i never really knew how pool servers worked; allowing randoms to hit your RPC seems like a bad idea! but good to know if that's what people are doing.
7012017-09-13T19:54:36 <gmaxwell> but that GBT layer cache could be just a half-second thing, just to cap the number of new templates we construct per second.
7022017-09-13T19:55:58 <sdaftuar> ok yeah i think your suggestion sounds pretty good -- eliminating TBV except when the fees are enough to warrant an update seems like an easy win here, and mostly accomplishes the other goal as well.
7032017-09-13T19:56:26 <gmaxwell> For the first output after a block we could also produce an empty template, but I'm really not too keen on that. But yes, I thought this was a nice way to get two benefits at once.
7042017-09-13T19:57:41 *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7052017-09-13T19:57:54 <sdaftuar> (i am also not keen on the empty template thing)
7062017-09-13T19:58:42 *** Cheeseo has quit IRC
7072017-09-13T19:59:04 <gmaxwell> we could also return a non-TBVed template in that case; which is really 90% of the time, and we'd still catch a bad template and shut down while caching.
7082017-09-13T20:00:55 *** meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7092017-09-13T20:05:08 *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
7102017-09-13T20:05:14 *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7112017-09-13T20:09:48 <gmaxwell> not that running TBV in the background will be trivial.
7122017-09-13T20:19:22 <goatpig> is compressed keys in sw scripts invalid or just non standard?
7132017-09-13T20:19:27 <goatpig> err uncompressed
7142017-09-13T20:20:04 <sipa> nonstandard
7152017-09-13T20:20:10 <goatpig> thanks
7162017-09-13T20:20:35 *** tErik_mc1 has quit IRC
7172017-09-13T20:28:25 <BlueMatt> (but dont do it - its likely to become invalid sooner or later)
7182017-09-13T20:28:29 *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7192017-09-13T20:29:01 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
7202017-09-13T20:32:52 <gmaxwell> goatpig: why do you ask?
7212017-09-13T20:33:40 <goatpig> out of curiosity
7222017-09-13T20:33:52 <goatpig> hasving some fun on the testnet
7232017-09-13T20:35:01 *** Aaronvan_ is now known as AaronvanW
7242017-09-13T20:36:28 <sipa> testnet also enforces this rule
7252017-09-13T20:36:42 <goatpig> ive noticed
7262017-09-13T20:37:37 <sipa> the term 'standardness' has been used for two different things, non-mandatory script validity rules (of which this is one) which can't be disabled, and the actual IsStandard() function (which is only enforced on mainnet)
7272017-09-13T20:38:50 <goatpig> well i was thinking about it more in the sense of "wont be propagated but can be mined" and "cant be mined"
7282017-09-13T20:54:42 *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7292017-09-13T21:01:07 *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
7302017-09-13T21:13:39 *** goatpig has quit IRC
7312017-09-13T21:27:33 *** wolfspraul has quit IRC
7322017-09-13T21:27:42 *** wolfspraul has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7332017-09-13T21:34:52 *** Ylbam_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7342017-09-13T21:34:55 *** tknp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7352017-09-13T21:35:17 *** Ylbam_ has quit IRC
7362017-09-13T21:35:42 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7372017-09-13T21:40:52 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7382017-09-13T21:41:14 <promag> can someone kick travis job https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/275096269 ?
7392017-09-13T21:42:09 <sipa> promag: you can!
7402017-09-13T21:43:15 <promag> I can?
7412017-09-13T21:44:00 <sipa> promag: i sent you an invite
7422017-09-13T21:45:42 *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7432017-09-13T21:49:52 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
7442017-09-13T21:49:54 *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7452017-09-13T21:52:28 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7462017-09-13T21:52:53 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
7472017-09-13T21:54:01 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7482017-09-13T21:55:08 *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
7492017-09-13T21:56:23 *** promag has quit IRC
7502017-09-13T21:56:34 *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7512017-09-13T21:57:48 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7522017-09-13T21:59:08 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
7532017-09-13T21:59:53 <sipa> can i haz review on #11167 ?
7542017-09-13T21:59:56 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11167 | Full BIP173 (Bech32) support by sipa · Pull Request #11167 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
7552017-09-13T22:10:23 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7562017-09-13T22:10:38 *** meshcollider has quit IRC
7572017-09-13T22:12:54 *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
7582017-09-13T22:20:39 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
7592017-09-13T22:28:10 *** promag has quit IRC
7602017-09-13T22:30:11 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7612017-09-13T22:30:54 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
7622017-09-13T22:33:59 *** PaulCape_ has quit IRC
7632017-09-13T22:35:47 *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7642017-09-13T22:41:23 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7652017-09-13T22:42:27 *** wxxs has quit IRC
7662017-09-13T22:50:26 *** meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7672017-09-13T22:52:48 *** vicenteH has quit IRC
7682017-09-13T22:53:30 *** promag has quit IRC
7692017-09-13T22:53:51 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7702017-09-13T22:53:59 *** duringo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7712017-09-13T22:55:01 *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7722017-09-13T22:58:45 *** duringo_ has quit IRC
7732017-09-13T22:59:41 *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
7742017-09-13T23:03:01 *** owowo has quit IRC
7752017-09-13T23:07:44 *** intcat has quit IRC
7762017-09-13T23:09:47 *** GypsyScotty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7772017-09-13T23:09:59 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
7782017-09-13T23:13:48 *** promag has quit IRC
7792017-09-13T23:14:07 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7802017-09-13T23:14:12 *** intcat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7812017-09-13T23:16:33 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7822017-09-13T23:33:31 *** promag has quit IRC
7832017-09-13T23:51:20 *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7842017-09-13T23:51:45 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7852017-09-13T23:54:18 *** Deadhand has quit IRC
7862017-09-13T23:54:35 *** promag has quit IRC
7872017-09-13T23:55:10 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7882017-09-13T23:55:15 *** abpa has quit IRC
7892017-09-13T23:55:24 *** intcat has quit IRC
7902017-09-13T23:56:54 *** intcat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7912017-09-13T23:58:57 *** promag has quit IRC