12018-05-17T00:15:18  *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
  22018-05-17T00:25:03  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  32018-05-17T00:26:06  <fanquake> Now that 18.04 is available for WSL I think we might now have a somewhat sane build process for windows users.
  42018-05-17T00:30:20  *** jtimon has quit IRC
  52018-05-17T00:32:31  *** honeybadgerdgaf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  62018-05-17T00:32:35  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  72018-05-17T00:33:14  *** Randolf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  82018-05-17T00:33:42  *** isis is now known as isis_
  92018-05-17T00:37:13  *** Deadhand has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 102018-05-17T00:41:46  *** Deadhand has quit IRC
 112018-05-17T00:45:08  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 122018-05-17T00:46:19  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 132018-05-17T00:46:24  *** StopAndDecrypt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142018-05-17T00:46:42  *** honeybadgerdgaf has quit IRC
 152018-05-17T00:47:01  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
 162018-05-17T00:47:23  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 172018-05-17T00:47:38  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 182018-05-17T00:48:07  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 192018-05-17T00:48:31  *** honeybadgerdgaf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 202018-05-17T00:49:24  *** Randolf has quit IRC
 212018-05-17T00:54:35  *** Phoebe68Witting has quit IRC
 222018-05-17T00:55:16  *** ken2812221 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 232018-05-17T00:59:13  *** ohnx has quit IRC
 242018-05-17T01:00:49  *** Randolf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 252018-05-17T01:03:45  *** ohnx has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 262018-05-17T01:07:58  *** Randolf has quit IRC
 272018-05-17T01:14:09  <fanquake> Scratch that. Half sure that a depends build just crashed VirtualBox..
 282018-05-17T01:24:19  *** Randolf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 292018-05-17T01:25:12  *** Krellan has quit IRC
 302018-05-17T01:25:47  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 312018-05-17T01:27:49  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 322018-05-17T01:32:10  *** Randolf has quit IRC
 332018-05-17T01:47:09  *** nuke_bloodaxe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 342018-05-17T01:50:06  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 352018-05-17T01:50:32  *** Randolf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 362018-05-17T01:50:40  *** meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 372018-05-17T01:55:05  *** Randolf has quit IRC
 382018-05-17T02:03:20  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #13251: GUI: Rephrase Bech32 checkbox texts, and enable it with legacy address default (master...rephrase-bech-32) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13251
 392018-05-17T02:04:00  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #12208: GUI: Rephrase Bech32 checkbox texts, and enable it with legacy address default (master...gui_legacy_bech32) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12208
 402018-05-17T02:08:52  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Empact opened pull request #13252: Wallet: Refactor ReserveKeyFromKeyPool for safety (master...refactor_wallet_RKFKP) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13252
 412018-05-17T02:10:12  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #9537: Wallet: Refactor ReserveKeyFromKeyPool for safety (master...refactor_wallet_RKFKP) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9537
 422018-05-17T02:28:37  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #13253: [0.16] Further Backports (0.16...0-16-further-backports) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13253
 432018-05-17T02:30:58  <fanquake> Going to drop the "Needs Backport" label off the PRs in 13253 so we can get a good idea of what's left.
 442018-05-17T02:43:52  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 452018-05-17T02:45:32  *** glaksmono has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 462018-05-17T02:47:37  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 472018-05-17T02:54:02  *** glaksmono has quit IRC
 482018-05-17T02:57:54  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 492018-05-17T02:58:21  *** Deadhand has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 502018-05-17T03:01:20  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 512018-05-17T03:13:33  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Empact opened pull request #13254: Revert "Merge #12870: make clean removes src/qt/moc_ files" (master...make-clean-qt-moc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13254
 522018-05-17T03:14:13  *** Randolf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 532018-05-17T03:37:02  *** Madars has quit IRC
 542018-05-17T03:39:27  *** Deadhand has quit IRC
 552018-05-17T03:39:32  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #13255: trivial: Fixed typos and cleaned up language (master...language-cleanup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13255
 562018-05-17T03:40:08  <fanquake> ^ Can either be merged quickly or closed for now.
 572018-05-17T03:40:12  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #13010: Trivial: Language Cleanup (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13010
 582018-05-17T03:42:02  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 592018-05-17T03:44:43  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #10708: Connecttrace fewer blocks (master...connecttrace-fewer-blocks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10708
 602018-05-17T03:45:00  *** Deadhand has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 612018-05-17T03:45:30  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #10470: Fix for listsinceblock not filtering conflicted transactions (master...listsinceblock-filter-conflicts) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10470
 622018-05-17T03:46:22  <fanquake> Added "Up for Grabs" labels to both of those, no updates to either for 6moths and nearly a year.
 632018-05-17T03:46:27  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 642018-05-17T03:48:14  <kallewoof> fanquake: Yeah, if no reaction even with feedback I think closing is ok. I don't think we should close PR's just because they lie around though. I mean, I have PRs that I am maintaining, with no feedback, that can lie around for months and months. Doesn't mean they should be closed. :)
 652018-05-17T03:49:23  <kallewoof> I do think generally we should say 'Close this?' and let the author have a say before closing, since non-maintainers can't reopen their PRs even if they wanted to.
 662018-05-17T03:50:07  <kallewoof> I.e. let the authors have an opportunity to close the PR themselves in case they wanna come back to it when they have more time/energy/inspiration.
 672018-05-17T03:50:55  *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 682018-05-17T04:00:24  *** meshcollider has quit IRC
 692018-05-17T04:07:10  <fanquake> kallewoof sure. I have to run out but will comment when I'm back
 702018-05-17T04:07:20  *** Randolf has quit IRC
 712018-05-17T04:08:21  *** Madars has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 722018-05-17T04:08:41  *** Randolf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 732018-05-17T04:09:17  <kallewoof> fanquake: No worries, just idly musing.
 742018-05-17T04:31:27  *** Deadhand has quit IRC
 752018-05-17T04:34:24  *** Madars has quit IRC
 762018-05-17T04:36:06  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 772018-05-17T04:37:04  *** Deadhand has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 782018-05-17T04:38:46  *** Randolf has quit IRC
 792018-05-17T04:41:27  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 802018-05-17T04:41:38  *** Randolf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 812018-05-17T04:47:01  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
 822018-05-17T04:48:08  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 832018-05-17T05:00:57  *** Deadhand has quit IRC
 842018-05-17T05:03:56  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Empact opened pull request #13257: wallet: Fix ReserveKeyFromKeyPool to always test key classification, even if last in the pool.  (master...fix-reserve-key-classification-check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13257
 852018-05-17T05:06:26  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Empact closed pull request #13257: wallet: Fix ReserveKeyFromKeyPool to always test key classification, even if last in the pool.  (master...fix-reserve-key-classification-check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13257
 862018-05-17T05:06:37  *** Deadhand has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 872018-05-17T05:09:38  *** Madars has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 882018-05-17T05:11:09  *** Bonney has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 892018-05-17T05:11:18  <Bonney> 0xC0D332838f14EF42Fcde1cf2518c427dDB676729
 902018-05-17T05:12:50  *** CubicEarths has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 912018-05-17T05:13:14  *** Bonney has quit IRC
 922018-05-17T05:14:09  *** Deadhand has quit IRC
 932018-05-17T05:14:39  *** glaksmono has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 942018-05-17T05:18:13  *** Deadhand has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 952018-05-17T05:19:14  *** Tserrov has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 962018-05-17T05:19:14  *** Randolf has quit IRC
 972018-05-17T05:20:25  *** Randolf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 982018-05-17T05:29:27  *** Madars has quit IRC
 992018-05-17T05:32:41  *** CubicEarths has quit IRC
1002018-05-17T05:32:54  <wumpus> BlueMatt: yes, going to untag the fds one at least
1012018-05-17T05:33:24  <wumpus> ones*
1022018-05-17T05:33:48  <wumpus> oh, that's all that is left besides backports, right
1032018-05-17T05:44:44  *** Madars has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1042018-05-17T05:52:33  *** Tserrov has quit IRC
1052018-05-17T05:54:10  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kallewoof opened pull request #13258: uint256: Remove unnecessary crypto/common.h use (alternative) (master...uint256-no-crypto-alt) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13258
1062018-05-17T06:17:03  *** glaksmono has quit IRC
1072018-05-17T06:24:01  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1082018-05-17T06:29:06  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1092018-05-17T06:34:29  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102018-05-17T06:38:03  *** promag has quit IRC
1112018-05-17T06:38:18  *** glaksmono has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1122018-05-17T06:40:14  *** isis_ is now known as isis
1132018-05-17T06:41:38  <fanquake> wumpus I've sorted out a few. There's a couple that should be backported in individual PRs though I think.
1142018-05-17T06:42:58  *** DougieBot5000 has quit IRC
1152018-05-17T06:43:00  *** glaksmono has quit IRC
1162018-05-17T07:03:33  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kallewoof closed pull request #13242: uint256: Remove unnecessary crypto/common.h use (master...uint256-no-crypto) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13242
1172018-05-17T07:19:32  *** glaksmono has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182018-05-17T07:23:48  *** glaksmono has quit IRC
1192018-05-17T07:31:53  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kallewoof opened pull request #13259: validation: add a macro for determining if a block is pruned or not (master...block-pruned-macro) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13259
1202018-05-17T07:40:16  *** glaksmono has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1212018-05-17T07:45:11  *** glaksmono has quit IRC
1222018-05-17T07:48:06  *** Krellan has quit IRC
1232018-05-17T07:48:45  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1242018-05-17T08:00:51  *** glaksmono has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1252018-05-17T08:05:17  *** glaksmono has quit IRC
1262018-05-17T08:08:19  *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1272018-05-17T08:12:18  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1282018-05-17T08:14:23  <wumpus> fanquake: thanks, I'll do some review on backports today
1292018-05-17T08:21:27  *** glaksmono has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1302018-05-17T08:22:49  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312018-05-17T08:24:43  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
1322018-05-17T08:25:27  *** glaksmono has quit IRC
1332018-05-17T08:30:08  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1342018-05-17T08:40:03  *** DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1352018-05-17T08:42:05  *** glaksmono has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362018-05-17T08:46:25  *** glaksmono has quit IRC
1372018-05-17T08:48:58  *** m8tion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1382018-05-17T08:52:02  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
1392018-05-17T08:52:46  *** timothy has quit IRC
1402018-05-17T08:53:09  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1412018-05-17T08:56:36  *** raarr has quit IRC
1422018-05-17T08:56:53  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1432018-05-17T09:02:44  *** glaksmono has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1442018-05-17T09:03:58  *** setpill has quit IRC
1452018-05-17T09:05:22  *** echeveria has quit IRC
1462018-05-17T09:07:20  *** glaksmono has quit IRC
1472018-05-17T09:08:51  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1482018-05-17T09:09:07  *** raarr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492018-05-17T09:12:18  *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502018-05-17T09:39:56  *** goatpig has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1512018-05-17T09:44:29  *** odb36 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1522018-05-17T09:45:19  *** odb36 has quit IRC
1532018-05-17T11:05:35  *** m8tion has quit IRC
1542018-05-17T11:12:33  *** Samdney has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1552018-05-17T11:16:27  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
1562018-05-17T11:35:14  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1572018-05-17T11:40:10  *** intcat has quit IRC
1582018-05-17T11:40:10  *** arubi has quit IRC
1592018-05-17T11:40:10  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
1602018-05-17T11:41:57  *** intcat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1612018-05-17T11:44:29  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1622018-05-17T11:46:54  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1632018-05-17T11:55:57  *** Ishtv4n has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1642018-05-17T11:56:50  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #13262: Wallet/RPC: Add listsincetx with a stateless (server-side) long polling option (master...2018/05/listsincetx) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13262
1652018-05-17T11:57:02  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1662018-05-17T11:57:43  *** ExtraCrispy has quit IRC
1672018-05-17T12:01:16  *** promag has quit IRC
1682018-05-17T12:01:34  *** zxzzt has quit IRC
1692018-05-17T12:02:09  *** jamesob has quit IRC
1702018-05-17T12:02:10  *** jnewbery has quit IRC
1712018-05-17T12:03:10  *** zxzzt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722018-05-17T12:03:46  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1732018-05-17T12:03:47  *** Krellan has quit IRC
1742018-05-17T12:04:25  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752018-05-17T12:09:24  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
1762018-05-17T12:10:27  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1772018-05-17T12:10:34  *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1782018-05-17T12:14:17  *** ExtraCrispy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1792018-05-17T12:27:33  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1802018-05-17T12:32:58  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1812018-05-17T12:40:50  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1822018-05-17T12:44:01  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
1832018-05-17T12:45:08  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1842018-05-17T12:45:21  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1852018-05-17T12:50:16  *** tryphe_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1862018-05-17T12:53:05  *** tryphe has quit IRC
1872018-05-17T12:55:13  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1882018-05-17T12:58:18  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1892018-05-17T13:05:08  *** goofie has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1902018-05-17T13:06:10  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1912018-05-17T13:06:39  *** Deinogalerix21 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1922018-05-17T13:34:29  *** tryphe_ has quit IRC
1932018-05-17T13:36:26  *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1942018-05-17T13:39:03  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1952018-05-17T13:41:21  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1962018-05-17T13:45:04  *** Deinogalerix21 has quit IRC
1972018-05-17T13:45:06  *** fanquake has quit IRC
1982018-05-17T13:51:43  *** promag has quit IRC
1992018-05-17T13:55:05  *** CubicEarths has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2002018-05-17T13:59:32  *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2012018-05-17T14:05:02  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2022018-05-17T14:09:16  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2032018-05-17T14:09:57  *** Krellan has quit IRC
2042018-05-17T14:10:45  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052018-05-17T14:12:28  *** Ishtv4n has quit IRC
2062018-05-17T14:17:00  *** Ishtv4n has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2072018-05-17T14:25:21  *** nullptr| has quit IRC
2082018-05-17T14:30:43  *** nullptr| has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2092018-05-17T14:35:32  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2102018-05-17T14:39:51  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] GreatSock opened pull request #13264: [qt] Satoshi unit (master...satoshis) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13264
2112018-05-17T14:44:09  *** CubicEarths has quit IRC
2122018-05-17T14:50:31  *** CubicEarths has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2132018-05-17T14:56:23  *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
2142018-05-17T14:57:11  *** moneyball has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2152018-05-17T15:03:59  *** CubicEarths has quit IRC
2162018-05-17T15:23:02  *** CubicEarths has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2172018-05-17T15:23:17  *** CubicEarths has quit IRC
2182018-05-17T15:28:06  *** bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2192018-05-17T15:39:35  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2202018-05-17T15:42:30  *** moneyball has quit IRC
2212018-05-17T15:44:19  *** moneyball has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2222018-05-17T15:45:35  *** Randolf has quit IRC
2232018-05-17T15:51:44  *** setpill has quit IRC
2242018-05-17T15:55:33  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252018-05-17T15:56:47  *** ExtraCrispy has quit IRC
2262018-05-17T16:00:48  *** zarez has quit IRC
2272018-05-17T16:06:35  *** Ishtv4n has quit IRC
2282018-05-17T16:06:39  <promag> fyi can't attend meeting today
2292018-05-17T16:10:35  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4cfe17c3382b...ef0e5cd5174c
2302018-05-17T16:10:36  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7ab1c6f Luke Dashjr: GUI: Rephrase Bech32 checkbox text/tooltip...
2312018-05-17T16:10:37  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 82dda6b Luke Dashjr: GUI: Allow generating Bech32 addresses with a legacy-address default
2322018-05-17T16:10:37  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ef0e5cd MarcoFalke: Merge #13251: GUI: Rephrase Bech32 checkbox texts, and enable it with legacy address default...
2332018-05-17T16:11:35  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #13251: GUI: Rephrase Bech32 checkbox texts, and enable it with legacy address default (master...rephrase-bech-32) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13251
2342018-05-17T16:12:56  *** promag has quit IRC
2352018-05-17T16:17:45  *** Krellan has quit IRC
2362018-05-17T16:18:24  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2372018-05-17T16:30:32  *** Randolf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2382018-05-17T16:30:55  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ef0e5cd5174c...1b53e4f67c6d
2392018-05-17T16:30:56  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 84f4194 Chun Kuan Lee: break circular dependency: random/sync -> util -> random/sync
2402018-05-17T16:30:56  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1b53e4f MarcoFalke: Merge #13236: break circular dependency: random/sync -> util -> random/sync...
2412018-05-17T16:31:45  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #13236: break circular dependency: random/sync -> util -> random/sync (master...random_util) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13236
2422018-05-17T16:31:51  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2432018-05-17T16:40:21  *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2442018-05-17T16:45:35  *** moneyball has quit IRC
2452018-05-17T16:46:11  *** moneyball has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2462018-05-17T16:51:01  *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2472018-05-17T17:04:48  *** Krellan has quit IRC
2482018-05-17T17:05:46  *** moneyball has quit IRC
2492018-05-17T17:14:59  *** moneyball has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2502018-05-17T17:17:35  *** Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2512018-05-17T17:20:58  *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
2522018-05-17T17:23:03  *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2532018-05-17T17:26:10  *** drexl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2542018-05-17T17:29:43  *** moneyball has quit IRC
2552018-05-17T17:33:01  *** isis is now known as isis_
2562018-05-17T17:33:57  <promag> will trade reviews =) #13097
2572018-05-17T17:34:00  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13097 | ui: Support wallets loaded dynamically by promag · Pull Request #13097 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2582018-05-17T17:34:57  *** promag has quit IRC
2592018-05-17T17:36:13  *** drexl has quit IRC
2602018-05-17T17:40:52  *** isis_ is now known as isis
2612018-05-17T17:43:41  *** moneyball has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2622018-05-17T17:45:26  *** Murch has quit IRC
2632018-05-17T17:45:54  *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2642018-05-17T17:46:35  *** Murch has quit IRC
2652018-05-17T18:01:40  *** Guest18565 has quit IRC
2662018-05-17T18:02:13  *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2672018-05-17T18:04:47  *** drexl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2682018-05-17T18:08:39  *** Randolf has quit IRC
2692018-05-17T18:11:58  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2702018-05-17T18:12:30  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2712018-05-17T18:14:23  *** promag has quit IRC
2722018-05-17T18:14:37  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2732018-05-17T18:17:09  *** nmnkgl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2742018-05-17T18:33:50  <jonasschnelli> promag: you can remove the description part where it says "builds on top of" in 13097
2752018-05-17T18:34:03  <promag> ok
2762018-05-17T18:34:09  <promag> ty
2772018-05-17T18:34:19  <jonasschnelli> will review
2782018-05-17T18:35:10  *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
2792018-05-17T18:35:55  <promag> thanks!
2802018-05-17T18:36:12  *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2812018-05-17T18:36:27  <promag> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/2 needs update
2822018-05-17T18:39:54  *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
2832018-05-17T18:40:35  *** drexl_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2842018-05-17T18:41:02  *** drexl has quit IRC
2852018-05-17T18:41:07  *** drexl_ is now known as drexl
2862018-05-17T18:43:16  *** timothy has quit IRC
2872018-05-17T18:47:02  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
2882018-05-17T18:48:14  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2892018-05-17T18:51:40  *** nmnkgl has quit IRC
2902018-05-17T18:55:35  *** clarkmoody has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2912018-05-17T18:55:54  *** nmnkgl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2922018-05-17T18:56:25  *** nmnkgl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2932018-05-17T19:00:33  <sipa> meeting?
2942018-05-17T19:00:35  <wumpus> #startmeeting
2952018-05-17T19:00:35  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu May 17 19:00:35 2018 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
2962018-05-17T19:00:35  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
2972018-05-17T19:00:37  <jonasschnelli> hi
2982018-05-17T19:00:40  <sipa> hi
2992018-05-17T19:00:41  <promag> hi
3002018-05-17T19:00:43  <jamesob> howdy
3012018-05-17T19:01:11  <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator
3022018-05-17T19:01:20  <kanzure> hi.
3032018-05-17T19:01:47  <wumpus> proposed topics: 0.16.1 I guess
3042018-05-17T19:01:50  <jimpo> hi
3052018-05-17T19:01:51  <cfields> hi
3062018-05-17T19:02:20  <wumpus> #topic High priority for review
3072018-05-17T19:02:31  <sipa> i'd like to add #13142
3082018-05-17T19:02:33  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13142 | Separate IsMine from solvability by sipa · Pull Request #13142 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3092018-05-17T19:02:47  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3102018-05-17T19:03:03  *** Randolf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3112018-05-17T19:03:14  <wumpus> we merged #10740 this week, #12254 #10757 #13011 #13097 #12979 #12634 are left
3122018-05-17T19:03:16  <jnewbery> hello
3132018-05-17T19:03:16  <jonasschnelli> I'd like to add #12196
3142018-05-17T19:03:19  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10740 | [wallet] `loadwallet` RPC - load wallet at runtime by jnewbery · Pull Request #10740 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3152018-05-17T19:03:23  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12254 | BIP 158: Compact Block Filters for Light Clients by jimpo · Pull Request #12254 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3162018-05-17T19:03:30  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10757 | RPC: Introduce getblockstats to plot things by jtimon · Pull Request #10757 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3172018-05-17T19:03:31  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13011 | Cache witness hash in CTransaction by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #13011 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3182018-05-17T19:03:33  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13097 | ui: Support wallets loaded dynamically by promag · Pull Request #13097 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3192018-05-17T19:03:36  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12979 | Split validationinterface into parallel validation/mempool interfaces by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #12979 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3202018-05-17T19:03:36  <wumpus> there's quite a lot of things on the list yet, should we also remove something?
3212018-05-17T19:03:37  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12634 | [refactor] Make TransactionWithinChainLimit more flexible by kallewoof · Pull Request #12634 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3222018-05-17T19:03:40  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12196 | Add scantxoutset RPC method by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #12196 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3232018-05-17T19:04:01  <BlueMatt> #13011 looks merge-ableish
3242018-05-17T19:04:04  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13011 | Cache witness hash in CTransaction by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #13011 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3252018-05-17T19:04:10  <jtimon> hi
3262018-05-17T19:04:28  <BlueMatt> I dunno if #12254 should stay on there, there's now discussion of the bip on the ml so its gonna be some time yet, I think
3272018-05-17T19:04:30  <BlueMatt> jimpo: thoughts?
3282018-05-17T19:04:31  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12254 | BIP 158: Compact Block Filters for Light Clients by jimpo · Pull Request #12254 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3292018-05-17T19:04:40  <jonasschnelli> What is the maxlen for high-prio-list?
3302018-05-17T19:04:48  <BlueMatt> 1 per regular contributor :p
3312018-05-17T19:04:55  <wumpus> ok added #12196 #13142
3322018-05-17T19:04:58  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12196 | Add scantxoutset RPC method by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #12196 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3332018-05-17T19:05:00  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13142 | Separate IsMine from solvability by sipa · Pull Request #13142 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3342018-05-17T19:05:03  <jonasschnelli> Thanks wumpus
3352018-05-17T19:05:09  <jonasschnelli> Agree with BlueMatt about 12254
3362018-05-17T19:05:17  <wumpus> yes, what BlueMatt says, though PRs that are not actively updated should be removed
3372018-05-17T19:05:47  <wumpus> agree, removed 12254
3382018-05-17T19:06:04  <jtimon> I was expecting https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10757 to be merged soonish and thus go out of the list
3392018-05-17T19:06:08  *** moneyball has quit IRC
3402018-05-17T19:06:16  <BlueMatt> topic: 0.16.1
3412018-05-17T19:06:17  <promag> and I guess 13097 can be merged after jonasschnelli review
3422018-05-17T19:06:18  <wumpus> something that is still being discussed on the mailing list certainly doesn't belong in the blocker slist
3432018-05-17T19:06:36  <jonasschnelli> Yes. 13097 is in review here...
3442018-05-17T19:06:42  <jimpo> Can I get #13243 then so progress continues? :-)
3452018-05-17T19:06:44  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13243 | Make reusable base class for auxiliary indices by jimpo · Pull Request #13243 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3462018-05-17T19:06:48  <MarcoFalke> #12979 needs a rebase
3472018-05-17T19:06:50  <sipa> sgtm
3482018-05-17T19:06:51  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12979 | Split validationinterface into parallel validation/mempool interfaces by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #12979 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3492018-05-17T19:06:59  <BlueMatt> MarcoFalke: yup, doing now
3502018-05-17T19:07:11  <BlueMatt> i was waiting on sdaftuar's review so I could take nits at the same time
3512018-05-17T19:07:15  *** moneyball has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3522018-05-17T19:07:36  <jonasschnelli> unicorn for 10757
3532018-05-17T19:07:41  <sipa> great.
3542018-05-17T19:07:44  *** Murch has quit IRC
3552018-05-17T19:07:46  <BlueMatt> topic: replacing github
3562018-05-17T19:07:50  <jonasschnelli> heh
3572018-05-17T19:07:51  <promag> wumpus: fyi 13063 on high priority after 13097 merge
3582018-05-17T19:08:12  <BlueMatt> topic: replacing github (not entirely unserious)
3592018-05-17T19:08:17  <jonasschnelli> don't make queues for highprio list. :)
3602018-05-17T19:08:27  <wumpus> promag: you already have one on the list!
3612018-05-17T19:08:56  <promag> wumpus: right, after 13097 merge
3622018-05-17T19:09:05  <wumpus> due to the length of the list I'm going to have to enforce one PR per person, sorry
3632018-05-17T19:09:29  <wumpus> #topic 0.16.1
3642018-05-17T19:09:44  <BlueMatt> huh? we always enforce one per person (well, one nomination per person, you can nominate someone elses')
3652018-05-17T19:09:55  <BlueMatt> I think we just need to finish backports and tag for 0.16.1rc1, no?
3662018-05-17T19:10:00  <wumpus> mostly #13253
3672018-05-17T19:10:01  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13253 | [0.16] Further Backports by fanquake · Pull Request #13253 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3682018-05-17T19:10:24  <wumpus> BlueMatt: we had multiple theuni PRs on there at some point :)
3692018-05-17T19:10:36  <BlueMatt> well those got removed, and cfields confirmed that was ok
3702018-05-17T19:11:27  <wumpus> there's also three issues marked 0.16.1: #13110 #12646 #12337
3712018-05-17T19:11:28  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13110 | 0.16.0 bitcoin-qt: "Assertion `copyFrom failed" during launch · Issue #13110 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3722018-05-17T19:11:29  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12646 | Assertion failure during rescan · Issue #12646 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3732018-05-17T19:11:31  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12337 | 0.16 Shutdown assertion · Issue #12337 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3742018-05-17T19:11:45  <wumpus> not sure whether they are critical or can just be bumped to 0.16.2 or so
3752018-05-17T19:11:57  <sipa> we have one issue marked 0.15.2 which i don't understand
3762018-05-17T19:12:39  <wumpus> I don't know either, but at least that's not a blocker for 0.16.1
3772018-05-17T19:12:40  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: was the last to comment on 12337 " I'll try to find a solution for this..."
3782018-05-17T19:12:43  <MarcoFalke> wumpus: The assertion is a regression if I am not mistaken
3792018-05-17T19:12:51  <MarcoFalke> 13110
3802018-05-17T19:13:04  <MarcoFalke> wasn't 12337 fixed?
3812018-05-17T19:13:10  <jonasschnelli> Will look into 12337...
3822018-05-17T19:13:24  <wumpus> I proposed a fix in 13110 and it apparently worked
3832018-05-17T19:13:32  *** arubi has quit IRC
3842018-05-17T19:13:41  <cfields> yes
3852018-05-17T19:14:08  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: can you PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13110#issuecomment-385708583?
3862018-05-17T19:14:22  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: sure
3872018-05-17T19:15:51  <wumpus> so that leaves 12646
3882018-05-17T19:16:59  <jonasschnelli> maybe jnewbery can look into 12646?
3892018-05-17T19:17:10  <wumpus> anyone want to look int othat? or can we just bump it forward if it's not so importent
3902018-05-17T19:17:43  <jonasschnelli> I think its okay to bump this forward (as long as we track it)
3912018-05-17T19:17:57  <wumpus> yes I don't mean closing it
3922018-05-17T19:18:09  <jnewbery> Yes, I can look at 12646 (next week)
3932018-05-17T19:18:09  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
3942018-05-17T19:19:02  <wumpus> moved to 0.16.2
3952018-05-17T19:19:21  <wumpus> other proposed topics?
3962018-05-17T19:19:28  <BlueMatt> trashing github
3972018-05-17T19:19:29  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3982018-05-17T19:19:36  <wumpus> #topic Trashing github
3992018-05-17T19:19:45  <BlueMatt> so it hasnt been working for like 3 weeks now
4002018-05-17T19:20:02  <BlueMatt> and I'd kinda like to have something self-hosted with better review tools anyway, which I know a lot of people wanted
4012018-05-17T19:20:12  <jonasschnelli> Should we give it more time?... I'm pretty sure they are aware of it
4022018-05-17T19:20:13  <sipa> there was some suggestiin (was it on twitter) to use gitlab
4032018-05-17T19:20:29  <BlueMatt> so I figured we should do a "do people think its actually a good idea to switch to something self-hosted" semi-poll
4042018-05-17T19:20:33  <wumpus> gitlab seems ok
4052018-05-17T19:20:34  <BlueMatt> or we could switch to gitlab
4062018-05-17T19:20:40  <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: what alternatives would you propose?
4072018-05-17T19:20:43  <jtimon> I like gitlab
4082018-05-17T19:20:45  <sdaftuar> seems to me like it's way harder to get it right hosting ourselves
4092018-05-17T19:20:47  <BlueMatt> though gitlab seems to have no better review tools than github
4102018-05-17T19:20:55  <wumpus> self-hosted I don't know, who is going to babysit this, monitor it and apply security patches etc?
4112018-05-17T19:20:57  <sipa> it would  e really cool if all pr comment history was in git too
4122018-05-17T19:20:57  <BlueMatt> sdaftuar: oh? I mean I kinda disagree
4132018-05-17T19:21:07  <sdaftuar> dude we can't even keep the computers in our office running
4142018-05-17T19:21:09  <jamesob> self-hosted is very risky and potentially time-consumptive IMO
4152018-05-17T19:21:10  <BlueMatt> sipa: does gitlab do that?
4162018-05-17T19:21:17  <BlueMatt> sdaftuar: bitcoincore.org does just fine....
4172018-05-17T19:21:18  <sipa> BlueMatt: i have no clue
4182018-05-17T19:21:25  <wumpus> if no one is, it's going to become worse, not better, at least Github has a dedicated paid team
4192018-05-17T19:21:35  <sdaftuar> definitely agree with wumpus
4202018-05-17T19:21:37  <cfields> general nack, self-hosting issues aside, Github's network effect is too strong imo.
4212018-05-17T19:21:39  <sipa> blockstream uses gitlab internally, which seems to work fine (pribably due to people maintaining it)
4222018-05-17T19:21:54  <BlueMatt> i mean we could do self-hosted gitlab
4232018-05-17T19:22:18  <MarcoFalke> what advantage does that give, BlueMatt?
4242018-05-17T19:22:37  <jtimon> I assume the goal is less unicorns?
4252018-05-17T19:22:40  <jnewbery> cfields: +1
4262018-05-17T19:22:52  <wumpus> someone from github promised to look into the unicorn issue, maybe we should give them some more time
4272018-05-17T19:22:53  <MarcoFalke> gitlab also does hostign for free
4282018-05-17T19:22:59  <jimpo> Cursory internet search turned up reviewable.io, which is like a hosted layer on top of GitHub
4292018-05-17T19:23:01  <sipa> jnewbery, cfields: what do you suggest instead? waiting until github fixes it?
4302018-05-17T19:23:06  <jimpo> free for public repos
4312018-05-17T19:23:08  <BlueMatt> MarcoFalke: we can do our own security additions like putting the pr and comment history in git
4322018-05-17T19:23:13  <cfields> I can't be the only one who gets irrationally frustrated when the code I want to mess with is on BitBucket..
4332018-05-17T19:23:14  <BlueMatt> and have stuff that verifies it
4342018-05-17T19:23:33  <sipa> cfields: we'd mirror on github of course
4352018-05-17T19:23:39  <jnewbery> In the absence of something better, we should continue nagging them
4362018-05-17T19:23:54  <wumpus> cfields: yes, only players like freedesktop can really afford to host on separate infrastructure, for smaller projects the lack of network effect (and having to register separately) is bad
4372018-05-17T19:24:04  <cfields> sipa: all things considered, yes, I'd say waiting it out makes the most sense.
4382018-05-17T19:24:17  <BlueMatt> jnewbery: I think we *do* have ideas for better things
4392018-05-17T19:24:22  <cfields> I think I'm in the minority there, though :)
4402018-05-17T19:24:22  <jonasschnelli> Moving away from GitHub seems meh,... especially for a self-hostes solutions... looks after centralizing development
4412018-05-17T19:24:25  <jimpo> Who has reached out to GitHub and through what channel so far?
4422018-05-17T19:24:26  <BlueMatt> the self-hosting question is more a "will it be maintained" question
4432018-05-17T19:24:29  <BlueMatt> not "will it be better"
4442018-05-17T19:24:33  <jtimon> I'm ok with both people working on a gitlab instance and people nagging github devs
4452018-05-17T19:24:38  <sipa> cfields: i'moretty unconfortable with the fact that network effect is making us stick with a specific provider, even in the oresence of obvious issies
4462018-05-17T19:25:03  <sipa> of course, it's not like we could migrate quickly anyway
4472018-05-17T19:25:06  <wumpus> 'will it be maintained' is really important though to not end up blaming each other
4482018-05-17T19:25:06  <jamesob> how much effort will, e.g., DoS protection be for something self-hosted?
4492018-05-17T19:25:17  <wumpus> at least now we can blame github people :)
4502018-05-17T19:25:20  <sipa> haha
4512018-05-17T19:25:21  <jtimon> we could perhaps save money on travis workers by using gitlab-CI too?
4522018-05-17T19:25:45  <wumpus> jamesob: exactly...
4532018-05-17T19:25:48  <BlueMatt> jamesob: dos protection is 6$/month
4542018-05-17T19:25:50  <BlueMatt> and works perfectly
4552018-05-17T19:25:52  <cfields> sipa: it's worth considering that the 0.16.1 issues might've never been reported if not for Github's issues
4562018-05-17T19:26:11  <jnewbery> BlueMatt: Yes, we have ideas, but that's different from something that's actually running. I don't have any interest in maintaining a self-hosted solution, and I don't think it's worth anyone else's time doing it either
4572018-05-17T19:26:17  <sipa> cfields: that's a good point
4582018-05-17T19:26:32  <wumpus> we could still use github for *issues*
4592018-05-17T19:26:39  <wumpus> gitlab would be for patches and review
4602018-05-17T19:26:49  <jtimon> jnewbery: yeah, I'm personally not interested in maintaining it either
4612018-05-17T19:26:56  <wumpus> doesn't necessarily need to be the same place
4622018-05-17T19:27:24  <sipa> let's move back to sourceforge
4632018-05-17T19:27:26  <wumpus> yes tbh I don't think we should change the issue reporting URL
4642018-05-17T19:27:26  <BlueMatt> I'm not a fan of using issues and patches/review being in separate places
4652018-05-17T19:27:36  <wumpus> I've been spamming that to so many people over the years
4662018-05-17T19:27:37  <jamesob> BlueMatt: I don't think CloudFlare works with git protocol, so you need to reveal underlying IPs: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31817004/git-push-not-working-after-using-cloudflare-reverse-proxy
4672018-05-17T19:27:39  <jonasschnelli> if the unicorns is the showstopper, then better mirror github PR with comments > 20 via API with comment through API function
4682018-05-17T19:27:46  <jtimon> or just everything on gitlab, but since we have the github mirror, we will see issues created there by people who missed that the project moved
4692018-05-17T19:27:49  <wumpus> I don't really want to move it anywhere else. THe unicorns are only an issue for code review.
4702018-05-17T19:27:55  <BlueMatt> jamesob: bitcoincore.org does not use cloudflare (and costs 6$/month), cloudflare sucks ass
4712018-05-17T19:27:55  <jnewbery> I also think that the network effect thing is important. What percentage of new contributors/issue reports would we lose if we weren't on github?
4722018-05-17T19:28:11  <BlueMatt> jamesob: (and that's for redundant providers)
4732018-05-17T19:28:41  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: I'd actually be much happier with github if we had a client-side api-based cli-only github interface
4742018-05-17T19:28:51  <BlueMatt> (that verified eg pgp signatures on comments)
4752018-05-17T19:28:52  <wumpus> there is a github cli interface
4762018-05-17T19:28:54  <jtimon> wumpus: well the main point of using github is for code review, no?
4772018-05-17T19:28:57  <kanzure> email seems to work for long reviews (diffs)
4782018-05-17T19:29:09  <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: that seems easyer then installing a gitlab solution on a custom server
4792018-05-17T19:29:21  <jonasschnelli> *easier
4802018-05-17T19:29:28  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: its the difference between building a whole app and installing one
4812018-05-17T19:29:30  <BlueMatt> so...no, not really
4822018-05-17T19:29:31  <jimpo> jnewberry: Who has reached out to GitHub and through what channel so far?
4832018-05-17T19:29:33  <moneyball> I am happy to follow-up with GitHub to try and accelerate a fix. Can someone provide me background info on the existing communication we have with GitHub?
4842018-05-17T19:29:48  <jnewbery> I've contacted Github support. I don't know who else has
4852018-05-17T19:29:59  <jtimon> I think someone reached to them on twitter too
4862018-05-17T19:30:01  <wumpus> I have contacted them through tthe contact site, and was told by support that many others have
4872018-05-17T19:30:05  <moneyball> Is there an open issue # that I can reference?
4882018-05-17T19:30:09  <jnewbery> jtimon: that was me
4892018-05-17T19:30:14  <jimpo> I can try asking someone I know that used to work there supporting open source projects
4902018-05-17T19:30:19  <jnewbery> moneyball: I'll forward you the email thread
4912018-05-17T19:30:23  <BlueMatt> moneyball: a few folks have emailed support@github, which historically has always gotten a response, some other projects were posting responses they got where they were saying "we dont actually know what change we made that triggered these issues, hold on"
4922018-05-17T19:30:26  <BlueMatt> buts its been like 3 weeks ago
4932018-05-17T19:31:02  <moneyball> jnewbery ok great i'll use that as context and follow-up
4942018-05-17T19:31:16  <moneyball> jimpo we can coordinate our efforts if you'd like
4952018-05-17T19:31:37  <jimpo> yeah, we can chat about it outside the meeting
4962018-05-17T19:31:56  <BlueMatt> ok, so it sounds like consensus is "stick with the broken shit we have now" :/
4972018-05-17T19:32:02  <BlueMatt> or at least no consensus on moving to something else
4982018-05-17T19:32:14  <wumpus> feel fre to set up something better and convince us to use it
4992018-05-17T19:32:26  <sipa> yeah i believe it will require someone to set up a demo
5002018-05-17T19:32:40  <wumpus> if not, this is just empty talk, we *have* nothing better
5012018-05-17T19:32:54  <wumpus> any other topics?
5022018-05-17T19:32:59  <MarcoFalke> And a plan to transition all open patches to the new review system?
5032018-05-17T19:33:01  <sipa> right; the question is whether we should look into alternatives
5042018-05-17T19:33:10  <sipa> not so much whether we should or shouldn't move
5052018-05-17T19:33:33  <wumpus> right
5062018-05-17T19:33:38  <cfields> iirc some alternatives support oath login via github
5072018-05-17T19:33:47  <BlueMatt> yea, it seems like lack of consensus to move even if we find something good
5082018-05-17T19:33:53  <cfields> that would go a long way towards shutting me up
5092018-05-17T19:33:59  <BlueMatt> which was mostly why I brought it up
5102018-05-17T19:34:13  <wumpus> I'm open to being convinced to use something else, if it's really better
5112018-05-17T19:34:38  <jimpo> cfields: I agree a code review tool with GitHub integration (where main repo is still hosted there) is ideal
5122018-05-17T19:35:13  <jnewbery> BlueMatt: If there was something else better running now AND there was a way to migrate all state AND we wouldn't lose contributors by switching AND we have someone committed to maintaining it, then I'd be open to it. Without that, I think it's a non-starter.
5132018-05-17T19:35:28  <jonasschnelli> Something like https://github.com/piotrmurach/github_cli seems a better start to deal with the unicorns
5142018-05-17T19:35:54  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: yes, I plan to look into github cli commands as well, there's a few (also "hub" IIRC)
5152018-05-17T19:36:07  <MarcoFalke> Agree with jnewbery. I am open to switching, but not without solving the transition issues first.
5162018-05-17T19:36:31  <wumpus> we'd end up with parallel infrastructure for a while anyway
5172018-05-17T19:36:34  <jtimon> well BlueMatt I think it would be easier to get consensus to move to something else if somebody had it working with CI and all
5182018-05-17T19:36:44  <jnewbery> topic request: separate wallet from node (#10973)
5192018-05-17T19:36:49  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10973 | Refactor: separate wallet from node by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10973 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5202018-05-17T19:37:04  <jonasschnelli> Moving away from Github just because of load issues for three weeks seems insane...
5212018-05-17T19:37:08  <BlueMatt> jtimon: it sounds like definite "no", so I'm not gonna spend time looking into it
5222018-05-17T19:37:23  <jtimon> in the meantime, prs with many comments get the unicorn and we have to try again until it loads
5232018-05-17T19:37:27  <wumpus> #topic separate wallet from node (jnewbery)
5242018-05-17T19:37:28  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: there are way more reasons people dont like github
5252018-05-17T19:37:33  <sipa> jonasschnelli: not being able to move away from github just because of network effect seems scary...
5262018-05-17T19:37:43  <jamesob> the upside is that this is an additional incentive to keep PRs small :)
5272018-05-17T19:37:46  <jtimon> BlueMatt: fair enough
5282018-05-17T19:37:52  <cfields> jonasschnelli: I agree. But I think the frustration comes from the helplessness that it's brought to light.
5292018-05-17T19:37:53  <wumpus> this discussion is starting to repeat itself
5302018-05-17T19:38:04  <jonasschnelli> sipa: that is a point we should take into consideration,.. but stop focusing on load issues
5312018-05-17T19:38:13  <sipa> ok, next topic it seems
5322018-05-17T19:38:38  <BlueMatt> oh, I have 2 more topics....
5332018-05-17T19:38:53  <wumpus> I don't think there's realistically any chance of anything replacing github until someone sets up a feasible alternative and shows us that it is better
5342018-05-17T19:38:55  <sipa> jnewbery: your topic
5352018-05-17T19:38:57  <jonasschnelli> (#topic separate wallet from node (jnewbery))
5362018-05-17T19:39:06  <BlueMatt> sipa: well I'm gonna look into having a cli app that checks signatures off github api comments/etc
5372018-05-17T19:39:09  <jnewbery> #10973 is a big PR, but I think it's very worthwhile
5382018-05-17T19:39:12  <BlueMatt> cause I think that would alleviate a lot of it
5392018-05-17T19:39:14  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10973 | Refactor: separate wallet from node by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10973 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5402018-05-17T19:39:25  <jnewbery> jamesob and I have both reviewed now, but it requires continual rebase
5412018-05-17T19:39:52  <jnewbery> There are a lot of PRs competing for high priority for review, but I think it'd be great to make some progress on this one
5422018-05-17T19:40:03  <promag> place in high priority this week?
5432018-05-17T19:40:07  <jamesob> I'll start a round of manual testing if we can get another reviewer or two
5442018-05-17T19:40:10  <jimpo> can it be broken up at all?
5452018-05-17T19:40:14  <jnewbery> so, next steps would be: concecpt ACK/NACKs
5462018-05-17T19:40:25  <BlueMatt> sounds like a high-priority-for-review nomination?
5472018-05-17T19:40:31  <jnewbery> and if people think it's too much to review in one go, ryanofsky is happy to split
5482018-05-17T19:40:37  <jimpo> 1500+ lines is too big IMO
5492018-05-17T19:40:41  <wumpus> oh no, not more high priority for review
5502018-05-17T19:40:48  <jonasschnelli> jnewbery: this is orthogonal of using light client mode to decouple the wallet from the node? right,... it's more architectural?
5512018-05-17T19:41:07  <jnewbery> jimpo: it's mostly very mechanical changes, but yes it's a large +-loc
5522018-05-17T19:41:16  <wumpus> is it blocking anything? is it importnat for 0.17?
5532018-05-17T19:41:25  <jnewbery> there are only a couple of commits that require deep review
5542018-05-17T19:41:52  <sipa> jnewbery: thanks for bringing it up; big PRs are sometimes unnecessarily scary to dig into
5552018-05-17T19:42:04  <jnewbery> wumpus: it blocks (but doesn't necessarily have to lead to) process separation
5562018-05-17T19:42:12  <jonasschnelli> But I guess it's hard/impossible to break it into smaller PRs
5572018-05-17T19:42:16  <jamesob> jonasschnelli: it makes explicit the bitcoind interface that the wallet relies on, which is in itself useful but also if we want to do any kind of process separation
5582018-05-17T19:42:19  <jnewbery> jonasschnelli: you're correct
5592018-05-17T19:42:20  <wumpus> process separation is not something we'll have for 0.17 anyway
5602018-05-17T19:42:55  <jnewbery> so at this stage it's more of a concept review beg from me, and a poll on whether russ should spend time splitting it up
5612018-05-17T19:43:14  <jimpo> I'll give it a pass by tomorrow
5622018-05-17T19:43:38  <jnewbery> The reason I raised it is that because of the frequent rebases, reviews go stale very quickly, and it's now had two ACKs
5632018-05-17T19:43:41  <jnewbery> thanks jimpo
5642018-05-17T19:43:50  <ryanofsky> i actually don't think it's hard to split up, first 6 commits seem to group together nicely, with rest of changes more independent
5652018-05-17T19:44:27  <jnewbery> that's all from me. If 2 or 3 regular reviewers are happy to concept review, I think that's good progress
5662018-05-17T19:44:52  <jonasschnelli> If we assume the long term goal is process separation (where the wallet will turn into a pure transaction-filtering-thinkg), isn't it, that the coin-selection & signing elements in this interface will get throw away later?
5672018-05-17T19:45:03  <BlueMatt> topic: unverified-block-message
5682018-05-17T19:45:15  <BlueMatt> topic: queue drain lock assertions to avoid deadlocks
5692018-05-17T19:45:42  <wumpus> #topic unverified-block-message (BlueMatt)
5702018-05-17T19:45:48  <ryanofsky> jonasschnelli, there aren't any coin-selection or signing things in node/wallet interface in that pr
5712018-05-17T19:46:24  <jonasschnelli> maybe I should review the PR first...
5722018-05-17T19:46:54  <sipa> BlueMatt: your topic
5732018-05-17T19:47:01  <BlueMatt> so sdaftuar pointed out an old issue that we never really addressed where if you relay someone a script-invalid block they may announce it to their peers via compact blocks high-bandwidth-mode and then if you for some reason fall back to downloading it via getdata due to short id collision or so (we dont think there is a way to game it), then you'll end up disconnecting that peer for never responding to your request
5742018-05-17T19:47:25  <ryanofsky> jonasschnelli, yeah, you can just take a look at https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/blob/pr/wipc-sep/src/interfaces/chain.h to see the interface (first link in PR description)
5752018-05-17T19:47:43  <jtimon> re 10973 I agree I would preffer a few smaller ones, specially if there's commits that needs deeper review
5762018-05-17T19:47:43  <BlueMatt> we only came up with two real potential solutions: a "no, I'm not gonna send you that block" message (ie a not-batshit-insane reject message) or a "here is a block that may be invalid, but is valid pow+merkle root ala compact blocks requirement" message
5772018-05-17T19:47:51  <BlueMatt> or, I guess the second one is a getdata type
5782018-05-17T19:48:01  <sipa> BlueMatt: we have "notfound" also
5792018-05-17T19:48:13  <BlueMatt> sipa: isnt that a reject type?
5802018-05-17T19:48:16  <sipa> no
5812018-05-17T19:48:42  <wumpus> NetMsgType::NOTFOUND
5822018-05-17T19:48:46  <jnewbery> *5 chaincoders furiously grep for notfound*
5832018-05-17T19:48:48  <sipa> it's just a "i can't give you these INVs"
5842018-05-17T19:48:51  <sdaftuar> oh wow
5852018-05-17T19:48:52  <BlueMatt> sipa: ah, but we dont use it for blocks
5862018-05-17T19:48:54  <BlueMatt> only txn
5872018-05-17T19:48:57  <sipa> ah
5882018-05-17T19:49:04  <BlueMatt> still, easier would be a "here is a block that may be invalid" as that would remove the ABC in ProcessGetBlockData
5892018-05-17T19:49:09  <wumpus> the client ignores it just the same though
5902018-05-17T19:49:19  <cfields> BlueMatt: so, lots of NOTFOUNDs :)
5912018-05-17T19:49:45  <sipa> BlueMatt: we should have had that before compact blocks, i guess
5922018-05-17T19:49:56  <BlueMatt> sipa: should have had what?
5932018-05-17T19:50:05  <BlueMatt> sdaftuar: points out that it can be wholly independant, just a new getdata type
5942018-05-17T19:50:05  <sipa> a possibly invalid block relay
5952018-05-17T19:50:17  <sdaftuar> i think we could just add a new BLOKC response type
5962018-05-17T19:50:21  <sdaftuar> BLOCK_COULDBEBAD
5972018-05-17T19:50:26  <BlueMatt> well or both or whatever
5982018-05-17T19:50:40  <sipa> 0xDEADB10C
5992018-05-17T19:50:42  <sdaftuar> where if someone requests a block but you don't know if its valid, or you know it's invalid, you return a different message containing the block to indicate that
6002018-05-17T19:50:47  <wumpus> hehe
6012018-05-17T19:51:07  <BlueMatt> yea, so old nodes would ignore it, and you'd just be sending a new message type
6022018-05-17T19:51:09  <sdaftuar> currently we would let the peer time us out instead
6032018-05-17T19:51:09  <sipa> sdaftuar: but only if you know they support such a message
6042018-05-17T19:51:17  <BlueMatt> or not
6052018-05-17T19:51:17  <sdaftuar> meh, sure, but not even needed imo
6062018-05-17T19:51:19  <BlueMatt> doesnt really matter
6072018-05-17T19:51:28  <BlueMatt> I mean they're about to disconnect you either way
6082018-05-17T19:51:32  <sipa> fair
6092018-05-17T19:51:44  <sipa> that makes compatibility really easy
6102018-05-17T19:52:04  <sipa> i guess... suggest something and write a bip?
6112018-05-17T19:52:35  <BlueMatt> oh, wait, no, you also want a new getdata type
6122018-05-17T19:52:43  <BlueMatt> cause otherwise you still need the ActivateBestChain in ProcessGetBlockData
6132018-05-17T19:52:52  <BlueMatt> which would require negotiation
6142018-05-17T19:53:02  <sdaftuar> yeah ok
6152018-05-17T19:53:11  <BlueMatt> so either that, or we start using NOTFOUNDs, I guess
6162018-05-17T19:53:25  <BlueMatt> I'm not sure what I prefer, so.....thoughts?
6172018-05-17T19:53:31  <sdaftuar> i think notfounds are worse because of the case where the block might not have been validated either way
6182018-05-17T19:53:35  <sdaftuar> it complicates download logic
6192018-05-17T19:53:51  <wumpus> if there is no specific reason to re-use NOTFOUND, a new message is much better imo
6202018-05-17T19:53:53  <BlueMatt> yea, its not really "notfound" its "I may find this soon"
6212018-05-17T19:53:59  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6222018-05-17T19:54:08  <BlueMatt> or, really, "I dont currently find this"
6232018-05-17T19:54:13  <sipa> i don't think we should do protocol design in this meeting
6242018-05-17T19:54:29  <BlueMatt> well, there's a few options, so...good to ask
6252018-05-17T19:54:46  <wumpus> not the design but discussing it as a concern is valid
6262018-05-17T19:54:51  <wumpus> agree BlueMatt
6272018-05-17T19:55:01  <BlueMatt> obviously requires BIP and whatever else
6282018-05-17T19:55:05  <wumpus> yes
6292018-05-17T19:55:55  <wumpus> #topic queue drain lock assertions to avoid deadlocks (BlueMatt)
6302018-05-17T19:56:09  <BlueMatt> this one is less interesting, i realize now I should just open a pr and people will see it
6312018-05-17T19:56:14  <BlueMatt> its kinda knotty to describe
6322018-05-17T19:56:25  <BlueMatt> but, essentially, if you call ABC within a validationinterface callback you're hosed
6332018-05-17T19:56:31  <wumpus> ok, well only 4 minutes t ogo anyhow
6342018-05-17T19:56:35  <BlueMatt> which sucks, but I dont think we have a way to fix it
6352018-05-17T19:56:44  <BlueMatt> so current approach is to document it and DEBUG_LOCKORDER-assert
6362018-05-17T19:56:55  <BlueMatt> we can relax the requirement a bit with skeees' proposed validation-in-its-own-thread stuff
6372018-05-17T19:57:02  <BlueMatt> but there will still be some call restrictions
6382018-05-17T19:57:55  *** nmnkgl has quit IRC
6392018-05-17T19:58:18  <BlueMatt> ok endtopic
6402018-05-17T19:58:35  <wumpus> #endmeeting
6412018-05-17T19:58:35  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu May 17 19:58:35 2018 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
6422018-05-17T19:58:35  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-05-17-19.00.html
6432018-05-17T19:58:35  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-05-17-19.00.txt
6442018-05-17T19:58:35  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-05-17-19.00.log.html
6452018-05-17T19:59:14  <cfields> my only request (same as always) is avoiding "if(on_thread1) foo() else bar()" type logic
6462018-05-17T20:01:16  *** nmnkgl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6472018-05-17T20:02:28  <BlueMatt> cfields: nah, more a DUMMY_LOCK(on_thread1); AssertLockNotHeld(on_thread1) :p
6482018-05-17T20:02:56  *** owowo has quit IRC
6492018-05-17T20:02:59  <promag> jonasschnelli: will fix
6502018-05-17T20:03:07  <jonasschnelli> thx
6512018-05-17T20:03:35  <promag> np, see you later
6522018-05-17T20:07:12  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6532018-05-17T20:08:30  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
6542018-05-17T20:09:19  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #13265: wallet: Exit SyncMetaData if there are no transactions to sync (master...2018_05_wallet_syncmetadata_empty_range) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13265
6552018-05-17T20:09:46  *** promag has quit IRC
6562018-05-17T20:14:30  *** moneyball has quit IRC
6572018-05-17T20:14:49  *** nmnkgl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6582018-05-17T20:17:02  <gmaxwell> cfields: I dunno if you discussed this with pieter before, but an alternative to your UHS that I suggested to him previously was that if you have a per-node secret salt S,  then for all "hash-like" scriptpubkey types, you could store as a key H(s || script-type || txid || vout || scriptpubkey-data)[0:16] and value is just the compact_amount.  This would allow storing almost all utxo in about 20
6592018-05-17T20:17:03  <gmaxwell> bytes, have a reasonable security argument, and require no network communications overhead.
6602018-05-17T20:17:14  <achow101> damn, I forgot there was a meeting today
6612018-05-17T20:17:52  <achow101> wumpus: can I get #12136 for high prio?
6622018-05-17T20:17:54  <gmaxwell> The security argument is that with an attacker unknown salt S, the only property you need from the hash resistance to chance collisions. (also even if there were one, it would just break a single node).
6632018-05-17T20:17:55  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12136 | Implement BIP 174 Partially Signed Bitcoin Transactions by achow101 · Pull Request #12136 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6642018-05-17T20:18:54  <jamesob> #13219 seems to have high review-effort:reward ratio in case anyone's bored
6652018-05-17T20:18:56  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13219 | bench: Add block assemble benchmark by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #13219 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6662018-05-17T20:19:00  <gmaxwell> cfields: if it isn't obvious how you verify against it, when a transaction comes in, you take its input txin and vout indexes, and look at the scriptsig and construct the appropriate scriptpubkey from it.  Then check if thats in the database.
6672018-05-17T20:19:26  <jamesob> *low, ugh
6682018-05-17T20:19:41  *** Dizzle has quit IRC
6692018-05-17T20:22:34  *** Randolf has quit IRC
6702018-05-17T20:30:27  *** hsmiths has quit IRC
6712018-05-17T20:32:55  *** nmnkgl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6722018-05-17T20:37:39  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6732018-05-17T20:40:53  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6742018-05-17T20:41:05  *** arubi has quit IRC
6752018-05-17T20:41:32  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6762018-05-17T20:57:29  *** Randolf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6772018-05-17T21:05:01  *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6782018-05-17T21:09:31  <cfields> gmaxwell: yea, we discussed that as well. I'm not opposed, but I wanted to introduced the idea as a near drop-in for the status-quo, security wise. That salt ends up acting as a private key somewhat, which is not major but not trivial either
6792018-05-17T21:11:08  <cfields> gmaxwell: please mention that on the thread though. I just wanted to introduce the paradigm, I'm sure there are lots of better ways to execute it :)
6802018-05-17T21:11:40  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
6812018-05-17T21:13:04  *** kn3wt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6822018-05-17T21:18:57  *** bsm1175321 has quit IRC
6832018-05-17T21:21:10  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
6842018-05-17T21:22:40  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6852018-05-17T21:37:38  *** Sinclair6 has quit IRC
6862018-05-17T21:37:53  *** kn3wt has quit IRC
6872018-05-17T21:57:57  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
6882018-05-17T21:59:59  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
6892018-05-17T22:10:27  *** clarkmoody has quit IRC
6902018-05-17T22:10:38  *** Randolf has quit IRC
6912018-05-17T22:12:47  *** hsmiths has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6922018-05-17T22:28:14  *** Randolf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6932018-05-17T22:34:56  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6942018-05-17T22:37:02  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
6952018-05-17T22:38:08  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6962018-05-17T22:39:02  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
6972018-05-17T22:40:13  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6982018-05-17T22:42:12  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
6992018-05-17T22:46:19  *** lnostdal has quit IRC
7002018-05-17T23:03:44  *** tryphe has quit IRC
7012018-05-17T23:04:23  *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7022018-05-17T23:11:33  *** honeybadgerdgaf has quit IRC
7032018-05-17T23:12:10  *** honeybadgerdgaf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7042018-05-17T23:12:20  *** Sinclair6 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7052018-05-17T23:12:37  *** drexl has quit IRC
7062018-05-17T23:13:45  *** honeybadgerdgaf has quit IRC
7072018-05-17T23:14:09  *** honeybadgerdgaf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7082018-05-17T23:21:24  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7092018-05-17T23:32:46  *** CubicEarths has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7102018-05-17T23:36:15  *** honeybadgerdgaf has quit IRC
7112018-05-17T23:37:36  *** honeybadgerdgaf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7122018-05-17T23:38:51  *** CubicEarths has quit IRC
7132018-05-17T23:39:26  *** CubicEarths has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7142018-05-17T23:41:58  *** glaksmono has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7152018-05-17T23:44:36  *** glaksmon_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7162018-05-17T23:44:36  *** glaksmono has quit IRC
7172018-05-17T23:45:47  *** CubicEarths has quit IRC
7182018-05-17T23:55:54  *** jtimon has quit IRC