12019-03-21T00:11:06 *** bigcookie101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22019-03-21T00:15:04 *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
32019-03-21T00:18:40 *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
42019-03-21T00:19:45 *** bigcookie101 has quit IRC
52019-03-21T00:33:43 <fanquake> dongcarl thanks, I'll check out the capability tool today
62019-03-21T00:49:22 *** captjakk has quit IRC
72019-03-21T00:49:57 *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
82019-03-21T00:53:00 *** spinza has quit IRC
92019-03-21T00:54:20 *** captjakk has quit IRC
102019-03-21T01:01:32 *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112019-03-21T01:06:04 *** fanquake has quit IRC
122019-03-21T01:15:33 *** zhangzf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132019-03-21T01:17:37 *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142019-03-21T01:20:13 *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152019-03-21T01:21:59 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
162019-03-21T01:22:10 *** captjakk has quit IRC
172019-03-21T01:25:31 *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182019-03-21T01:26:43 *** schmidty has quit IRC
192019-03-21T01:40:40 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
202019-03-21T01:42:17 *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
212019-03-21T01:45:33 *** schmidty has quit IRC
222019-03-21T01:52:21 *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232019-03-21T01:52:47 *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
242019-03-21T01:52:47 *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252019-03-21T01:52:59 *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
262019-03-21T01:57:08 *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
272019-03-21T02:01:23 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
282019-03-21T02:01:58 *** Karyon has quit IRC
292019-03-21T02:03:39 *** Karyon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302019-03-21T02:05:52 *** schmidty has quit IRC
312019-03-21T02:19:22 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
322019-03-21T02:19:37 *** e4xit has quit IRC
332019-03-21T02:19:48 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
342019-03-21T02:24:10 *** schmidty has quit IRC
352019-03-21T02:25:04 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
362019-03-21T02:29:37 *** schmidty has quit IRC
372019-03-21T02:46:57 *** dviola has quit IRC
382019-03-21T03:04:14 *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
392019-03-21T03:09:01 *** captjakk has quit IRC
402019-03-21T03:24:48 *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
412019-03-21T03:43:49 *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
422019-03-21T03:58:46 *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
432019-03-21T04:08:00 <mischa010> so is there any data on the average block verification time? preferably historical too?
442019-03-21T04:10:36 <gmaxwell> mischa010: your question is underspecified. What do you mean exactly?
452019-03-21T04:11:11 <gmaxwell> You were asking about propagation earlier-- so I might guess that your question is related to that? blocks essentially have no validation time in propagation 'on average'.
462019-03-21T04:16:22 <mischa010> well say it's before compact blocks and signature caches, nodes would get a block from another node and then verify it before propagating it, right?
472019-03-21T04:16:44 <gmaxwell> mischa010: signature caches were added in like 2012...
482019-03-21T04:16:56 <mischa010> oh hehe
492019-03-21T04:17:20 <mischa010> but there must be some delay
502019-03-21T04:17:27 <mischa010> before it's sent on to others?
512019-03-21T04:18:03 <mischa010> or was, before compact blocks
522019-03-21T04:18:37 <gmaxwell> Propagation has gotten faster through dozens of different changes in essentially every major version since 2012.
532019-03-21T04:18:50 <gmaxwell> So it's not easy to just give a x/y figure.
542019-03-21T04:19:18 <mischa010> to give some context: i made up a model to predict propagation times and it seems to agree with data quite well, but it contains a term for the 'propagation speed'
552019-03-21T04:19:18 <gmaxwell> Currently? my logs from a day ago show that of the 143 blocks it got, 6 contained any transactions it didn't know in advance. So in those cases some transactions needed to be validated. Otherwise none did, and the only time taken was the compact block reconstruction and verifying the hash.
562019-03-21T04:19:48 <gmaxwell> mischa010: what data? the bc.i data that I told you was essentially worthless? :P
572019-03-21T04:20:15 <mischa010> so it works if i set that to 4 mbit, but there's zero justification for that
582019-03-21T04:20:42 <mischa010> no the new data you gave me works too
592019-03-21T04:20:52 <mischa010> like 10% max relative error
602019-03-21T04:21:05 <mischa010> but again, only if i assume 4mbit propagation speed
612019-03-21T04:21:28 <gmaxwell> 4mbit is way too fast.
622019-03-21T04:21:44 <gmaxwell> here is actual propagation data from before compact blocks: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/sp2.png
632019-03-21T04:21:58 <gmaxwell> IIRC the slope of the line in that data is about 750kbit/sec.
642019-03-21T04:22:11 <gmaxwell> which is pretty reasonable for worldwide (high RTT) tcp.
652019-03-21T04:23:16 <gmaxwell> anything post compact blocks (or really even post relay network protocol) is mostly measuring the deployment level of compact blocks.
662019-03-21T04:23:39 <gmaxwell> since, as mentioned above, the overwhelming majority of blocks don't need to transfer any transactions at all at block time.
672019-03-21T04:24:33 <mischa010> yes
682019-03-21T04:24:46 <mischa010> well thanks
692019-03-21T04:24:51 <mischa010> back to the drawing board it is
702019-03-21T04:25:59 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
712019-03-21T04:26:38 <gmaxwell> it's also really hard to measure performance in the network because the performance you get in the network is a composite of multiple different techniques.
722019-03-21T04:27:49 <gmaxwell> E.g. normally the vast majority of long haul block propagation is done by FIBRE, since it achieves hundreds of times TCP throughput over high latency links pretty easily...
732019-03-21T04:30:24 *** schmidty has quit IRC
742019-03-21T04:36:18 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
752019-03-21T04:46:08 *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
762019-03-21T04:50:21 *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
772019-03-21T04:56:45 *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
782019-03-21T04:58:13 <mischa010> btw gmaxwell, y axis says '50% of pools', do you remember how many pools?
792019-03-21T05:05:27 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
802019-03-21T05:12:00 *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
812019-03-21T05:12:42 *** nothingmuch has quit IRC
822019-03-21T05:12:56 *** nothingmuch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
832019-03-21T05:13:23 *** echonaut has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
842019-03-21T05:14:03 *** echonaut18 has quit IRC
852019-03-21T05:27:58 *** harrymm has quit IRC
862019-03-21T05:28:32 *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
872019-03-21T05:31:13 *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
882019-03-21T05:31:35 *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
892019-03-21T05:36:40 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I think we should drop v1 HB mode support. There is no point in sending blocks quickly to v1 peers.
902019-03-21T05:37:59 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
912019-03-21T05:43:06 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
922019-03-21T05:54:09 *** nothingmuch has quit IRC
932019-03-21T05:54:10 *** nothingmuch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
942019-03-21T05:57:02 *** owowo has quit IRC
952019-03-21T06:26:56 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
962019-03-21T06:31:42 *** schmidty has quit IRC
972019-03-21T06:46:19 *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
982019-03-21T06:55:17 *** dviola has quit IRC
992019-03-21T07:21:46 *** jarthur has quit IRC
1002019-03-21T07:34:50 *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1012019-03-21T07:37:17 <fanquake> sipa / wumpus can you block kevinschoen from GitHub
1022019-03-21T07:37:31 <fanquake> They are spamming a link to a website that is very likely malware
1032019-03-21T07:37:48 <fanquake> With an "official" looking URL.
1042019-03-21T07:40:02 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1052019-03-21T07:41:32 <sipa> fanquake: done
1062019-03-21T07:41:53 <fanquake> sipa thanks.
1072019-03-21T07:42:05 <fanquake> I have removed all of the comments.
1082019-03-21T07:43:00 *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
1092019-03-21T07:45:02 *** rex4539 has quit IRC
1102019-03-21T07:46:52 *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1112019-03-21T07:47:51 <sipa> fanquake: great
1122019-03-21T07:48:42 <echeveria> fanquake: I can confirm that this is an attack site (as if it wasn't obvious). depending on the links you follow, you either get the legit binaries, or "bitcoin.exe".
1132019-03-21T07:52:25 <fanquake> echeveria thanks
1142019-03-21T07:53:40 <gmaxwell> I wonder if its the same parties that have been attacking electrum users?
1152019-03-21T07:57:32 *** andytoshi has quit IRC
1162019-03-21T07:59:31 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172019-03-21T07:59:33 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MeshCollider pushed 5 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b3f82284ba90...2607d960a02e
1182019-03-21T07:59:34 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 91868e6 Russell Yanofsky: Remove use CValidationInterface in wallet code
1192019-03-21T07:59:34 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4e4d9e9 Russell Yanofsky: Remove use of CRPCTable::appendCommand in wallet code
1202019-03-21T07:59:35 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b1b2b23 Russell Yanofsky: Remove use of CCoinsViewMemPool::GetCoin in wallet code
1212019-03-21T07:59:37 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1222019-03-21T07:59:56 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1232019-03-21T07:59:56 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MeshCollider merged pull request #10973: Refactor: separate wallet from node (master...pr/wipc-sep) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10973
1242019-03-21T07:59:57 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1252019-03-21T08:00:56 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1262019-03-21T08:00:56 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MeshCollider pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2607d960a02e...717fd58c4ba5
1272019-03-21T08:00:56 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bb6195e practicalswift: refactor: Remove unused function
1282019-03-21T08:00:57 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 717fd58 MeshCollider: Merge #15625: refactor: Remove unused function
1292019-03-21T08:00:58 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1302019-03-21T08:01:37 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312019-03-21T08:01:38 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MeshCollider merged pull request #15625: refactor: Remove unused function (master...remove-unused-function) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15625
1322019-03-21T08:01:39 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1332019-03-21T08:01:39 <echeveria> gmaxwell: using NameCheap is within the Electrum malware's style.
1342019-03-21T08:02:01 <gmaxwell> Fun fact, 82% of my banlist IPs are from 10 ASNs.
1352019-03-21T08:04:33 *** andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362019-03-21T08:06:43 *** fanquake has quit IRC
1372019-03-21T08:12:32 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1382019-03-21T08:16:09 *** harrymm has quit IRC
1392019-03-21T08:16:53 *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1402019-03-21T08:24:55 *** harrymm has quit IRC
1412019-03-21T08:27:52 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1422019-03-21T08:28:40 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
1432019-03-21T08:28:41 *** mn94958821 has quit IRC
1442019-03-21T08:28:56 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1452019-03-21T08:28:57 *** mn94958822 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1462019-03-21T08:32:50 *** schmidty has quit IRC
1472019-03-21T08:33:39 *** mn94958822 has quit IRC
1482019-03-21T08:33:39 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
1492019-03-21T08:34:26 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502019-03-21T08:35:49 *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1512019-03-21T08:38:49 *** promag has quit IRC
1522019-03-21T08:53:39 <wumpus> so apparently there's some funding initiative by Twitter/Square for core devs (I only learn of this through twitter now), https://twitter.com/jimmysong/status/1108500506106843137 - anyhow, if you're actively involved in Bitcoin Core's development and need this funding, and would like me to write a recommendation for you, let me know
1532019-03-21T08:54:40 *** arubi has quit IRC
1542019-03-21T08:55:03 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1552019-03-21T09:00:35 <fanquake> wumpus yea it looks interesting. Keen to see how the designer works with Qt & the project in general.
1562019-03-21T09:03:02 <wumpus> yeah
1572019-03-21T09:12:01 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1582019-03-21T09:12:03 <gmaxwell> mischa010: here is a pretty typical "time to first relay" for a 3k transation block on a not very fast host (2.2GHz, and no SIMD/asm SHA256): https://0bin.net/paste/mfZ2yV+QA6dwUoGl#9cUo-0q9z8QMzujMQb948phZuaW/mPwzPKSBpXwPMQ/ it shows 4.6ms from the time it first got the block until it sent it to another peer.
1592019-03-21T09:12:07 *** mn94958823 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1602019-03-21T09:12:07 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9 | Fix for GUI on Macs and latest wxWidgets by gavinandresen · Pull Request #9 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1612019-03-21T09:12:27 <gmaxwell> gribble why do you traumatize me so?
1622019-03-21T09:12:54 <gribble> It just seems like what everyone else is doing.
1632019-03-21T09:16:40 *** mn94958823 has quit IRC
1642019-03-21T09:16:42 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
1652019-03-21T09:17:54 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1662019-03-21T09:17:55 *** mn94958824 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1672019-03-21T09:22:44 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
1682019-03-21T09:22:46 *** mn94958824 has quit IRC
1692019-03-21T09:25:00 <gmaxwell> mischa010: actually here is a more complete log that also shows that it took 72ms to validate (hot cache). https://0bin.net/paste/-tXEltim85EBuCfv#84o+e5Uxv5IYu9LsQ-fLpBtog877N1PI5QsRCFpoRco
1702019-03-21T09:25:02 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/84 | Transaction-less transfer of value · Issue #84 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1712019-03-21T09:27:55 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722019-03-21T09:27:56 *** mn94958816 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1732019-03-21T09:31:14 <gmaxwell> thank you gribble, https://media1.tenor.com/images/2843fd374596fd548e8643a2eea4edf2/tenor.gif
1742019-03-21T09:32:48 *** mn94958816 has quit IRC
1752019-03-21T09:32:48 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
1762019-03-21T09:42:10 *** mmgen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1772019-03-21T09:45:25 *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1782019-03-21T09:54:45 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1792019-03-21T09:54:48 *** mn94958817 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1802019-03-21T09:55:38 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1812019-03-21T09:55:38 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gmaxwell opened pull request #15633: Ignore BIP-152 HB requests from non-witness peers. (master...201803-nohbcbfornonwit) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15633
1822019-03-21T09:55:50 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1832019-03-21T09:57:13 *** mn94958817 has quit IRC
1842019-03-21T09:57:28 *** mn94958818 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1852019-03-21T10:02:19 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
1862019-03-21T10:02:31 *** mn94958818 has quit IRC
1872019-03-21T10:09:26 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1882019-03-21T10:09:49 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1892019-03-21T10:16:35 *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
1902019-03-21T10:21:12 *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1912019-03-21T10:29:26 *** schmidty has quit IRC
1922019-03-21T10:30:02 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1932019-03-21T10:30:15 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1942019-03-21T10:30:15 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1952019-03-21T10:31:22 <jonasschnelli> Is or should it be possible to reduce the dbcache size once the node has completed IBD,... without a restart?
1962019-03-21T10:32:55 <jonasschnelli> I guess if I run with a large DB cache and the node has done IBD a couple of hours ago, it will not write the state to the database expect hitting the cache (or a shutdown)?
1972019-03-21T10:33:16 <jonasschnelli> There is AFAIK no time constraint that makes the cache write to disk... (hopefully I'm wrong)
1982019-03-21T10:35:07 <jonasschnelli> *expect hitting the cache limit (or a shutdown)
1992019-03-21T10:37:53 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: I remember there was some PR recently that added a flush of the dbcache immediately after IBD
2002019-03-21T10:38:34 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: but that would still lead to consuming a lot of RAM over time (without significant performance benefits in most cases)?
2012019-03-21T10:39:29 <wumpus> well yes the dbcache would fill again after that, it's mostly to prevent loss of data
2022019-03-21T10:40:18 <wumpus> but don't underestimate, the cache still has 'significant performance benefits' for verifying incoming blocks/transactions
2032019-03-21T10:40:31 <wumpus> even after IBD
2042019-03-21T10:41:07 <wumpus> especially for miners (desire for as-fast-as-possible verification), or low-end hardware (slow i/o), this can be important
2052019-03-21T10:41:57 <jonasschnelli> I'm currently targeting low-end hardware (aarch64) where RAM is crucial and find a good balance between fast sync (where other stuff may be disabled due to RAM constraints).
2062019-03-21T10:42:18 <jonasschnelli> And once IBD has been done, switch to a lower dbcache to allow other processes to run seems desirable
2072019-03-21T10:42:27 <jonasschnelli> And since its using SSD, i/o is non-crucial IMO
2082019-03-21T10:42:41 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2092019-03-21T10:43:18 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2102019-03-21T10:43:23 *** mn94958819 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2112019-03-21T10:48:03 *** mn94958819 has quit IRC
2122019-03-21T10:48:06 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
2132019-03-21T10:51:31 *** spinza has quit IRC
2142019-03-21T10:55:19 *** zhangzf has quit IRC
2152019-03-21T11:01:40 <wumpus> if you have the database on a (real) SSD it is, but lots of ARM devices use either slow external HDD or some SD card
2162019-03-21T11:01:48 <wumpus> anyhow, could be a configuration option I guess
2172019-03-21T11:04:18 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: the Rock64pro has a PCI-e (m.2 NVME SSD) (for ~60USD)
2182019-03-21T11:05:05 *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2192019-03-21T11:05:30 <wumpus> :o
2202019-03-21T11:05:43 <emilr> not that much of an inconvenience restarting bitcoind after IBD, all this features create a lot of complexity and maintenance down the road
2212019-03-21T11:06:03 *** schmidty has quit IRC
2222019-03-21T11:06:38 <emilr> I'm building bitcoin on a rpi, biggest hurdle thus far is the dependency tree, I had to give up on building boost-libs and use binaries
2232019-03-21T11:06:44 <wumpus> emilr: generally agree that trying to regulate things like this automatically results in an unpredictable mess
2242019-03-21T11:07:04 <wumpus> but, like, an RPC that allows changing settings such as dbcache at runtime wouldn't be that bad
2252019-03-21T11:07:35 <wumpus> (I think that'd be just a matter of flushing the current cache if it's > newsize and setting the new bound)
2262019-03-21T11:07:44 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2272019-03-21T11:08:16 <wumpus> the depends build should work on rpi
2282019-03-21T11:08:46 *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2292019-03-21T11:08:49 <wumpus> (which will build boost, and optionally berkeleydb/qt/etc for you)
2302019-03-21T11:09:41 <wumpus> I think it's one of the most popular devices to run a bitcoin node on
2312019-03-21T11:09:56 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2322019-03-21T11:11:11 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2332019-03-21T11:11:15 *** mn94958820 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342019-03-21T11:11:30 <emilr> not sure it will work without a restart given linux's memory management, I'm building it on freebsd from ports atm
2352019-03-21T11:12:46 *** schmidty has quit IRC
2362019-03-21T11:13:14 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2372019-03-21T11:13:15 <wumpus> linux's memory management is *definitely* able to give back freed memory to the OS, though things such as memory fragmentation can get in the way of course
2382019-03-21T11:16:12 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2392019-03-21T11:16:12 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gmaxwell closed pull request #15633: Ignore BIP-152 HB requests from non-witness peers. (master...201803-nohbcbfornonwit) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15633
2402019-03-21T11:16:13 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2412019-03-21T11:16:16 *** mn94958820 has quit IRC
2422019-03-21T11:16:53 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
2432019-03-21T11:22:01 *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
2442019-03-21T11:25:27 *** schmidty has quit IRC
2452019-03-21T11:31:21 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2462019-03-21T11:48:21 *** schmidty has quit IRC
2472019-03-21T11:49:32 *** hsmiths has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2482019-03-21T11:49:39 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2492019-03-21T11:49:40 *** mn94958821 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2502019-03-21T11:51:25 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2512019-03-21T11:51:26 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2522019-03-21T11:54:38 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
2532019-03-21T11:54:50 *** mn94958821 has quit IRC
2542019-03-21T11:56:03 *** rex4539 has quit IRC
2552019-03-21T12:01:55 *** schmidty has quit IRC
2562019-03-21T12:08:00 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2572019-03-21T12:08:00 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2582019-03-21T12:09:03 *** zhangzf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2592019-03-21T12:12:24 *** schmidty has quit IRC
2602019-03-21T12:14:23 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2612019-03-21T12:22:07 *** zhangzf_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2622019-03-21T12:22:32 *** zhangzf has quit IRC
2632019-03-21T12:29:32 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2642019-03-21T12:42:22 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2652019-03-21T12:42:24 *** mn94958822 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2662019-03-21T12:47:07 *** mn94958822 has quit IRC
2672019-03-21T12:47:52 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
2682019-03-21T12:50:29 *** jonatack has quit IRC
2692019-03-21T13:01:47 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2702019-03-21T13:06:34 *** schmidty has quit IRC
2712019-03-21T13:29:58 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2722019-03-21T13:29:59 *** mn94958823 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2732019-03-21T13:30:07 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2742019-03-21T13:34:57 *** mn94958823 has quit IRC
2752019-03-21T13:35:22 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
2762019-03-21T13:40:01 *** _Sam-- has quit IRC
2772019-03-21T13:41:39 *** mn94958825 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2782019-03-21T13:41:39 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2792019-03-21T13:44:11 *** _Sam-- has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2802019-03-21T13:46:42 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
2812019-03-21T13:46:58 *** mn94958825 has quit IRC
2822019-03-21T13:51:35 *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2832019-03-21T13:58:58 *** Tralfaz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2842019-03-21T14:01:27 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2852019-03-21T14:05:02 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2862019-03-21T14:10:17 *** michaelfolkson has quit IRC
2872019-03-21T14:10:35 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2882019-03-21T14:11:27 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2892019-03-21T14:11:46 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2902019-03-21T14:12:26 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2912019-03-21T14:12:31 *** mn94958826 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2922019-03-21T14:12:36 *** michaelfolkson has quit IRC
2932019-03-21T14:12:54 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2942019-03-21T14:13:42 *** michaelfolkson has quit IRC
2952019-03-21T14:13:52 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2962019-03-21T14:14:40 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2972019-03-21T14:17:14 *** mn94958826 has quit IRC
2982019-03-21T14:17:15 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
2992019-03-21T14:23:00 *** setpill has quit IRC
3002019-03-21T14:25:24 *** michaelfolkson has quit IRC
3012019-03-21T14:25:42 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3022019-03-21T14:27:35 *** schmidty has quit IRC
3032019-03-21T14:30:23 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3042019-03-21T14:30:23 *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3052019-03-21T14:30:41 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3062019-03-21T14:31:10 *** m8tion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3072019-03-21T14:33:22 *** michaelfolkson has quit IRC
3082019-03-21T14:34:53 *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3092019-03-21T14:35:16 *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
3102019-03-21T14:35:41 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3112019-03-21T14:36:38 *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3122019-03-21T14:36:53 *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3132019-03-21T14:38:58 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3142019-03-21T14:39:02 *** mn94958827 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3152019-03-21T14:39:15 *** michaelfolkson has quit IRC
3162019-03-21T14:43:35 *** mn94958827 has quit IRC
3172019-03-21T14:44:36 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
3182019-03-21T14:48:19 *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3192019-03-21T14:48:20 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3202019-03-21T15:01:40 *** michaelfolkson has quit IRC
3212019-03-21T15:01:54 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3222019-03-21T15:05:04 *** michaelf_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3232019-03-21T15:05:28 *** michaelf_ has quit IRC
3242019-03-21T15:22:05 *** ExtraCrispy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3252019-03-21T15:24:10 *** m8tion has quit IRC
3262019-03-21T15:24:42 *** m8tion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3272019-03-21T15:33:32 *** mn94958828 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3282019-03-21T15:33:33 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3292019-03-21T15:34:12 *** zhangzf_ has quit IRC
3302019-03-21T15:35:53 *** hebasto has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3312019-03-21T15:36:51 <BlueMatt> <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I think we should drop v1 HB mode support. There is no point in sending blocks quickly to v1 peers. <-- ack
3322019-03-21T15:37:06 <BlueMatt> seems like more than enough time has passed for that
3332019-03-21T15:38:41 *** mn94958828 has quit IRC
3342019-03-21T15:38:42 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
3352019-03-21T15:40:55 *** echonaut has quit IRC
3362019-03-21T15:56:20 *** michaelfolkson has quit IRC
3372019-03-21T16:01:57 *** setpill has quit IRC
3382019-03-21T16:07:47 *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3392019-03-21T16:20:07 *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
3402019-03-21T16:21:10 *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3412019-03-21T16:22:16 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3422019-03-21T16:22:45 *** spinza has quit IRC
3432019-03-21T16:27:53 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3442019-03-21T16:27:59 *** mn94958824 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3452019-03-21T16:33:33 *** mn94958824 has quit IRC
3462019-03-21T16:33:33 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
3472019-03-21T16:42:17 *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3482019-03-21T17:05:47 *** dqx_ has quit IRC
3492019-03-21T17:08:38 *** michaelfolkson has quit IRC
3502019-03-21T17:15:07 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3512019-03-21T17:16:24 *** promag has quit IRC
3522019-03-21T17:16:33 *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3532019-03-21T17:18:20 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3542019-03-21T17:22:27 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3552019-03-21T17:22:32 *** mn94958829 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3562019-03-21T17:23:35 *** promag has quit IRC
3572019-03-21T17:27:16 *** mn94958829 has quit IRC
3582019-03-21T17:27:33 *** dqx_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3592019-03-21T17:27:50 *** mn949588 has quit IRC
3602019-03-21T17:29:32 *** mn949588 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3612019-03-21T17:29:33 *** mn94958830 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3622019-03-21T17:35:52 *** m8tion_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3632019-03-21T17:38:13 *** m8tion has quit IRC
3642019-03-21T17:41:51 *** BlueMatt has quit IRC
3652019-03-21T17:42:19 *** mischa010 has quit IRC
3662019-03-21T17:44:52 *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3672019-03-21T17:46:11 *** BlueMatt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3682019-03-21T17:50:49 <gleb> Is core meeting in 10 minutes?
3692019-03-21T18:02:55 *** tryphe has quit IRC
3702019-03-21T18:03:20 *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3712019-03-21T18:12:54 *** hebasto has quit IRC
3722019-03-21T18:15:16 <wumpus> should be in 45 minutes
3732019-03-21T18:19:47 <gleb> I see, thanks.
3742019-03-21T18:26:40 *** dqx_ has quit IRC
3752019-03-21T18:27:01 *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
3762019-03-21T18:30:13 <wumpus> it's 19:00 Reijkjavik time (UTC)
3772019-03-21T18:33:17 <phantomcircuit> wumpus, flushing the cache after ibd seems like a bad idea, that would vastly increase the latency of procssing blocks in the future
3782019-03-21T18:33:21 <phantomcircuit> processing*
3792019-03-21T18:34:55 <jamesob> I still don't get why we necessarily empty the cache upon flush
3802019-03-21T18:35:55 *** user__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3812019-03-21T18:36:27 *** j has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3822019-03-21T18:36:50 *** j is now known as Guest40623
3832019-03-21T18:37:08 *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3842019-03-21T18:38:24 *** m8tion_ has quit IRC
3852019-03-21T18:44:23 *** m8tion_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3862019-03-21T18:46:42 *** user__ has quit IRC
3872019-03-21T18:47:20 *** dqx_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3882019-03-21T18:51:02 *** dqx_ has quit IRC
3892019-03-21T18:51:31 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3902019-03-21T18:58:36 <wumpus> phantomcircuit: it has some drawbacks as well, sure
3912019-03-21T18:58:55 <wumpus> jamesob: because there's that's the only eviction policy
3922019-03-21T18:59:21 *** dqx_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3932019-03-21T18:59:39 <wumpus> cache is full â evict all, I remember some experiments were done with other ideas, but it didn't improve performance while it did make the code much more complex
3942019-03-21T19:00:15 <wumpus> #startmeeting
3952019-03-21T19:00:15 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Mar 21 19:00:15 2019 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
3962019-03-21T19:00:15 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
3972019-03-21T19:00:18 <provoostenator> hi
3982019-03-21T19:00:19 <jonasschnelli> hi
3992019-03-21T19:00:22 <jnewbery> hi
4002019-03-21T19:00:47 <MarcoFalke> yo
4012019-03-21T19:00:48 <kanzure> hi
4022019-03-21T19:00:59 <achow101> hi
4032019-03-21T19:01:22 <MarcoFalke> When rc3?
4042019-03-21T19:01:32 <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator aj Chris_Stewart_5 dongcarl gwillen jamesob ken281221 ryanofsky gleb
4052019-03-21T19:01:35 <instagibbs> hi
4062019-03-21T19:01:41 <sipa> hi
4072019-03-21T19:01:44 <promag> hi
4082019-03-21T19:01:45 <luke-jr> hi
4092019-03-21T19:01:47 <gleb> hi
4102019-03-21T19:01:49 <meshcollider> hi
4112019-03-21T19:02:01 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: dunno, rc2 was only very short ago, might want to wait a bit for test results
4122019-03-21T19:02:23 <MarcoFalke> Early next week?
4132019-03-21T19:02:26 <jamesob> hi
4142019-03-21T19:02:34 <moneyball> hi
4152019-03-21T19:02:41 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: sgtm
4162019-03-21T19:02:41 <luke-jr> hi
4172019-03-21T19:02:48 <jonasschnelli> This #15310 needs probably a fix until rc3
4182019-03-21T19:02:49 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15310 | gui: crash if encrypt / change passphrase window is open and wallet is unloaded · Issue #15310 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4192019-03-21T19:03:07 *** dqx_ has quit IRC
4202019-03-21T19:03:27 <jonasschnelli> Where two proposal to fix it are available: #15313 and #15614 (though not enough review)
4212019-03-21T19:03:29 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15313 | Qt: avoid AskPassphraseDialog synchronous QDialog.exec() calls by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #15313 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4222019-03-21T19:03:30 <promag> jonasschnelli: maybe #15614
4232019-03-21T19:03:31 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15614 | 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active by promag · Pull Request #15614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4242019-03-21T19:03:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15614 | 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active by promag · Pull Request #15614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4252019-03-21T19:04:22 *** dqx_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4262019-03-21T19:04:42 <provoostenator> I'll take a look at both
4272019-03-21T19:04:46 <wumpus> what is the different between the approaches?
4282019-03-21T19:04:47 <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell wanted to revert the PR that causes the issue (GUI load/unload)... though I think #15313 is fine
4292019-03-21T19:04:48 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15313 | Qt: avoid AskPassphraseDialog synchronous QDialog.exec() calls by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #15313 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4302019-03-21T19:05:17 <jonasschnelli> The #15614 fix delays the unload until all modal windows haven been closed
4312019-03-21T19:05:20 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15614 | 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active by promag · Pull Request #15614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4322019-03-21T19:05:32 <jonasschnelli> where #15313 does close them directly
4332019-03-21T19:05:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15313 | Qt: avoid AskPassphraseDialog synchronous QDialog.exec() calls by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #15313 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4342019-03-21T19:05:59 <wumpus> so is any one decidedly simpler for a last minute rc fix?
4352019-03-21T19:06:03 <jonasschnelli> IMO its an edge case (GUI unload wallet via RPC when -server is active)
4362019-03-21T19:06:11 <promag> right ^
4372019-03-21T19:06:24 <jonasschnelli> For a last minut fix, promag's 15313 is probably more sane
4382019-03-21T19:06:31 <promag> for 0.18 the shorter is 15614
4392019-03-21T19:06:32 <jonasschnelli> It just can make unloadwallet time out
4402019-03-21T19:06:32 <luke-jr> does RPC unload actually go through GUI walletmodel code like that?
4412019-03-21T19:06:35 *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4422019-03-21T19:06:35 <wumpus> still, someone apparently stumbled on it in the short testing duration
4432019-03-21T19:06:59 <wumpus> luke-jr: it should trigger the same notifications
4442019-03-21T19:07:00 <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: it does unload the wallet and there are synchonous dialog calls (the root cause) which leads to a crash
4452019-03-21T19:07:21 * jonasschnelli stabs synchronous modal dialog calls
4462019-03-21T19:07:30 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: I get that, I just don't understand how #15614 works
4472019-03-21T19:07:31 <wumpus> ok I'll contingently tag 15313 for 0.18.0 then
4482019-03-21T19:07:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15614 | 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active by promag · Pull Request #15614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4492019-03-21T19:07:46 <promag> luke-jr: the issue comes from QDialog::exec, which spins another event loop
4502019-03-21T19:08:03 <jonasschnelli> 15313 will just wait until user closes it, which can lead to a timeout in RPC unloadwallet (probably okay)
4512019-03-21T19:08:11 <wumpus> oh, was already tagged
4522019-03-21T19:08:24 <jonasschnelli> Sry,... wrong. I meant 15614 is the one that waits
4532019-03-21T19:08:39 <jonasschnelli> 15313 does close it explicit and then unload the wallet
4542019-03-21T19:08:47 *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
4552019-03-21T19:08:51 <jonasschnelli> but not all dialogs can be closed with the current code (needs major refactoring)
4562019-03-21T19:09:11 <jonasschnelli> lets just go with 15614...
4572019-03-21T19:09:18 <promag> yap, I've started it but its too much for 0.18
4582019-03-21T19:09:50 <jonasschnelli> yes
4592019-03-21T19:09:53 <luke-jr> ok, I think I see how it works basically
4602019-03-21T19:09:56 *** mischa010 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4612019-03-21T19:09:57 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4622019-03-21T19:09:57 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #15313: Qt: avoid AskPassphraseDialog synchronous QDialog.exec() calls (master...2019/01/qt_exec) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15313
4632019-03-21T19:09:57 <wumpus> that's not really an option for 0.18.0, no, then I'd prefer the revert approach
4642019-03-21T19:09:59 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4652019-03-21T19:10:08 <promag> luke-jr: 15614 delays the wallet model destruction after all dialogs are closed
4662019-03-21T19:10:10 <luke-jr> but does a focus change necessarily mean the GUI is done with it?
4672019-03-21T19:10:35 <luke-jr> specifically, isn't coin control non-modal?
4682019-03-21T19:10:38 <jonasschnelli> 15614 is a good fix for a case where someone unloads a wallet via RPC when using the GUI (probably rar use-cases)
4692019-03-21T19:11:03 <promag> luke-jr: afaik there is no signal to know the active window changed
4702019-03-21T19:11:12 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: ok good to know
4712019-03-21T19:11:13 <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: it just checks again... when the focus changes (since this is what happens if you close a Dialog)
4722019-03-21T19:11:51 <jonasschnelli> The long term fix is avoiding synchronous calls
4732019-03-21T19:12:15 <promag> jonasschnelli: luke-jr: actually now I remember there is QWindow::activeChanged since qt5
4742019-03-21T19:12:29 <promag> I'll recheck
4752019-03-21T19:12:48 <jonasschnelli> however, please review #15614 to merge it into 0.18 asap
4762019-03-21T19:12:49 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15614 | 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active by promag · Pull Request #15614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4772019-03-21T19:13:13 <jonasschnelli> we probably won't ship with known and fixable crashes
4782019-03-21T19:13:27 <MarcoFalke> #action review #15614
4792019-03-21T19:13:29 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15614 | 0.18: gui: Defer removeAndDeleteWallet when no modal widget is active by promag · Pull Request #15614 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4802019-03-21T19:13:38 <MarcoFalke> Should also do a forward-port to master?
4812019-03-21T19:13:57 <MarcoFalke> Or maybe open the pull against master?
4822019-03-21T19:14:33 <promag> MarcoFalke: I'll rather not, unless you prefer, cause the right fix is to remove qdialog::exec calls
4832019-03-21T19:14:57 <jonasschnelli> promag: regardless of the long term solution, we probably want this also in master
4842019-03-21T19:14:58 <promag> no strong opinion really
4852019-03-21T19:15:03 <luke-jr> things are supposed to go into master before backports (although I can think of cases where that's not viable, so maybe it should be a hard rule)
4862019-03-21T19:15:12 <jonasschnelli> what luke-jr says
4872019-03-21T19:15:13 <promag> MarcoFalke: I'll push it then
4882019-03-21T19:15:21 <luke-jr> shouldn't*
4892019-03-21T19:15:34 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: our usual strategy is to have everything in master first, so that no fixes get lost
4902019-03-21T19:15:45 <MarcoFalke> jup, agree with luke-jr
4912019-03-21T19:15:48 <promag> ok np
4922019-03-21T19:15:53 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: yes.
4932019-03-21T19:15:53 <wumpus> if something *only* applies to a branch there's of course an exception
4942019-03-21T19:16:05 <wumpus> butthat's not the case here
4952019-03-21T19:16:12 <promag> just note that it will be reverted
4962019-03-21T19:16:20 <wumpus> not reverted, replaced
4972019-03-21T19:16:27 <promag> right :)
4982019-03-21T19:16:29 <luke-jr> *shrug* reverts are fine when appropriate
4992019-03-21T19:16:45 <wumpus> reverts are fine if some change turns out to be bad
5002019-03-21T19:16:50 <wumpus> we could to that too â¦
5012019-03-21T19:16:57 <wumpus> that was gmaxwell's proposal right
5022019-03-21T19:17:19 <wumpus> though if other changes built on top since, it might be non-trivial now
5032019-03-21T19:17:21 <promag> reverting that brings other issues
5042019-03-21T19:17:44 <luke-jr> wumpus: we're talking about a revert of the bandaid fix
5052019-03-21T19:17:49 <luke-jr> eg, as part of a real fix
5062019-03-21T19:17:51 <wumpus> I think we shouldn't have merged those things so late, in retrspect
5072019-03-21T19:18:00 <promag> again, this is really very unlikely, you have to run bitcoin-qt -server
5082019-03-21T19:18:09 <wumpus> anyhow let's do the fix for rc3
5092019-03-21T19:18:12 <wumpus> any other topics?
5102019-03-21T19:18:15 <cfields> topic suggestion: win codesigning cert.
5112019-03-21T19:18:26 <luke-jr> would be nice to get getbalance fixed, but I need to run.. <.<
5122019-03-21T19:18:42 <wumpus> #topic win codesigning cert (cfields)
5132019-03-21T19:18:49 <cfields> I'm still trying to understand what's going on, but it seems as though the win cert has expired
5142019-03-21T19:19:03 <wumpus> oh?!?
5152019-03-21T19:19:04 <jonasschnelli> oh..
5162019-03-21T19:19:07 <cfields> But afacs it's not causing any problems.
5172019-03-21T19:19:17 <cfields> So I'm confused.
5182019-03-21T19:19:23 <jonasschnelli> cfields: should we register a new one via the Bitcoin Core Code Signing Association?
5192019-03-21T19:19:36 <cfields> I always do a test-install on Win7, and the cert should've been expired for rc2, but nothing complained.
5202019-03-21T19:19:47 <jonasschnelli> cfields: tolerance period? :-)
5212019-03-21T19:19:47 *** DougieBot5000_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5222019-03-21T19:19:50 <cfields> jonasschnelli: I think yes, asap if possible.
5232019-03-21T19:20:26 <jonasschnelli> cfields: I have never done this. Glad if someone with Win experience wants to do it. I'm ready to support on the legal/address/payment side.
5242019-03-21T19:20:32 <cfields> jonasschnelli: If you're up for that, I'm happy to help.
5252019-03-21T19:20:49 <jonasschnelli> Okay. Lets do that together cfields.
5262019-03-21T19:20:53 <cfields> I haven't either, but I think I have a few records from the last cert.
5272019-03-21T19:20:58 <cfields> jonasschnelli: Thanks!
5282019-03-21T19:21:06 <wumpus> awesome, thanks jonasschnelli and cfields
5292019-03-21T19:21:16 <cfields> sorry if this causes problems..
5302019-03-21T19:21:19 <wumpus> without you we'd probably have to drop windows support :)
5312019-03-21T19:21:32 <jonasschnelli> Would also be good to get a sponsor for the Bitcoin Core Code Signing Association at some point (raise your hand if your willing)
5322019-03-21T19:21:32 <cfields> wumpus: maybe we should discuss an async win release?
5332019-03-21T19:21:49 <cfields> wumpus: Hah, in that case I'll leave!
5342019-03-21T19:21:57 <wumpus> cfields: how do you mean?
5352019-03-21T19:22:01 <cfields> async win release just in case, that is.
5362019-03-21T19:22:22 <gwillen> jonasschnelli: sponsor in what sense?
5372019-03-21T19:22:27 <cfields> If there's a cert problem that would delay the win release, it'd be a shame to hold up everything.
5382019-03-21T19:22:46 <jonasschnelli> gwillen: There are litte costs (domain, macOS developer programm and now the win code signing cert)
5392019-03-21T19:22:48 <cfields> heh, I realize this is like the 10th time now that I've suggested that :)
5402019-03-21T19:23:01 <wumpus> you mean doing a release without windows binaries?
5412019-03-21T19:23:09 <wumpus> I⦠don't think I want to do that
5422019-03-21T19:23:10 *** DougieBot5000 has quit IRC
5432019-03-21T19:23:17 <wumpus> will get too many complaints
5442019-03-21T19:23:41 <cfields> wumpus: ok, no worries, just thinking of contingencies.
5452019-03-21T19:23:41 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: I would prefer to see someone sponsor a neutral codesigning org
5462019-03-21T19:23:48 <gwillen> jonasschnelli: I am happy to pay little costs, I would assume there are plenty of people here willing but lmk
5472019-03-21T19:23:50 <jonasschnelli> Indeed. Also, watch out, this is a discussion rabbit hole (windows yes/no)
5482019-03-21T19:24:07 <wumpus> cfields: for an RC it's okay, I think
5492019-03-21T19:24:11 <wumpus> cfields: but not for final
5502019-03-21T19:24:20 <cfields> I would be curious to know if rc2 is busted on win10, though.
5512019-03-21T19:24:29 <cfields> If it is and nobody noticed, that'd be noteworthy.
5522019-03-21T19:24:31 <wumpus> I don't think it is
5532019-03-21T19:24:40 <wumpus> someone would have told me
5542019-03-21T19:24:42 <jonasschnelli> I'll do some VM testing asap
5552019-03-21T19:25:28 <cfields> thanks all. </topic>
5562019-03-21T19:25:35 <jonasschnelli> gwillen: great to hear.. just need to find a good way how to do this
5572019-03-21T19:25:55 <wumpus> any other topics ?
5582019-03-21T19:26:27 <jnewbery> We didn't talk about high priority for review, but I guess high priority isn't high priority when we have an upcoming release
5592019-03-21T19:26:45 <sipa> yeah
5602019-03-21T19:27:04 <jnewbery> My only suggestion would be to add #14121 to the list, which has a few ACKs and seems close to being mergeable
5612019-03-21T19:27:08 <wumpus> oh sorry, yes
5622019-03-21T19:27:14 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14121 | Index for BIP 157 block filters by jimpo · Pull Request #14121 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5632019-03-21T19:27:16 <wumpus> #topic High priority for review
5642019-03-21T19:27:32 *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5652019-03-21T19:27:35 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli, gwillen: (neutral as opposed to Core-only)
5662019-03-21T19:27:43 <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: makes little sense IMO
5672019-03-21T19:28:35 <wumpus> 14121 added to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
5682019-03-21T19:28:43 <MarcoFalke> May I suggest #15596 for high prio?
5692019-03-21T19:28:45 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15596 | rpc: Ignore sendmany::minconf as dummy value by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #15596 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5702019-03-21T19:29:16 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: ok, added
5712019-03-21T19:30:19 <jnewbery> It was great to see #10973 merged yesterday. Thanks to ryanofsky for putting so much work into it!
5722019-03-21T19:30:24 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10973 | Refactor: separate wallet from node by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10973 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5732019-03-21T19:30:34 <jonasschnelli> indeed
5742019-03-21T19:30:41 <wumpus> jnewbery: and right, we skipped high priority review just before the branch / rc1 release, but now that that is done, I suppose enough people are focusing on things to get into 0.19.0 already
5752019-03-21T19:30:45 <gwillen> luke-jr: I'm happy to pay minor costs either way but who outside core would use it?
5762019-03-21T19:31:03 <cfields> woohoo!
5772019-03-21T19:31:22 <promag> MarcoFalke: didn't know you could change base!
5782019-03-21T19:31:53 <jonasschnelli> me neither
5792019-03-21T19:32:02 <sipa> change base?
5802019-03-21T19:32:14 <jonasschnelli> switch a PR from 0.18 to master (as exampe)
5812019-03-21T19:32:18 *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
5822019-03-21T19:32:28 <wumpus> and yes, congrats on #10973!
5832019-03-21T19:32:33 * MarcoFalke all you base belong to me
5842019-03-21T19:32:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10973 | Refactor: separate wallet from node by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10973 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5852019-03-21T19:32:40 <wumpus> sipa: change the target branch for a PR
5862019-03-21T19:32:46 <sipa> oh!
5872019-03-21T19:32:47 <ryanofsky> thanks all
5882019-03-21T19:34:10 <wumpus> any other topics?
5892019-03-21T19:35:11 <kanzure> mailing list update: migration still pending. linuxfoundation is in charge of this, and i don't get updates from them.
5902019-03-21T19:35:32 <kanzure> warren might have more info
5912019-03-21T19:35:49 <jonasschnelli> kanzure: thanks for the update
5922019-03-21T19:35:59 <kanzure> sorry it's not more helpful :)
5932019-03-21T19:36:04 <jonasschnelli> Maybe also write back that that email asking why it was so short notice
5942019-03-21T19:36:05 <wumpus> yes, he mentioned it, it's been delayed a bit
5952019-03-21T19:36:41 <warren> I'm writing a longer story of what led up to this for the list, and we have another delay due to one guy taking sick leave.
5962019-03-21T19:36:43 <kanzure> i suppose the reason for short notice is that we didn't inform everyone a year ago when linuxfoundation announced their intentions
5972019-03-21T19:37:06 <kanzure> although i do vaguely recall talking about it
5982019-03-21T19:37:11 <jonasschnelli> Yes. But the list doesn't know that
5992019-03-21T19:37:21 <jonasschnelli> Or I missed it
6002019-03-21T19:38:14 *** DougieBot5000_ is now known as DougieBot5000
6012019-03-21T19:38:42 <warren> Late 2017 they notified us that mailman2 was unmaintainable and they had to eventually migrate all their lists onto a new platform. mailman2 had a dead upstream for years and mailman3 they tried but determined was unusable. <then a long story of evaluating options follows>
6022019-03-21T19:38:57 <warren> <then how predictably people will try to step up to claim they can self-host it>
6032019-03-21T19:39:19 <warren> This is a long story and the list deserves to hear everything that happened and was considered.
6042019-03-21T19:39:22 <wumpus> yes, I remember that
6052019-03-21T19:40:05 *** Krellan has quit IRC
6062019-03-21T19:40:19 <wumpus> it's increasingly difficult to do mailing lists, no one really cares anymore
6072019-03-21T19:41:10 *** aqquadro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6082019-03-21T19:41:19 <jonasschnelli> which is sad
6092019-03-21T19:41:20 <wumpus> (maybe except for the linux mailing list and freedesktop/mesa, everyone hates using them, let alone maintaining them)
6102019-03-21T19:41:22 <warren> <I did try to ping many of you over the past year for opinions, got very little, then one of you blamed me for not just forcing a decision, I did one more round of asking many of you for opinions, most of you replied you don't care, we considered self-hosting options evaluated by aj, settled on the least effort solution with self-hosted archives> will explain all this on list.
6112019-03-21T19:41:50 <kanzure> alright alright, no need to assign blame
6122019-03-21T19:42:13 <wumpus> it's no one's responsibility so also no one's blame
6132019-03-21T19:42:24 <warren> The guy who blamed me was right. It was unrealstic of me to expect "the group" could make a decision when most people don't care, they just want it to work.
6142019-03-21T19:43:17 <wumpus> in principle it's even off topic in the bitcoin core meeting, the bitcoin-dev mailing list is outside it's scope, not that I mind
6152019-03-21T19:43:53 <jonasschnelli> Yes. It's not managed by the Core team
6162019-03-21T19:43:55 <wumpus> anyhow, I think we had this, any other topics?
6172019-03-21T19:44:01 <wumpus> right
6182019-03-21T19:44:05 <warren> right
6192019-03-21T19:44:21 <wumpus> don't ask who it should be managed by, but it's not core's thing
6202019-03-21T19:45:18 <wumpus> anyone who does care about the list should be happy that warren is doing this work at all, if not, it would just disappear
6212019-03-21T19:46:15 <jnewbery> ^ agree. Thanks warren!
6222019-03-21T19:46:17 <warren> It's worth noting despite trying to deprecate the old mailman2 server they've tried to keep it online for us and a few other dev communities who had a hard time moving, and most of their downtime trouble was due to DoS attacks targeting only bitcoin-dev.
6232019-03-21T19:46:49 <jonasschnelli> *sigh*
6242019-03-21T19:46:51 <warren> The new infrastructure they recommend they are not concerned about DoS attacks, it's expected and better maintained so it won't fall over so easily.
6252019-03-21T19:48:40 <wumpus> thanks to the Linux Foundation too, then! it wouldn't be crazy for them to drop bitcoin-dev if it's such a hot potato
6262019-03-21T19:48:56 <wumpus> going to end this meeting, I don't think there's any more topics
6272019-03-21T19:48:58 <wumpus> #endmeeting
6282019-03-21T19:48:58 <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Mar 21 19:48:58 2019 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
6292019-03-21T19:48:58 <lightningbot> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2019/bitcoin-core-dev.2019-03-21-19.00.html
6302019-03-21T19:48:58 <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2019/bitcoin-core-dev.2019-03-21-19.00.txt
6312019-03-21T19:48:58 <lightningbot> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2019/bitcoin-core-dev.2019-03-21-19.00.log.html
6322019-03-21T19:49:43 <cfields> jonasschnelli: Arrgh, I see what happened. I checked a few weeks ago to see when the cert would expire, and it's March 5 2019. But for whatever reason it was displayed in european order as 5/3/2019, so I thought we had time.
6332019-03-21T19:49:45 <warren> I was afraid they would want to drop us because of these attacks but they see us as potentially important one day. Currently they don't understand us but "they stole some top kernel engineers ... might be important"
6342019-03-21T19:49:53 <wumpus> surprisingly much of the infrastructure and stuff around bitcoin is hanging together by a few threads, and single individuals that happily still care about it
6352019-03-21T19:50:07 <cfields> And maybe the signature only worked because we use osslsigncode rather than the official tool.
6362019-03-21T19:50:15 <cfields> That still doesn't explain why the installer worked, though.
6372019-03-21T19:50:19 <jonasschnelli> cfields: heh. No worries. Just tell me where to buy a new one (if you know that)
6382019-03-21T19:50:47 <warren> oh I missed the win signature discussion, will it be something other than Bitcoin Foundation in the future?
6392019-03-21T19:50:49 <jonasschnelli> gwillen eventually sponsors the cert (well,.. he doesn't know the costs yet)
6402019-03-21T19:50:57 <jonasschnelli> warren: yes
6412019-03-21T19:51:05 <cfields> jonasschnelli: I'll look up the old stuff and forward it to you. Gavin forwarded the previous registration stuff to me I think.
6422019-03-21T19:51:06 <jonasschnelli> Bitcoin Core Code Signing Association (based in Switzerland)
6432019-03-21T19:51:21 <jonasschnelli> (same as for macOS since a while)
6442019-03-21T19:52:09 <jnewbery> cfields: 'european order' lol
6452019-03-21T19:52:13 <gwillen> yes I am happy to formally donate to the Bitcoin Core Code Signing Association, someone should tell me an amount and where to mail a check :-)
6462019-03-21T19:52:27 <jonasschnelli> a check he said
6472019-03-21T19:52:47 <gwillen> ;-)
6482019-03-21T19:52:48 <cfields> jnewbery: Lol, wow. Can't believe it came out that way.
6492019-03-21T19:53:10 <jonasschnelli> BTW: https://github.com/bitcoincore-codesigning-association
6502019-03-21T19:53:10 <jonasschnelli> https://bitcoincorecodesigning.org
6512019-03-21T19:53:18 <warren> gwillen: if only we had some kind of electronic bearer instrument
6522019-03-21T19:53:24 <jonasschnelli> haha
6532019-03-21T19:53:27 <wumpus> hehe
6542019-03-21T19:53:30 <gwillen> here in the united states of the 19th century, we do everything by check
6552019-03-21T19:57:56 <cfields> jnewbery: in case you're having trouble keeping up, that's 91sth century in european order.
6562019-03-21T19:58:36 <cfields> jonasschnelli: hmm, all I can tell really is that it came from Comodo.
6572019-03-21T19:59:03 <jonasschnelli> cfields: I guess using comodo then makes sense
6582019-03-21T19:59:09 <jonasschnelli> Are there any configuration parameters?
6592019-03-21T19:59:11 <jnewbery> Thanks cfields! Philippines and Solamalia also use your back-front-to middle-endian date format, so it's not just the US :)
6602019-03-21T19:59:51 <cfields> jonasschnelli: yea, I was looking for any kind of config/record/params and don't see any record :(
6612019-03-21T20:00:04 <cfields> jonasschnelli: the old cert is in git though if it helps to take a look at
6622019-03-21T20:00:06 <cfields> sec for a dump
6632019-03-21T20:00:12 <sipa> gwillen: i was very surprised when my first paycheck in the US was actually a piece of paper :p
6642019-03-21T20:00:15 <jonasschnelli> thanks...
6652019-03-21T20:01:31 <cfields> jonasschnelli: https://pastebin.com/raw/vCCimFVj
6662019-03-21T20:01:57 <gwillen> sipa: I pay my rent by instructing my bank to print a piece of paper and send it through the US Mail once a month
6672019-03-21T20:01:59 <cfields> jonasschnelli: sha256 for sure, sha1 caused a headache at one point. Though I assume it's not an option anymore.
6682019-03-21T20:02:11 <jonasschnelli> hopefully
6692019-03-21T20:02:38 <cfields> we didn't really discuss who would actually hold the cert...
6702019-03-21T20:02:51 <cfields> gmaxwell: did that threshold scheme ever get anywhere?
6712019-03-21T20:03:11 <cfields> s/cert/key/
6722019-03-21T20:03:44 <jonasschnelli> I think â because we can always re-issue â we should go with cfields holding it for now (to keep status quo)
6732019-03-21T20:04:37 *** captjakk has quit IRC
6742019-03-21T20:04:40 <cfields> Fine by me. I'd also be completely fine with you holding both.
6752019-03-21T20:05:27 <jonasschnelli> cfields: I'd prefer if you hold the windows cert.
6762019-03-21T20:06:04 <cfields> np
6772019-03-21T20:06:07 *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6782019-03-21T20:06:41 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: https://bitcoincorecodesigning.org <- nice website
6792019-03-21T20:07:11 <cfields> Whoa, I had no idea. +1 :)
6802019-03-21T20:07:49 <jonasschnelli> Well... if someone questions the existence of the association... I haven had to get a D.U.N.S. number to walk though the apple process
6812019-03-21T20:08:08 <cfields> Ah, heh. Makes sense.
6822019-03-21T20:08:18 <jonasschnelli> cfields: Please provide gwillen your email address,.. so only you can then create / manage the certificate
6832019-03-21T20:08:31 <jonasschnelli> (he will buy it... if that works)
6842019-03-21T20:08:32 *** captjakk has quit IRC
6852019-03-21T20:09:24 <jonasschnelli> I need to cut costs on my side,.. since Bitmain is in troubles
6862019-03-21T20:24:42 <warren> jonasschnelli: what is the structure of the association? surely we should spread these costs out to many members? how is the association chartered? I had been exploring with the Linux Foundation ways to charter non-profits in ways where funders are unable to interfere with the mission of an org for readingbitcoin.org
6872019-03-21T20:25:07 *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6882019-03-21T20:25:39 <jonasschnelli> warren: there is no real structure. :/ It has just been setup with minimal paperwork to get the certificates
6892019-03-21T20:26:09 <jonasschnelli> I think its probably not worth to do it...
6902019-03-21T20:27:00 <jonasschnelli> There is another association I'm currently building up (with a proper structure) called "Bitcoin Developer and Researcher Association" (BitDRA) which should aim to finance real work/projects
6912019-03-21T20:30:53 <warren> I think people have rightly been fearful of central orgs paying for developers, but we're increasingly seeing multiple orgs both for-profit and non-profit. Some common safety driven peer-review driven process between many contributing orgs seems to be de facto how this can work without creating new risks.
6922019-03-21T20:32:25 <gmaxwell> please thats unrelated to the signing thing. the signing thing should be single purpose and isolated.
6932019-03-21T20:32:38 <jonasschnelli> Yes. Indeed
6942019-03-21T20:32:45 <warren> I didn't suggest they be related.
6952019-03-21T20:41:49 *** captjakk has quit IRC
6962019-03-21T20:46:34 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: what makes little sense is Core-only. what good is it to pay the same costs more than once for no benefit?
6972019-03-21T20:47:14 <luke-jr> gwillen: Knots at least; I would think HWI stuff also, and probably Lightning wallets
6982019-03-21T20:47:35 <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: I see that point. Its just about risks, affiliation and key management
6992019-03-21T20:47:54 <jonasschnelli> Which is not worth for the costs of 200$/year
7002019-03-21T20:48:05 <jonasschnelli> (not worth to mix IMO)
7012019-03-21T20:48:05 <cfields> gmaxwell: see above about the threshold stuff. Any reason to hold off a day or two for something better than a single signer?
7022019-03-21T20:48:34 <gmaxwell> I've got nothing there. Sorry.
7032019-03-21T20:48:39 <cfields> Ok, np.
7042019-03-21T20:49:53 *** Guest40623 has quit IRC
7052019-03-21T20:50:04 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: what risks/affiliation?
7062019-03-21T20:51:02 <warren> luke-jr: it's hard enough to be responsible for one publication, if it costs $200/yr you're better off creating another org get to another key.
7072019-03-21T20:51:08 <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: Assume Core goes rouge, or Knots, ... or the key gets compromised by one of the ends
7082019-03-21T20:51:57 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: multiple targets doesn't really change that?
7092019-03-21T20:52:48 <luke-jr> warren: plus time to research how to set it all up; once set up, signing multiple things doesn't really add difficulty
7102019-03-21T20:53:00 <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: well,... you could end up with a signing malicious binaries that tears down the other organisation (not technically)
7112019-03-21T20:53:49 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: obviously there would have to be some reasonable policy on what gets signed (eg, gitian builds of Bitcoin-compatible software)
7122019-03-21T20:53:51 <warren> luke-jr: it's problematic that this signature essentially leads to users blindliy trusting it as almost nobody verifies gitian builds actually match up.
7132019-03-21T20:54:24 <luke-jr> warren: that's a problem regardless :/
7142019-03-21T20:54:36 <luke-jr> and if anything, signing more things would *reduce* that
7152019-03-21T20:55:52 *** jb55 has quit IRC
7162019-03-21T20:56:16 <sipa> what is the signatures provided by this org supposed to assert?
7172019-03-21T20:56:35 <sipa> "this binary is the gitian build of this git commit"?
7182019-03-21T20:56:42 <sipa> or "this is bitcoin core"
7192019-03-21T20:56:55 <luke-jr> "this binary is the gitian build of this git commit" sounds reasonable, if even that
7202019-03-21T20:57:14 <gwillen> "the bitcoin core code signing association thinks Windows should not yell when running this binary"
7212019-03-21T20:57:17 <luke-jr> "this is bitcoin core" *should* be meaningless really
7222019-03-21T20:57:22 <jonasschnelli> sipa: its just hocus pocus
7232019-03-21T20:57:27 <luke-jr> gwillen: pretty much :P
7242019-03-21T20:57:38 <gwillen> the problem is that you will get your cert revoked if something goes bad with a binary you sign
7252019-03-21T20:57:47 <luke-jr> sipa: the problem is certain DRM-laden OSs seem to be moving more and more toward a permissioned model
7262019-03-21T20:57:49 <warren> although if that signature can't be threshold then it's really "this centralized signing association seems to have verified the gitian reproducibility of this binary and has enabled you to blindly trust this signing key"
7272019-03-21T20:57:50 <sipa> luke-jr: if it is meaningless, the concept of code signing is meaningless unfortunately
7282019-03-21T20:57:52 <jonasschnelli> It only tells users it was signed by an organisation called "Bitcoin Core Code Signing Association"
7292019-03-21T20:58:28 <jonasschnelli> Its only for UX (in macOS you can't start unsigned applications by default)
7302019-03-21T20:58:29 <luke-jr> sipa: it's to get into walled gardens
7312019-03-21T20:58:49 <jonasschnelli> IMO it provides near to 0 security
7322019-03-21T20:59:18 <luke-jr> gwillen: I would expect "goes bad" to have to be malicious?
7332019-03-21T21:00:05 <jonasschnelli> (An attacker could register "Bitcoin Core Code Shitting Association" and signing the malicious binary with that and nobody would recognise that)
7342019-03-21T21:00:11 <gwillen> I'm not sure what kind of problem it would take to get a cert revoked
7352019-03-21T21:00:19 <jonasschnelli> The only security is probably that one needs to pay for the cert... :)
7362019-03-21T21:02:44 <warren> The best we can do is 1) have orgs like this sign 2) have separate orgs verify the reproducibility of what is claimed to be signed and to sound off alarms if it doesn't match 3) peer-review process hopefully prevents malicious code from getting to publication
7372019-03-21T21:07:54 <cfields> sipa: I've always assumed your first definition. I've also been careful to never publish a full signed binary, only the detached part of the binary that _I built_. So it's useless unless reproducible.
7382019-03-21T21:08:15 <cfields> *detached sig for the binary
7392019-03-21T21:08:39 <gmaxwell> gwillen: they don't even revoke stuff that is signing malware. I think the only way to get a cert revoked is to directly piss off an executive at the related companies.
7402019-03-21T21:08:53 <luke-jr> lol >_<
7412019-03-21T21:11:41 <warren> Windows browsers, at least Microsoft Edge and Chrome seem to rely on centralized lookup of binary hashes. Known malicious binaries are flagged. If a binary is too new to be known by those lookup services then the browser warns the user. It seems they use this instead of certificate revocation.
7422019-03-21T21:12:27 <warren> (also yikes, who has access to the server seeing all the lookups?)
7432019-03-21T21:16:51 *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7442019-03-21T21:16:56 <sipa> cfields: so i think if all the signature itls intendes to convey is a correct build from some source code, it isn't really usable as codesigning thing for win/osx applications
7452019-03-21T21:17:13 *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7462019-03-21T21:19:11 <cfields> sipa: "isn't really usable" meaning it's not working as would be expected to users?
7472019-03-21T21:19:53 <sipa> cfields: there would at least be some implied understanding that the cert asserts the source code comes from a reliable repository with review practices
7482019-03-21T21:20:07 <sipa> or even that the source code is what people canonically understand to be bitcoin core
7492019-03-21T21:20:32 <cfields> sipa: yes, agreed. It doesn't function that way at all.
7502019-03-21T21:21:03 <cfields> Which will be pretty obvious when ~0 people notice that new releases are coming from a new developer cert :)
7512019-03-21T21:21:19 <warren> 3rd party verifiers checking and sounding alarms is the best we can do under current limitations
7522019-03-21T21:21:38 <sipa> i don't know what the solution is... i can see the use of a "this just asserts the build was created correctly!" service, but it isn't what people (and microsoft/apple) would understand a codesigning cert to correspond to
7532019-03-21T21:21:40 <cfields> We only codesign to make the stupid nag screens go away at install-time.
7542019-03-21T21:22:39 <gwillen> I don't think microsoft/apple understand the cert to mean anything in particular
7552019-03-21T21:22:52 <gwillen> it is really just a hoop to jump through so users will be permitted to run the binary
7562019-03-21T21:22:56 *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7572019-03-21T21:23:05 *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7582019-03-21T21:23:14 *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
7592019-03-21T21:23:14 *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7602019-03-21T21:23:53 <warren> plenty of windows software isn't signed now, while Apple a few years ago locked down the UX where the user had to jump through hoops to run unsigned binaries
7612019-03-21T21:24:01 <cfields> sipa: agree that would be a neat service, independent of codesigning.
7622019-03-21T21:24:19 <cfields> warren: that's the case in Windows too.
7632019-03-21T21:24:35 <sipa> gwillen: i'm sure there is some sense of verifying that the binary was signed by the known developer of the software it claims
7642019-03-21T21:24:44 <gwillen> there really isn't
7652019-03-21T21:24:58 <gwillen> I mean, maybe some manager somewhere in the process has that mental model
7662019-03-21T21:25:01 <gwillen> but the implementation sure doesn't care
7672019-03-21T21:25:02 <sipa> haha
7682019-03-21T21:25:20 <gwillen> you can get EV certs
7692019-03-21T21:25:24 <warren> I didn't suggest a solution but I did mention above that Windows browsers already use a hash blacklist for known bad downloads. It sucks that we can't have additional checks in front of the signature but maybe we could add safeguards after.
7702019-03-21T21:25:27 <gwillen> but the regular certs run just fine
7712019-03-21T21:25:47 <gwillen> sipa: I just bought one of these using my own name and credit card and cfields' email address
7722019-03-21T21:25:53 <gwillen> they didn't verify anything other than that my money was green
7732019-03-21T21:26:05 <sipa> gwillen: say you're the developer of GwillenCalc, could I register as Glenn Willen from GwillenSoft and publish a backdoored version of GwillenCalc that way?
7742019-03-21T21:26:14 <gwillen> yes, 100%
7752019-03-21T21:26:20 <gwillen> at least as far as I can tell
7762019-03-21T21:26:21 <sipa> interesting
7772019-03-21T21:26:44 <gwillen> they are just like SSL certs
7782019-03-21T21:26:51 <gwillen> except with no domain to bind to
7792019-03-21T21:27:35 <warren> gwillen: windows cert, apple or both? The latter seems more strict?
7802019-03-21T21:28:19 <cfields> sipa: To that point, in another life, we had to squat on our app's name months before the android port was complete and actually ready for the App Store.
7812019-03-21T21:28:37 <cfields> I don't remember the details now, but I believe it was because there was very little in place to prevent what you're describing.
7822019-03-21T21:28:43 *** promag has quit IRC
7832019-03-21T21:28:45 <gwillen> I think apple is a little stricter
7842019-03-21T21:29:19 <gwillen> you can only get an apple code signing cert directly from apple through your apple account, which they will presumably blacklist if you misuse it
7852019-03-21T21:29:29 <gwillen> the windows one I just bought from Comodo, which should tell you everything you need to know
7862019-03-21T21:31:23 <luke-jr> at the end of the day, if Jonas doesn't do a general codesigning thing, I'll probably need to eventually, and it would be nice to have the general one (whoever does it) sponsored :/
7872019-03-21T21:31:24 <cfields> gwillen: Microsoft isn't the gatekeeper, it's decentralized.... to the 3(?) whitelisted CA's :p.
7882019-03-21T21:33:37 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7892019-03-21T21:37:55 *** promag has quit IRC
7902019-03-21T21:47:42 *** trillhc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7912019-03-21T21:53:54 *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7922019-03-21T21:59:06 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
7932019-03-21T22:00:38 *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
7942019-03-21T22:00:52 *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7952019-03-21T22:03:40 *** e4xit has quit IRC
7962019-03-21T22:04:01 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7972019-03-21T22:05:25 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7982019-03-21T22:05:58 *** user__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7992019-03-21T22:09:02 *** m8tion_ has quit IRC
8002019-03-21T22:11:55 *** e4xit has quit IRC
8012019-03-21T22:15:40 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8022019-03-21T22:18:21 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
8032019-03-21T22:19:47 *** aqquadro has quit IRC
8042019-03-21T22:20:04 *** mmgen has quit IRC
8052019-03-21T22:21:42 *** e4xit has quit IRC
8062019-03-21T22:22:53 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8072019-03-21T22:30:52 *** user__ has quit IRC
8082019-03-21T22:31:19 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8092019-03-21T22:32:33 *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
8102019-03-21T22:36:10 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
8112019-03-21T22:42:12 *** spinza has quit IRC
8122019-03-21T22:47:46 *** e4xit has quit IRC
8132019-03-21T22:47:53 *** TheRec has quit IRC
8142019-03-21T22:48:58 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8152019-03-21T22:52:53 *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8162019-03-21T22:59:27 *** e4xit has quit IRC
8172019-03-21T23:01:38 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8182019-03-21T23:04:11 <echeveria> wumpus: for the record, I reported the malicious versions of the bitcoin core website to the host.
8192019-03-21T23:04:39 <echeveria> which sadly has a similar domain name.
8202019-03-21T23:05:03 <echeveria> warren: it's a bloom filter.
8212019-03-21T23:05:45 <echeveria> for things like google safebrowsing, which catches a lot of things like some of the electrum malware.
8222019-03-21T23:05:52 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
8232019-03-21T23:06:15 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8242019-03-21T23:06:16 <warren> echeveria: ahhh
8252019-03-21T23:06:38 *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8262019-03-21T23:06:46 <warren> echeveria: it sucks when it flags non-malicious things as malicious, which sometimes happens
8272019-03-21T23:07:11 *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8282019-03-21T23:07:26 <echeveria> safebrowsing in particular seems to have crappy review.
8292019-03-21T23:07:51 <echeveria> it's totally random if a report with a binary analysis of malware ends up in the list or not.
8302019-03-21T23:08:52 *** booyah_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8312019-03-21T23:09:41 *** booyah has quit IRC
8322019-03-21T23:09:55 *** TheRec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8332019-03-21T23:11:57 *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
8342019-03-21T23:12:30 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
8352019-03-21T23:12:43 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8362019-03-21T23:12:46 *** tryphe has quit IRC
8372019-03-21T23:13:14 *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8382019-03-21T23:30:16 *** captjakk has quit IRC
8392019-03-21T23:30:52 *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8402019-03-21T23:35:24 *** captjakk has quit IRC
8412019-03-21T23:36:36 *** Zenton has quit IRC
8422019-03-21T23:39:26 *** timothy has quit IRC
8432019-03-21T23:40:05 *** dqx_ has quit IRC
8442019-03-21T23:42:32 <luke-jr> warren: what sucks most, is that there's literally no way to appeal it
8452019-03-21T23:43:32 *** promag has quit IRC
8462019-03-21T23:48:22 *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8472019-03-21T23:54:24 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev