12019-04-25T00:00:01  *** UltimateNate has quit IRC
  22019-04-25T00:04:49  *** chaosagent has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  32019-04-25T00:09:47  *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  42019-04-25T00:10:19  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  52019-04-25T00:12:31  *** rev_strangehope has quit IRC
  62019-04-25T00:14:42  *** shesek has quit IRC
  72019-04-25T00:15:47  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  82019-04-25T00:15:47  *** shesek has quit IRC
  92019-04-25T00:15:47  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 102019-04-25T00:17:32  *** dviola has quit IRC
 112019-04-25T00:27:54  *** diego1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 122019-04-25T00:30:07  *** diego1 has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 132019-04-25T00:30:44  *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142019-04-25T00:31:54  *** scoop has quit IRC
 152019-04-25T00:32:21  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 162019-04-25T00:38:31  *** scoop has quit IRC
 172019-04-25T00:39:04  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
 182019-04-25T00:44:01  *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 192019-04-25T00:45:25  *** promag_ has quit IRC
 202019-04-25T00:48:56  <jeremyrubin> Does anyone have any references on SIGHASH_NOINPUT + Schnorr and not enabling pubkey recovery? (I understand why it doesn't enable it, but I don't understand why we aren't adding a flag like SIGHASH_SIGNINGKEY). That or alternatives like OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK or OP_PUSHXDATA. Trying to get a general sense of the roadmap on these features and what's a solved problem or what's open design space still.
 212019-04-25T00:49:16  <jeremyrubin> sipa: ^
 222019-04-25T00:49:34  <jeremyrubin> jl2012: ^
 232019-04-25T00:50:25  <luke-jr> jeremyrubin: pubkey recovery is arguably an implementation detail
 242019-04-25T00:50:58  <sipa> pubkey recovery is not compatible with batch validation
 252019-04-25T00:51:33  <sipa> plus key/signature aggregation generally achieve the same bandwidth savings in a more generic fashion
 262019-04-25T00:51:52  <sipa> i'm not sure what sighash_signingkey would mean
 272019-04-25T00:51:54  <luke-jr> (aside from sipa's point) an implementation could already strip pubkeys from scripts and do recovery instead
 282019-04-25T00:51:57  <jeremyrubin> not interested in the bandwidth savings aspect
 292019-04-25T00:52:18  <jeremyrubin> More useful is the vault-like aspects
 302019-04-25T00:52:30  <jeremyrubin> (e.g., for very simple covenants)
 312019-04-25T00:52:59  <sipa> i don't see any problem with OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK
 322019-04-25T00:53:31  <gmaxwell> jeremyrubin: the recovery is signficantly slower to validate even ignoring the batch validation which it breaks. There is also a specific patent encumberance concern.
 332019-04-25T00:57:31  <sipa> as far as covenants go, if there is an actual desire for those, they should be supported in a first-class fashion (by having opcodes that make assertions on the spending tx), not only through a hacky pubkey recovery construction imho
 342019-04-25T00:57:31  <jeremyrubin> Ok, so if there were a feature which would be implementable as either a one-off feature, or via something that requires SIGHASH_NOINPUT & something which enables PubkeyRecovery (and excludes batching) that would be maybe an OK path?
 352019-04-25T00:58:01  <sipa> i don't see why you'd want that
 362019-04-25T00:58:16  <sipa> compared to alternative
 372019-04-25T00:58:27  <jeremyrubin> A one-off feature refers to what you said (first class feature)
 382019-04-25T01:00:00  <jeremyrubin> Do you have a sense or feeling about enabling somewhat generic covenant capabilities, or making an opcode that pretty tightly only enables one specific new feature?
 392019-04-25T01:00:00  <sipa> (to be clear: i'm giving my personal opinion on these things here, and not trying to predict what the developer ecosystem at large would think of such a hypothetical proposal; i can tell you i'm not personally interested in working on those things, though)
 402019-04-25T01:00:36  <jeremyrubin> That's fine, I'm just straw polling
 412019-04-25T01:00:52  <sipa> i suspect that to be a contentious question
 422019-04-25T01:01:23  <jeremyrubin> I would agree -- I think from a security perspective enabling the minimum new behavior is probably best
 432019-04-25T01:01:31  <jeremyrubin> but it feels similar to the MAST debacle
 442019-04-25T01:01:40  <gmaxwell> jeremyrubin: depends, like some generic thing that is inelegant is harder to justify than a specific thing, unless its really clear that the genericism is useful--- that it results in multiple interesting reasonably efficient things.
 452019-04-25T01:02:14  <sipa> jeremyrubin: generally my opinion is that for production usage, anything but the most efficient way of enabling a feature is not interesting
 462019-04-25T01:02:40  <gmaxwell> If the genericism is clean, doesn't result in difficult to analyize implications, and is clearly the compariable to the most efficient way to implement multiple interesting things, then that would be a case for it.
 472019-04-25T01:02:41  <jeremyrubin> Efficient is an interesting term...
 482019-04-25T01:02:53  <sipa> for experimentation purposes having generic opcodes that let you encode features at a low level are useful, but they're not really needed on mainnet to enable experimentation
 492019-04-25T01:04:17  <jeremyrubin> Gotcha.
 502019-04-25T01:04:22  <gmaxwell> sipa: a reasonable argument can be made that the highest efficiency isn't quite as important if the usage would be something like a taproot fallback case--  there more as a threat than anything else.
 512019-04-25T01:04:27  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I thought the patent expired?
 522019-04-25T01:04:42  <sipa> jeremyrubin: to be clear, that latter statement is very much my own opinion, and i suspect it is not a majority view
 532019-04-25T01:05:23  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: no, not for a long time. (it might not be a _valid_ patent for various reasons, it also might not be applicable to any particular implementation, but my prior analysis was that it was enough of a concern that I wouldn't want to use it without a very careful analysis)
 542019-04-25T01:05:36  <jeremyrubin> Are there any backreferences on something like OP_GETOUTPUTHASH (or OP_CHECKOUTPUTHASHVERIFY) which takes an index and queries an output in the txn?
 552019-04-25T01:06:00  <sipa> gmaxwell: yeah, though orders of magnitude matter... if we'd have bignum arithmetic available you'd still not want to implement SNARK verification in bitcoin script :)
 562019-04-25T01:06:07  <gmaxwell> sipa: I agree with that view with the 'threat cases can be less efficient' priviso.
 572019-04-25T01:06:15  <sipa> i agree my "most efificent" is an exaggeration
 582019-04-25T01:06:56  <gmaxwell> jeremyrubin: some of the challenge there is that you probably want to be able to carry a small amount of data forward in the output, rather than just fixing it exactly.
 592019-04-25T01:07:16  <jeremyrubin> Well, for a more generic solution, perhaps.
 602019-04-25T01:07:28  <sipa> jeremyrubin: i have thought very vaguely about having some sort of tree matching construction that you can apply against the spending tx
 612019-04-25T01:07:41  <jeremyrubin> But if theres a motivating use case which has no 'data hazard' it's useful
 622019-04-25T01:08:07  <jeremyrubin> sipa: I've been working on this for like 2 years a little bit ;)
 632019-04-25T01:08:39  <jeremyrubin> there are some pretty interesting use cases for something like this IMO
 642019-04-25T01:09:49  <sipa> i suspect there are indeed
 652019-04-25T01:09:53  <jeremyrubin> gmaxwell: the way to carry data forward if needed would be to have a script which has branches and you pre-commit to all possible data values
 662019-04-25T01:09:58  <sipa> though i haven't seen much concretely beyond vaults
 672019-04-25T01:10:00  <jeremyrubin> but that's a bit messy
 682019-04-25T01:10:38  <jeremyrubin> sipa: I'm happy to share some of my research in a more limited setting as I want to make sure my proposal is more polished before spreading such ideas
 692019-04-25T01:11:14  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 702019-04-25T01:11:20  <sipa> well i have no intention of working on these things myself... already buried in too many other work
 712019-04-25T01:11:32  <jeremyrubin> fair
 722019-04-25T01:11:47  <jeremyrubin> another possible implementation of this would be a segwit version which just commits to a set of outputs being created but has no scripting capabilities
 732019-04-25T01:13:29  <jeremyrubin> This sort of design ensures that there is *no* ability to branch on which UTXO gets created. This is good on the 'limited simplest implementation' front and easies to analyze, but I suspect people would want more.
 742019-04-25T01:14:16  <sipa> it would badly break fungbility if you need to announce in the output whether it falls under scripts or nonscript rules
 752019-04-25T01:15:50  *** scoop has quit IRC
 762019-04-25T01:16:00  <jeremyrubin> fungibility in terms of like a chain analysis tool?
 772019-04-25T01:16:01  <jeremyrubin> Ah -- I need to run to walk the dog before sundown, but will have a few other questions on this. Thanks for the input thus far!!
 782019-04-25T01:17:05  <sipa> jeremyrubin: i think it is generally advisable you can't distinguish different outputs tyoes (and to the extent possible, also when spending)
 792019-04-25T01:17:12  <sipa> that's the goal of taproot to a large extent
 802019-04-25T01:17:34  <sipa> avoiding revealing your policy to the world
 812019-04-25T01:22:54  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 822019-04-25T01:29:56  *** roconnor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 832019-04-25T01:31:47  <roconnor> #bitmetas
 842019-04-25T01:32:59  <roconnor> @jeremyrubin I had a chat with Bob McElrath about using SIGHASH_NOINPUT for a weak form of covenants.
 852019-04-25T01:36:30  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 862019-04-25T01:40:39  *** scoop has quit IRC
 872019-04-25T01:41:12  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 882019-04-25T01:45:43  *** scoop has quit IRC
 892019-04-25T01:45:53  *** DougieBot5000 has quit IRC
 902019-04-25T01:45:56  *** DougieBot5000_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 912019-04-25T02:01:48  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 922019-04-25T02:11:39  *** scoop has quit IRC
 932019-04-25T02:11:46  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 942019-04-25T02:16:51  *** spinza has quit IRC
 952019-04-25T02:17:49  *** DougieBot5000_ is now known as DougieBot5000
 962019-04-25T02:25:20  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 972019-04-25T02:31:59  *** scoop has quit IRC
 982019-04-25T02:33:04  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 992019-04-25T02:46:05  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1002019-04-25T02:50:31  *** promag has quit IRC
1012019-04-25T02:55:12  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
1022019-04-25T03:00:01  *** chaosagent has quit IRC
1032019-04-25T03:06:20  *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
1042019-04-25T03:10:26  *** scoop has quit IRC
1052019-04-25T03:14:29  <luke-jr> why is feature_segwit testing that one can explicitly generate a legacy address, take its pubkey, turn it into segwit, and send to that?
1062019-04-25T03:14:47  <luke-jr> I get that this works currently, but isn't that a behaviour we *don't* want?
1072019-04-25T03:16:56  <sipa> luke-jr: wellit's testing currently implemented functionality - even if that functionality is undesirable, it is currently intentional
1082019-04-25T03:17:41  <luke-jr> looking at the git history, it looks semi-accidental here at least
1092019-04-25T03:17:55  <luke-jr> it used to addwitnessaddress explicitly, but that got removed
1102019-04-25T03:20:00  <sipa> yeah, it's posaible the test can be rewritten in a way that matches expected workflows more
1112019-04-25T03:37:22  *** kierra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1122019-04-25T03:37:35  *** kierra is now known as Guest84953
1132019-04-25T03:42:48  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142019-04-25T03:45:33  *** rev_strangehope has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152019-04-25T03:46:10  *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
1162019-04-25T03:50:02  *** rev_strangehope has quit IRC
1172019-04-25T04:09:25  *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182019-04-25T04:47:26  *** Guest84953 has quit IRC
1192019-04-25T04:56:15  *** ppisati has quit IRC
1202019-04-25T04:59:49  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1212019-04-25T05:02:54  *** ppisati has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222019-04-25T05:04:14  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
1232019-04-25T05:04:53  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1242019-04-25T05:04:54  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1252019-04-25T05:07:07  *** provoostenator has quit IRC
1262019-04-25T05:08:29  *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
1272019-04-25T05:10:06  *** provoostenator has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1282019-04-25T05:10:54  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1292019-04-25T05:13:52  *** BlueMatt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1302019-04-25T05:17:23  *** gribble1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312019-04-25T05:17:37  *** davec has quit IRC
1322019-04-25T05:19:30  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332019-04-25T05:19:38  *** scoop has quit IRC
1342019-04-25T05:32:55  *** qrest has quit IRC
1352019-04-25T05:43:59  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362019-04-25T05:47:29  <luke-jr> hrm, trying to write an explicit test for implicit segwit stuff, and it's failing :/
1372019-04-25T05:47:35  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
1382019-04-25T05:57:22  *** ElePHPhant has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1392019-04-25T06:00:01  *** gribble1 has quit IRC
1402019-04-25T06:04:14  *** Phong_1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1412019-04-25T06:07:07  *** spaced0ut has quit IRC
1422019-04-25T06:17:49  <luke-jr> is it supposed to ONLY be implicit after a restart?
1432019-04-25T06:22:38  <sipa> no
1442019-04-25T06:23:16  <sipa> luke-jr: what are you trying exactly?
1452019-04-25T06:26:33  <luke-jr> sipa: I made a new address with getnewaddress, getaddressinfo to find the pubkey, convert that to each address type, send to them all, then make sure it shows a receive in listtransactions
1462019-04-25T06:27:36  <luke-jr> after a restart, legacy => others seems to work
1472019-04-25T06:31:39  <luke-jr> http://dpaste.com/2JEX4PS
1482019-04-25T06:31:45  <luke-jr> weird, even w/o the restart the second check works
1492019-04-25T06:34:07  <luke-jr> ugh, adding a sleep makes it work in the first loo
1502019-04-25T06:34:55  <luke-jr> self.sync_all() is helpful >_<
1512019-04-25T06:46:36  *** morcos has quit IRC
1522019-04-25T06:48:31  *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1532019-04-25T06:49:27  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1542019-04-25T07:01:02  *** sdaftuar has quit IRC
1552019-04-25T07:01:29  *** sdaftuar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1562019-04-25T07:24:37  *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1572019-04-25T07:37:14  *** qrestlove has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1582019-04-25T07:41:22  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
1592019-04-25T07:48:47  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1602019-04-25T07:48:48  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #15888: QA: Add wallet_implicitsegwit to test the ability to transform keys between address types (master...test_wallet_implicitsegwit) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15888
1612019-04-25T07:48:51  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1622019-04-25T07:51:30  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1632019-04-25T08:04:33  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1642019-04-25T08:13:44  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
1652019-04-25T08:16:14  *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1662019-04-25T08:24:07  *** profmac has quit IRC
1672019-04-25T08:32:45  *** promag has quit IRC
1682019-04-25T08:37:38  *** profmac has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1692019-04-25T08:42:08  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
1702019-04-25T09:00:02  *** Phong_1 has quit IRC
1712019-04-25T09:04:16  *** rknLA1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722019-04-25T09:06:41  *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
1732019-04-25T09:40:39  *** sdaftuar has quit IRC
1742019-04-25T09:41:01  *** sdaftuar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752019-04-25T09:51:01  *** Soligor has quit IRC
1762019-04-25T09:53:06  *** DougieBot5000 has quit IRC
1772019-04-25T09:56:17  *** rev_strangehope has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1782019-04-25T10:01:28  *** DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1792019-04-25T10:02:55  *** rev_strangehope has quit IRC
1802019-04-25T10:03:35  *** spinza has quit IRC
1812019-04-25T10:04:06  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1822019-04-25T10:07:04  *** shesek has quit IRC
1832019-04-25T10:08:40  *** promag_ has quit IRC
1842019-04-25T10:08:40  *** DougieBot5000 has quit IRC
1852019-04-25T10:10:06  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1862019-04-25T10:11:50  *** DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1872019-04-25T10:30:03  *** DougieBot5000 has quit IRC
1882019-04-25T10:32:38  *** DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1892019-04-25T11:05:22  *** ElePHPhant has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1902019-04-25T11:11:04  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1912019-04-25T11:11:04  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1922019-04-25T11:36:50  *** queip has quit IRC
1932019-04-25T11:38:22  *** rafalcpp_ has quit IRC
1942019-04-25T11:38:32  *** rafalcpp_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1952019-04-25T11:46:15  *** queip has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1962019-04-25T11:51:55  *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1972019-04-25T12:00:02  *** rknLA1 has quit IRC
1982019-04-25T12:04:16  *** reset has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1992019-04-25T12:24:18  *** owowo has quit IRC
2002019-04-25T12:32:31  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2012019-04-25T12:33:30  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2022019-04-25T12:35:30  *** booyah has quit IRC
2032019-04-25T12:36:41  *** booyah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2042019-04-25T12:36:54  *** scoop has quit IRC
2052019-04-25T12:38:04  *** Cory has quit IRC
2062019-04-25T12:42:00  *** queip has quit IRC
2072019-04-25T12:42:22  *** rafalcpp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2082019-04-25T12:42:30  *** rafalcpp_ has quit IRC
2092019-04-25T12:43:10  *** Pasha has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2102019-04-25T12:45:13  *** shesek has quit IRC
2112019-04-25T12:46:21  *** Pasha is now known as Cory
2122019-04-25T12:47:25  *** Evel-Knievel has quit IRC
2132019-04-25T12:47:46  *** Evel-Knievel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2142019-04-25T12:50:55  *** queip has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2152019-04-25T12:52:21  *** Evel-Knievel has quit IRC
2162019-04-25T12:53:45  *** rev_strangehope has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2172019-04-25T12:54:54  *** Evel-Knievel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2182019-04-25T12:57:57  *** rev_strangehope has quit IRC
2192019-04-25T13:16:21  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2202019-04-25T13:16:22  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] harding opened pull request #15890: Doc: remove text about txes always relayed from -whitelist (master...2019-04-whitelist-help) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15890
2212019-04-25T13:16:25  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2222019-04-25T13:24:57  *** spaced0ut has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2232019-04-25T13:28:23  *** kokokoko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2242019-04-25T13:35:23  *** kokokoko has quit IRC
2252019-04-25T13:35:54  *** _Sam-- has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2262019-04-25T13:36:48  *** DougieBot5000_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2272019-04-25T13:39:53  *** DougieBot5000 has quit IRC
2282019-04-25T13:42:43  *** ElePHPhant has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2292019-04-25T13:53:40  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2302019-04-25T13:53:40  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #15891: test: Require standard txs in regtest (master...1904-testRequireStandard) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15891
2312019-04-25T13:53:41  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2322019-04-25T14:05:58  *** reset has quit IRC
2332019-04-25T14:13:19  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342019-04-25T14:15:22  *** queip has quit IRC
2352019-04-25T14:16:10  *** rafalcpp_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2362019-04-25T14:16:47  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2372019-04-25T14:16:48  *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
2382019-04-25T14:24:19  *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
2392019-04-25T14:24:28  *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2402019-04-25T14:27:09  *** Kabaka has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2412019-04-25T14:32:56  *** queip has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2422019-04-25T14:34:31  *** spinza has quit IRC
2432019-04-25T14:40:03  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2442019-04-25T14:42:25  *** setpill has quit IRC
2452019-04-25T14:53:48  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2462019-04-25T15:00:02  *** Kabaka has quit IRC
2472019-04-25T15:10:40  *** queip has quit IRC
2482019-04-25T15:11:58  *** rafalcpp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2492019-04-25T15:12:25  *** rafalcpp_ has quit IRC
2502019-04-25T15:15:51  *** rev_strangehope has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2512019-04-25T15:16:16  *** KindOne1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2522019-04-25T15:16:51  *** ccdle12 has quit IRC
2532019-04-25T15:21:52  *** rev_strangehope has quit IRC
2542019-04-25T15:25:25  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2552019-04-25T15:25:25  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/40a720acb847...8cca1fbea9bc
2562019-04-25T15:25:26  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 097c4aa Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: test/functional/rpc_psbt: Remove check for specific error message ...
2572019-04-25T15:25:26  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c87fc71 Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: test/functional/rpc_psbt: Correct test description comment
2582019-04-25T15:25:27  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8cca1fb MarcoFalke: Merge #14818: Bugfix: test/functional/rpc_psbt: Remove check for specific ...
2592019-04-25T15:25:28  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2602019-04-25T15:25:51  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2612019-04-25T15:25:51  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #14818: Bugfix: test/functional/rpc_psbt: Remove check for specific error message that depends on uncertain assumptions (master...bugfix_test_rpc_psbt) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14818
2622019-04-25T15:25:52  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2632019-04-25T15:26:43  *** queip has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2642019-04-25T15:33:52  <wumpus> moneyball: hey, no suggested topics for today's meeting yet in https://gist.github.com/moneyball/071d608fdae217c2a6d7c35955881d8a ?
2652019-04-25T15:49:51  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2662019-04-25T15:53:43  *** cluelessperson has quit IRC
2672019-04-25T16:23:43  *** StopAndDecrypt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2682019-04-25T16:38:43  *** scoop has quit IRC
2692019-04-25T16:39:33  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2702019-04-25T16:43:31  *** scoop has quit IRC
2712019-04-25T16:43:38  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2722019-04-25T16:46:36  *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2732019-04-25T16:52:28  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2742019-04-25T16:52:29  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2752019-04-25T17:06:36  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2762019-04-25T17:11:13  *** lnostdal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2772019-04-25T17:18:05  <MarcoFalke> i don't think there have been any
2782019-04-25T17:18:24  *** scoop has quit IRC
2792019-04-25T17:18:32  <MarcoFalke> #proposedmeetingtopic 0.18.0-final early next week?
2802019-04-25T17:29:14  <Sentineo> am not that good with git, but found a small thing that can was not working for me in the gitian build doc
2812019-04-25T17:29:19  <Sentineo> git push --set-upstream $NAME $VERSION-not-codesigned
2822019-04-25T17:29:22  *** jarthur has quit IRC
2832019-04-25T17:29:24  <Sentineo> replacing $NAME with origin helps, just want to know if that is something to correct or my noobness
2842019-04-25T17:29:28  <Sentineo> I want to add 'git add $VERSION*' before that, so will create a PR, but not sure about the --set-upstream one
2852019-04-25T17:29:32  <Sentineo> Maybe that command is working for people who have the right to commit to the repo itself? I have to fork it and do the steps on mine and create a PR.
2862019-04-25T17:29:48  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2872019-04-25T17:32:28  *** DougieBot5000_ is now known as DougieBot5000
2882019-04-25T17:33:12  <MarcoFalke> Yeah, the guide assumes that your gpg key name is the same as you github handle
2892019-04-25T17:33:13  <MarcoFalke>  git remote add $NAME git@github.com:$NAME/gitian.sigs.git
2902019-04-25T17:34:10  *** jarthur has quit IRC
2912019-04-25T17:36:47  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2922019-04-25T17:39:56  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2932019-04-25T17:41:10  *** scoop has quit IRC
2942019-04-25T17:41:38  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2952019-04-25T17:44:04  *** jaybny has quit IRC
2962019-04-25T17:45:52  *** scoop has quit IRC
2972019-04-25T17:45:59  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2982019-04-25T17:48:11  *** scoop has quit IRC
2992019-04-25T17:48:37  <moneyball> wumpus: only the topic MarcoFalke just proposed
3002019-04-25T17:48:47  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3012019-04-25T17:49:06  *** scoop has quit IRC
3022019-04-25T17:49:33  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3032019-04-25T17:53:34  *** Kvaciral has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3042019-04-25T17:54:02  *** scoop has quit IRC
3052019-04-25T17:56:13  *** hebasto has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3062019-04-25T17:59:03  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3072019-04-25T17:59:40  *** scoop has quit IRC
3082019-04-25T18:00:02  *** KindOne1 has quit IRC
3092019-04-25T18:00:08  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3102019-04-25T18:00:50  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3112019-04-25T18:04:23  *** scoop has quit IRC
3122019-04-25T18:15:14  <dongcarl> Question: if we're going to enable nat-pmp by default, should it go in depends and be statically linked in, or be subtree'd? What do we do for other dependencies like this?
3132019-04-25T18:15:52  *** sendak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3142019-04-25T18:16:36  <sipa> dongcarl: i'd say that for our normal static release builds, use depends, but from-source builds can use the system lib?
3152019-04-25T18:17:19  <wumpus> the initial idea (that we discussed last time) was to make it part of bitcoind
3162019-04-25T18:17:32  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3172019-04-25T18:17:32  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8cca1fbea9bc...c65c77c721b6
3182019-04-25T18:17:32  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bb530ef Pieter Wuille: Disallow extended encoding for non-witness transactions
3192019-04-25T18:17:33  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c65c77c MarcoFalke: Merge #14039: Disallow extended encoding for non-witness transactions
3202019-04-25T18:17:37  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3212019-04-25T18:17:53  <wumpus> but I don't know anymore, there's been so much discussion in the issue, haven't really been following it
3222019-04-25T18:17:55  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3232019-04-25T18:17:55  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #14039: Disallow extended encoding for non-witness transactions (master...201808_no_superfluous_witness) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14039
3242019-04-25T18:17:58  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3252019-04-25T18:18:22  <sipa> wumpus: yeah i don't know either
3262019-04-25T18:18:25  <dongcarl> wumpus: right I believe there was some back and forth on that, I think luke-jr wanted it as a normal dependency
3272019-04-25T18:18:36  <wumpus> dongcarl: luke-jr is always contrarian on those things
3282019-04-25T18:20:16  <dongcarl> Okay, I want to make sure that the PR author doesn't get too confused. So if we're going to enable it by default, perhaps it makes sense to make it part of bitcoind.
3292019-04-25T18:20:22  <wumpus> I don't really like to go over all of this again; the main reason for not using it as a library was because the upstream library looked to be unmaintained, or at least have no new releases for years
3302019-04-25T18:20:45  <wumpus> but at this point I'd honestly be happy to see NAT-PMP *at all* at some point
3312019-04-25T18:21:00  <wumpus> there's been so much back and forth on this that I'm kind of losing confidence that this will happen at all
3322019-04-25T18:21:16  <wumpus> I'm *sure* the PR author is confused by this
3332019-04-25T18:21:20  *** jarthur has quit IRC
3342019-04-25T18:21:46  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3352019-04-25T18:22:28  <wumpus> we had this discussion, made some decision, then again and again he has to do something else
3362019-04-25T18:23:08  <wumpus> honestly if I were him I'd have given it up a long time ago
3372019-04-25T18:23:10  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3382019-04-25T18:23:10  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #15893: Add test for superfulous witness record in deserialization (master...test_super_witness) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15893
3392019-04-25T18:23:11  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3402019-04-25T18:24:52  <dongcarl> Okay, I'm going to follow this and help him get it thru the finish line with the assumption that 1. It'll be on by default 2. we're going with the PR author's original approach and making it part of `bitcoind`.
3412019-04-25T18:26:31  <wumpus> thanks!
3422019-04-25T18:28:21  <luke-jr> dongcarl: NACK bundling
3432019-04-25T18:30:13  <luke-jr> bundling is basically universally considered a bad practice in the open source community; we have an excuse for consensus-critical stuff, but this is not that
3442019-04-25T18:30:55  <luke-jr> (and there are multiple very good reasons it is a bad practice)
3452019-04-25T18:36:00  *** kidney has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3462019-04-25T18:37:50  *** kidney has quit IRC
3472019-04-25T18:43:39  *** lnostdal has quit IRC
3482019-04-25T18:54:18  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3492019-04-25T18:59:25  *** qrestlove has quit IRC
3502019-04-25T19:00:14  <wumpus> #startmeeting
3512019-04-25T19:00:14  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Apr 25 19:00:14 2019 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
3522019-04-25T19:00:14  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
3532019-04-25T19:00:23  <jonasschnelli> hi
3542019-04-25T19:00:37  <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
3552019-04-25T19:00:49  <jamesob> hi
3562019-04-25T19:00:52  <sdaftuar> hi
3572019-04-25T19:00:55  <luke-jr> hi
3582019-04-25T19:01:07  <sipa> half here; will be there in 5-10 min
3592019-04-25T19:01:10  <wumpus> one topic was proposed in https://gist.github.com/moneyball/071d608fdae217c2a6d7c35955881d8a, anything else?
3602019-04-25T19:02:00  <wumpus> #topic high priority for review
3612019-04-25T19:02:29  <wumpus> 6 PRs on the list: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
3622019-04-25T19:02:47  <jamesob> can I get #15849 added? the change has been hanging out for a while, is generally useful, and I'd like it builtin for some work I'm doing on scheduler locks
3632019-04-25T19:02:49  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15849 | Thread names in logs and deadlock debug tools by jamesob · Pull Request #15849 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3642019-04-25T19:02:49  <wumpus> anything to add/remove?
3652019-04-25T19:03:19  <wumpus> jamesob:sure, added
3662019-04-25T19:03:24  <jamesob> thanks!
3672019-04-25T19:03:24  <phantomcircuit> wumpus, iirc the issue with nat-pmp was the quality of the upstream library more so than it's unmaintained status
3682019-04-25T19:03:37  <wumpus> phantomcircuit: ok
3692019-04-25T19:05:05  <wumpus> #topic 0.18.0-final early next week? (MarcoFalke)
3702019-04-25T19:05:49  <instagibbs> hi
3712019-04-25T19:05:50  <wumpus> seems a no-brainer, if no new regressions or critical issues come up, then -final will be tagged one week from last rc (which was monday)
3722019-04-25T19:06:19  <achow101> ack
3732019-04-25T19:07:07  <jnewbery> hi
3742019-04-25T19:08:57  <wumpus> there's #15665, if someone manages to reproduce it in detail to make a fix it'd make sense to do a rc5, but I don't think it's bad enough to block the release completely
3752019-04-25T19:08:58  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15665 | 0.18.0 rc2 CPU spike in thread bitcoin-opencon · Issue #15665 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3762019-04-25T19:09:22  <cfields> wumpus: fyi, I'll be away until Tues, so there may be a little delay in the win sig.
3772019-04-25T19:09:41  <jnewbery> I feel like #15141 could be close to ready. If sipa, aj or bluematt could look at it again, I think it may be ready for merge
3782019-04-25T19:09:43  <wumpus> cfields: no problem
3792019-04-25T19:09:45  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15141 | Rewrite DoS interface between validation and net_processing by sdaftuar · Pull Request #15141 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3802019-04-25T19:09:58  <wumpus> jnewbery: how does this relate to 0.18.0?
3812019-04-25T19:10:39  <jnewbery> oh sorry, missed that we'd moved on from #highpriority
3822019-04-25T19:10:51  <jnewbery> not related to 0.18
3832019-04-25T19:11:04  <wumpus> jnewbery: oh! makes sense
3842019-04-25T19:11:41  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
3852019-04-25T19:11:45  <wumpus> good to know it's almost ready
3862019-04-25T19:12:41  <sipa> here
3872019-04-25T19:12:44  <wumpus> any other topics?
3882019-04-25T19:12:53  <kanzure> hi
3892019-04-25T19:13:07  <instagibbs> micro-topic, did sipa or anyone email dev list about segwit v1+ output relay
3902019-04-25T19:13:19  <instagibbs> sorry if I missed it, I just think it's polite to announce it early
3912019-04-25T19:13:27  <sipa> i didn't
3922019-04-25T19:13:34  <wumpus> #topic segwit v1+ output relay announcement
3932019-04-25T19:14:21  <sdaftuar> that seems like a strange thing to announce imo?  but fine of course if someone feels like it
3942019-04-25T19:14:46  <instagibbs> why?
3952019-04-25T19:14:58  <sdaftuar> if it has any impact on the network today then that seems bad!
3962019-04-25T19:15:14  <instagibbs> it might on wonky wallets or in some way we didn't consider :)
3972019-04-25T19:15:18  <sdaftuar> ie some service is being griefed or something
3982019-04-25T19:15:29  <sdaftuar> sure, no harm of course
3992019-04-25T19:15:47  <harding> instagibbs: you mean announce that it fixes wallets that try to send to v1 now but get their transactions rejected by nodes?
4002019-04-25T19:15:53  <sipa> i think it makes sense to try encourage wallet developers to support sending to future witness versions... and to the extent that a relay policy change contributes to that it's a good thing
4012019-04-25T19:16:05  <instagibbs> sipa, that too!
4022019-04-25T19:16:17  <luke-jr> seems like it belongs just in release notes, but who knows who reads those
4032019-04-25T19:16:17  <sipa> but it is not actually making any observable change to the network now
4042019-04-25T19:16:20  <sdaftuar> sipa: i agree with that, i just worry that pointing out that v1 relay currently doesn't work might have the opposite effect
4052019-04-25T19:16:26  <sipa> sdaftuar: ha
4062019-04-25T19:16:38  * sipa looks at harding for opinions
4072019-04-25T19:17:10  <instagibbs> Policy has been changed in the past and end-users(people building on top) end up quite surprised, ive seen it multiple times
4082019-04-25T19:17:18  <instagibbs> anyways, end of topic i guess
4092019-04-25T19:17:31  <moneyball> we could announce in optech newsletter?
4102019-04-25T19:17:36  <harding> I'm also worried that announcing that v1 doesn't work will cause wallet authors to disable it.  I actually wrote docs suggesting that (not published) a couple weeks ago because that's what it looked like Bitcoin Core was encouraging.
4112019-04-25T19:18:28  <sipa> small topic: what is the status of the getdata randomization? i know it was reverted for 0.18, but for master it seems there were multiple solutions
4122019-04-25T19:19:18  <wumpus> #topic status of getdata randomization
4132019-04-25T19:19:32  <sdaftuar> sipa: i've got a PR in progress to fix the issues, working on a test as well (that's what's holding me up from updating the pr)
4142019-04-25T19:19:40  *** sipa has quit IRC
4152019-04-25T19:19:54  <luke-jr> :x
4162019-04-25T19:20:00  <sdaftuar> i guess he didn't like that answer
4172019-04-25T19:20:14  <sdaftuar> #15834, in case anyone is curious
4182019-04-25T19:20:17  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15834 | Fix NOTFOUND bug and expire getdata requests for transactions by sdaftuar · Pull Request #15834 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4192019-04-25T19:21:23  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4202019-04-25T19:21:30  <sipa> i have returned
4212019-04-25T19:21:34  <wumpus> woohoo !
4222019-04-25T19:21:40  <sipa> 12:19:32 < sdaftuar> sipa: i've got a PR in progress to fix the issues, working on a test as well (that's what's holding me up from updating the pr)
4232019-04-25T19:21:45  <sipa> is the last i saw
4242019-04-25T19:22:00  <luke-jr> right after that [19:19:40] <-- sipa (~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024) has left this server (Remote host closed the connection).
4252019-04-25T19:22:07  <wumpus> sdaftuar | i guess he didn't like that answer
4262019-04-25T19:22:13  <wumpus> sdaftuar | #15834, in case anyone is curious
4272019-04-25T19:22:16  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15834 | Fix NOTFOUND bug and expire getdata requests for transactions by sdaftuar · Pull Request #15834 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4282019-04-25T19:22:21  <wumpus> (and then gribble) that's all
4292019-04-25T19:22:21  <sipa> ok, thanks
4302019-04-25T19:23:30  <wumpus> any other topics ?
4312019-04-25T19:25:52  <wumpus> looks like no - short meeting this time
4322019-04-25T19:25:55  <wumpus> #endmeeting
4332019-04-25T19:25:55  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Apr 25 19:25:55 2019 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
4342019-04-25T19:25:55  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2019/bitcoin-core-dev.2019-04-25-19.00.html
4352019-04-25T19:25:55  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2019/bitcoin-core-dev.2019-04-25-19.00.txt
4362019-04-25T19:25:55  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2019/bitcoin-core-dev.2019-04-25-19.00.log.html
4372019-04-25T19:26:10  *** anddam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4382019-04-25T19:26:56  <anddam> aand I got my answer
4392019-04-25T19:27:19  <luke-jr> re NAT-PMP, apparently it's been deprecated since 2013 x.x
4402019-04-25T19:27:54  <wumpus> the entire protocol?
4412019-04-25T19:28:04  <wumpus> if so, in favor of what
4422019-04-25T19:29:14  <sipa> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Control_Protocol
4432019-04-25T19:29:17  <sipa> PCP was standardized in 2013 as a successor to the NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP), with which it shares similar protocol concepts and packet formats.[3]:87
4442019-04-25T19:29:22  <anddam> just to be sure, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/wallet/wallet.cpp#L3311 is not going to add any key with -keypool=0 , right?
4452019-04-25T19:29:22  <luke-jr> ^
4462019-04-25T19:29:27  <sipa> i suspect libnatpmp may support both
4472019-04-25T19:29:54  *** sipa_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4482019-04-25T19:30:38  * luke-jr peers at sipa
4492019-04-25T19:30:40  <wumpus> I think that's a straightforward extension of it
4502019-04-25T19:44:31  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4512019-04-25T19:44:32  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #15894: trivial, qt: Remove duplicated "Error: " prefix (master...20190425-duplicated-error-prefix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15894
4522019-04-25T19:44:36  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4532019-04-25T19:45:20  <instagibbs> MarcoFalke, master is failing tests, probably because of silent merge conflict with the superfluous witness check just merged
4542019-04-25T19:45:45  <sdaftuar> instagibbs: oops
4552019-04-25T19:45:57  <instagibbs> i added a test... but i didnt break al lthose other ones!
4562019-04-25T19:46:07  <instagibbs> #15893
4572019-04-25T19:46:08  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15893 | Add test for superfluous witness record in deserialization by instagibbs · Pull Request #15893 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4582019-04-25T19:46:30  <sdaftuar> yeah i see, how did travis not catch that?
4592019-04-25T19:46:34  <instagibbs> old PR
4602019-04-25T19:46:37  <instagibbs> never rebased?
4612019-04-25T19:46:47  <sdaftuar> hm, so it ran once and then never again i guess
4622019-04-25T19:47:17  <instagibbs> drahtbot closing and opening it could have saved us :P
4632019-04-25T19:47:26  <instagibbs> maybe
4642019-04-25T19:47:56  <sdaftuar> i'm deeply afraid that somehow i'm going to have to rebase 15141
4652019-04-25T19:48:11  <sdaftuar> and i'll have only myself to blame!
4662019-04-25T19:54:57  <instagibbs> oh great, this test is now passing locally for me, even better
4672019-04-25T19:55:53  *** cluelessperson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4682019-04-25T20:02:20  *** hebasto has quit IRC
4692019-04-25T20:07:49  *** jarthur_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4702019-04-25T20:11:08  *** jarthur has quit IRC
4712019-04-25T20:11:36  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4722019-04-25T20:15:29  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
4732019-04-25T20:24:35  *** promag has quit IRC
4742019-04-25T20:31:35  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
4752019-04-25T20:32:51  <instagibbs> oh heh, our tests were accidentally making witness-marked txs with no witness data, and decoding it a different way yet still hitting the condition we were checking for
4762019-04-25T20:36:31  *** scoop has quit IRC
4772019-04-25T20:38:12  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4782019-04-25T20:39:30  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4792019-04-25T20:40:51  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4802019-04-25T20:40:52  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #15895: QA: Avoid re-reading config.ini unnecessarily (master...redundant_configini) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15895
4812019-04-25T20:40:56  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4822019-04-25T20:41:13  <instagibbs> sdaftuar, is it impossible to hit "bad-txns-vin-empty" now?
4832019-04-25T20:41:15  <instagibbs> seems that way
4842019-04-25T20:41:34  <instagibbs> except for peering with non-witness peers I guess
4852019-04-25T20:43:05  *** scoop has quit IRC
4862019-04-25T20:44:08  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4872019-04-25T20:45:08  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4882019-04-25T20:45:08  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #15896: QA: feature_filelock, interface_bitcoin_cli: Use PACKAGE_NAME in messages rather than hardcoding Bitcoin Core (master...qa_pkgname) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15896
4892019-04-25T20:45:10  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4902019-04-25T20:47:08  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
4912019-04-25T20:49:31  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4922019-04-25T20:49:32  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #15897: QA/mininode: Send all headers upfront in send_blocks_and_test to avoid sending an unconnected one (master...qa_mininode_headers) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15897
4932019-04-25T20:49:36  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4942019-04-25T21:00:01  *** sendak has quit IRC
4952019-04-25T21:00:04  *** jarthur_ has quit IRC
4962019-04-25T21:00:40  *** hashist has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4972019-04-25T21:00:44  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4982019-04-25T21:02:04  *** scoop has quit IRC
4992019-04-25T21:10:34  *** rev_strangehope has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5002019-04-25T21:17:09  *** Y_Ichiro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5012019-04-25T21:17:50  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5022019-04-25T21:19:25  *** scoop has quit IRC
5032019-04-25T21:19:31  *** scoop_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5042019-04-25T21:21:36  *** rev_strangehope has quit IRC
5052019-04-25T21:33:43  *** jhfrontz1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5062019-04-25T21:35:34  *** hashist has quit IRC
5072019-04-25T21:36:28  *** scoop_ has quit IRC
5082019-04-25T21:36:54  *** nullptr| has quit IRC
5092019-04-25T21:36:55  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5102019-04-25T21:41:03  *** nullptr| has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5112019-04-25T21:41:28  *** scoop has quit IRC
5122019-04-25T21:44:08  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5132019-04-25T21:52:59  *** jarthur_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5142019-04-25T21:56:18  *** jarthur has quit IRC
5152019-04-25T21:56:50  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5162019-04-25T21:57:03  *** ElePHPhant has quit IRC
5172019-04-25T21:57:17  *** dviola has quit IRC
5182019-04-25T22:02:17  <luke-jr> is someone fixing the Travis failure on master, or should I do it?
5192019-04-25T22:03:11  *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5202019-04-25T22:05:56  *** emzy has quit IRC
5212019-04-25T22:14:16  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5222019-04-25T22:15:15  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5232019-04-25T22:15:16  *** promag has quit IRC
5242019-04-25T22:17:59  *** promag_ has quit IRC
5252019-04-25T22:20:09  *** promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5262019-04-25T22:20:48  <aj> sdaftuar: you don't just want to reuse the tests from my pr for 15834?
5272019-04-25T22:20:53  *** scoop has quit IRC
5282019-04-25T22:21:20  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5292019-04-25T22:23:04  *** promag_ has quit IRC
5302019-04-25T22:24:10  <sdaftuar> aj: gah, i totally forgot you had tests written -- thank you, i will take a look
5312019-04-25T22:31:37  *** scoop has quit IRC
5322019-04-25T22:32:31  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5332019-04-25T22:38:24  *** jarthur_ has quit IRC
5342019-04-25T22:39:26  *** scoop has quit IRC
5352019-04-25T22:50:36  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5362019-04-25T22:52:03  *** scoop has quit IRC
5372019-04-25T22:52:11  *** scoop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5382019-04-25T22:56:11  *** spinza has quit IRC
5392019-04-25T23:02:27  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5402019-04-25T23:09:37  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
5412019-04-25T23:11:49  *** Zenton has quit IRC
5422019-04-25T23:12:42  <aj> sdaftuar: heh. btw, i have some draft patches to reduce the number of 'notfound' messages; i don't think it quite gets all of them, but haven't figured out why not yet. top four commits of https://github.com/ajtowns/bitcoin/commits/201904-reduce-notfounds
5432019-04-25T23:16:26  <gmaxwell> 16:14:07 < ghost43> https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/5292  "BitPay BIP70 signing x509 cert has expired. Electrum will refuse to accept it."
5442019-04-25T23:16:32  <gmaxwell> 16:14:07 < ghost43> https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/5292  "BitPay BIP70 signing x509 cert has expired. Electrum will refuse to accept it."
5452019-04-25T23:19:51  <ghost43> does Core accept it?
5462019-04-25T23:20:00  <luke-jr> afaik it hasn't worked at all for Core in a while?
5472019-04-25T23:20:09  <ghost43> ( you can create one here https://bitpay.com/181852/donate )
5482019-04-25T23:20:43  <luke-jr> also, it would be a bug to accept it, not to reject it
5492019-04-25T23:21:03  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5502019-04-25T23:22:24  <sipa> luke-jr: i think bip70 is optional at compile time, but still on in release binaries (including in 0.18)
5512019-04-25T23:23:20  <gmaxwell> I think we were planning on turning it off in the next major release?
5522019-04-25T23:23:21  <luke-jr> sipa: yes, but BitPay's "BIP70" isn't actually BIP70-compatible
5532019-04-25T23:23:42  <luke-jr> sipa: supposedly they reject payments if they see the transaction broadcast before they get it over payment protocol
5542019-04-25T23:24:08  <luke-jr> (or so I hear, I haven't tested it in a long time)
5552019-04-25T23:24:36  <ghost43> I think it's still compatible. last I tried, they did not reject, they are just threating they will. they are rejecting for shitcoins but not bitcoin
5562019-04-25T23:24:49  <luke-jr> ghost43: could be a race?
5572019-04-25T23:24:54  <sipa> luke-jr: yes, i know (not sure they actually enforce this, but to be fair... it's the only sensible thing to do)
5582019-04-25T23:25:29  <luke-jr> sipa: sensible or not, Core does do the broadcast
5592019-04-25T23:25:36  <sipa> i know.
5602019-04-25T23:25:44  <sipa> (and is following the spec by doing so)
5612019-04-25T23:26:01  <sipa> but the spec has always been pointless because of this
5622019-04-25T23:26:45  <ghost43> https://github.com/bitpay/jsonPaymentProtocol/blame/master/bip70.md#L5
5632019-04-25T23:27:17  <ghost43> oh well that exemption is not for this broadcasting... hmm ok then not sure
5642019-04-25T23:29:41  *** ccdle12 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5652019-04-25T23:36:18  *** lnostdal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5662019-04-25T23:40:29  *** infernix has quit IRC
5672019-04-25T23:55:11  *** infernix has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5682019-04-25T23:58:05  *** fanquake has quit IRC