12020-01-30T00:00:01  *** kpyke has quit IRC
  22020-01-30T00:03:26  *** meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  32020-01-30T00:11:38  *** manantial has quit IRC
  42020-01-30T00:12:06  *** manantial has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  52020-01-30T00:17:07  *** frank001 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  62020-01-30T00:19:28  *** promag has quit IRC
  72020-01-30T00:21:03  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  82020-01-30T00:30:05  *** thelounge2467250 has quit IRC
  92020-01-30T00:30:39  *** thelounge2467250 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 102020-01-30T00:32:34  *** dr-orlovsky has quit IRC
 112020-01-30T00:35:44  *** promag has quit IRC
 122020-01-30T00:35:50  *** morcos has quit IRC
 132020-01-30T00:36:00  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142020-01-30T00:36:11  *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 152020-01-30T00:38:03  *** mryandao_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 162020-01-30T00:38:07  *** mryandao has quit IRC
 172020-01-30T00:40:53  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 182020-01-30T00:44:23  *** promag has quit IRC
 192020-01-30T00:45:33  *** meshcollider has quit IRC
 202020-01-30T00:46:55  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 212020-01-30T00:47:03  *** braydonf has quit IRC
 222020-01-30T00:49:53  *** braydonf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 232020-01-30T00:51:14  *** promag has quit IRC
 242020-01-30T00:53:04  *** lnostdal has quit IRC
 252020-01-30T00:53:25  *** lnostdal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 262020-01-30T00:53:57  *** belcher has quit IRC
 272020-01-30T00:55:23  *** lnostdal has quit IRC
 282020-01-30T00:55:44  *** lnostdal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 292020-01-30T01:04:02  *** manantial has quit IRC
 302020-01-30T01:05:41  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 312020-01-30T01:13:17  *** dr-orlovsky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 322020-01-30T01:14:49  *** hebasto has quit IRC
 332020-01-30T01:33:59  *** meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 342020-01-30T03:00:01  *** frank001 has quit IRC
 352020-01-30T03:01:32  *** abrissbi1ne has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 362020-01-30T03:04:48  *** abrissbirne has quit IRC
 372020-01-30T03:15:15  *** netsoundW1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 382020-01-30T03:19:06  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 392020-01-30T03:27:52  *** hebasto has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 402020-01-30T03:34:59  *** millerti has quit IRC
 412020-01-30T03:44:39  *** achow101 has quit IRC
 422020-01-30T03:47:58  *** felixfoertsch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 432020-01-30T03:48:13  *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 442020-01-30T03:48:14  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 452020-01-30T03:48:15  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] andrewtoth opened pull request #18025: doc: Add missing supported rpcs to doc/descriptors.md (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18025
 462020-01-30T03:48:16  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 472020-01-30T03:48:59  *** felixfoertsch23 has quit IRC
 482020-01-30T04:22:28  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 492020-01-30T04:22:29  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] meshcollider pushed 14 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/638239de7502...2d6e76af2409
 502020-01-30T04:22:30  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f5be479 João Barbosa: wallet: Improve CWallet:MarkDestinationsDirty
 512020-01-30T04:22:30  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fadc08a Andrew Chow: Locking: Lock cs_KeyStore instead of cs_wallet in legacy keyman
 522020-01-30T04:22:31  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master eb81fc3 Andrew Chow: Refactor: Allow LegacyScriptPubKeyMan to be null
 532020-01-30T04:22:33  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 542020-01-30T04:23:08  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 552020-01-30T04:23:08  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] meshcollider merged pull request #17261: Make ScriptPubKeyMan an actual interface and the wallet to have multiple (master...wallet-box-pr-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17261
 562020-01-30T04:23:10  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 572020-01-30T04:23:10  <meshcollider> achow101 ^
 582020-01-30T04:26:04  <achow101> \o/
 592020-01-30T04:26:06  <achow101> finally
 602020-01-30T04:48:26  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 612020-01-30T04:50:00  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 622020-01-30T06:00:02  *** netsoundW1 has quit IRC
 632020-01-30T06:08:07  <aj> did travis not run for 17261 ? looks like it missed a unique_ptr<SigningProvider> in wallet/test/psbt_wallet_tests.cpp
 642020-01-30T06:08:40  <fanquake> Probably a merge issue.
 652020-01-30T06:09:58  <fanquake> Which is concerning given it got a tested ACK
 662020-01-30T06:10:13  <fanquake> Hard to test something that doesn't compile
 672020-01-30T06:10:15  <aj> ah, the PR introducin the test also only just got merged
 682020-01-30T06:10:37  <aj> so the PRs independently were okay, didn't conflict to cause a rebase, and the merge wasn't tested
 692020-01-30T06:10:58  <aj> or not
 702020-01-30T06:12:51  <aj> no psbt_wallet_tests was part of this pr
 712020-01-30T06:14:03  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 722020-01-30T06:14:03  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ajtowns opened pull request #18026: psbt_wallet_tests: use unique_ptr for GetSigningProvider (master...202001-getsigningprovider-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18026
 732020-01-30T06:14:15  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 742020-01-30T06:14:42  <fanquake> I'm seeing the failure locally now as well. So I assume the merge script was run, but nothing was actually compiled and no tests were run before signing off.
 752020-01-30T06:15:26  *** manantial has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 762020-01-30T06:17:18  *** Mark_Cockrell has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 772020-01-30T06:18:11  <aj> it was #17156 that conflicted with 17261 by the looks
 782020-01-30T06:18:14  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17156 | psbt: check that various indexes and amounts are within bounds by achow101 · Pull Request #17156 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 792020-01-30T06:20:59  <fanquake> Yea looks like it. I'll test and merge the fixup in a few.
 802020-01-30T06:31:01  * fanquake aj are the functional tests broken as well? I see at least one failure in rpc_rawtransaction.py
 812020-01-30T06:31:11  <gwillen> huh, as a result of this I went down a rabbit hole and learned about the undocumented github pull/n/merge refs that Travis uses to test the "if it were merged right now" version of a PR
 822020-01-30T06:31:41  <gwillen> it's interesting to see that they show as passing, I guess because we do manual merges, so our merge was at a slightly different time than travis's merge
 832020-01-30T06:32:36  <fanquake> The merge script should always be on top of master. The travis test run would be been the changes on top of master when the PR was last modified, so ~ a week ago.
 842020-01-30T06:32:57  <aj> fanquake: didn't check, hang on
 852020-01-30T06:33:25  <fanquake> aj I'm seeing: https://gist.github.com/fanquake/e5cd365667afbfe9d022fe372fcd7d90
 862020-01-30T06:33:34  <fanquake> After merging 18026.
 872020-01-30T06:36:46  <aj> fanquake: rpc_rawtransaction seems to work fine for me (compiled with gcc)
 882020-01-30T06:37:25  <fanquake> aj is that with master + 18026 ?
 892020-01-30T06:37:35  <aj> just 18026, but it's directly on top of master
 902020-01-30T06:38:20  <aj> 1115ba693b6f6e216cd8417aa499fd018a7c016e to be exact
 912020-01-30T06:38:35  *** tecnecio_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 922020-01-30T06:40:06  *** manantial has quit IRC
 932020-01-30T06:40:40  <fanquake> aj hmm. Passed two times in a row now. So maybe just a random failure.
 942020-01-30T06:44:05  <meshcollider> Sorry, my fault completely. I didn't run the tests after the merge script, i merged it in manually when i tested, so it was not on an entirely up-to-date master
 952020-01-30T06:44:13  <meshcollider> thanks for catching and fixing aj
 962020-01-30T06:44:56  <fanquake> meshcollider going to have to buy him a pint hah
 972020-01-30T06:45:19  <meshcollider> in SF, sure ;)
 982020-01-30T06:51:30  <aj> fanquake: do you have the logs for the failure? i think it might have the partial txs it was trying to combine logged at DEBUG level
 992020-01-30T06:51:45  <fanquake> aj yea I've got em. 1 sec
1002020-01-30T06:54:52  <fanquake> aj 12000 lines of consolidated log in https://gist.github.com/fanquake/48b9003af82f5ec5f1f44d1275eb21f0
1012020-01-30T06:59:39  *** cryptoIndio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1022020-01-30T07:04:28  *** goatpig has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1032020-01-30T07:07:03  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1042020-01-30T07:10:53  <aj> fanquake: i don't get it, the lines matching 'complete...False' should be the output of signrawtransaction, but they appear not to specify any vins just a weird vout, when they should be matching rawTx2 which unfortunately isn't printed in the log
1052020-01-30T07:11:14  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
1062020-01-30T07:15:24  <aj> oh, hmm, now one of them looks sensible to me
1072020-01-30T07:16:55  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1082020-01-30T07:16:55  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gwillen opened pull request #18027: "PSBT Operations" dialog (master...feature-psbt-ops-dialog) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18027
1092020-01-30T07:17:05  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1102020-01-30T07:17:05  <fanquake> aj is there a specific node you need a tx from?
1112020-01-30T07:17:27  <aj> fanquake: no, don't think so
1122020-01-30T07:17:48  <gwillen> fanquake: is the PR tagging done by a robot under your name, or are you just extremely fast
1132020-01-30T07:17:50  <aj> fanquake: seems like the first partially signed tx's hex isn't being decoded properly of all things?
1142020-01-30T07:18:10  <gwillen> (labelling I mean)
1152020-01-30T07:18:36  <fanquake> gwillen It's done by me. I'm normally around.
1162020-01-30T07:19:49  <fanquake> aj ok. I have the datadirs so can spin the nodes back up.
1172020-01-30T07:19:55  <aj> great
1182020-01-30T07:22:24  *** thor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1192020-01-30T07:24:23  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202020-01-30T07:24:23  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2d6e76af2409...44c2400bccbc
1212020-01-30T07:24:24  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1115ba6 Anthony Towns: psbt_wallet_tests: use unique_ptr for GetSigningProvider
1222020-01-30T07:24:24  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 44c2400 fanquake: Merge #18026: psbt_wallet_tests: use unique_ptr for GetSigningProvider
1232020-01-30T07:24:26  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1242020-01-30T07:24:43  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1252020-01-30T07:24:43  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #18026: psbt_wallet_tests: use unique_ptr for GetSigningProvider (master...202001-getsigningprovider-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18026
1262020-01-30T07:24:44  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1272020-01-30T07:25:07  <achow101> damn silent merge conflicts
1282020-01-30T07:25:32  <achow101> too many wallet PRs conflict with each other. glad most of it's over now. just time to rebase everything
1292020-01-30T07:26:03  <fanquake> the bot is doing the rounds
1302020-01-30T07:28:04  <achow101> gwillen: fanquake's actually a robot :)
1312020-01-30T07:30:14  <gwillen> thus, all is explained
1322020-01-30T07:40:07  *** vasild_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332020-01-30T07:43:43  *** vasild has quit IRC
1342020-01-30T07:51:14  *** vasild_ is now known as vasild
1352020-01-30T08:07:14  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362020-01-30T08:09:05  *** cryptoIndio has quit IRC
1372020-01-30T08:09:49  *** cryptoIndio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1382020-01-30T08:10:04  *** cryptoIndio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1392020-01-30T08:11:02  <aj> wtf
1402020-01-30T08:11:42  <aj> fanquake: this seems to be a bug in tx deserialisation ever since segwit has existed?
1412020-01-30T08:12:30  <aj> oh no that's too strong, i can't compile the segwit PR. hmm
1422020-01-30T08:14:39  *** promag has quit IRC
1432020-01-30T08:33:29  *** real_or_random has quit IRC
1442020-01-30T08:33:59  *** real_or_random has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1452020-01-30T09:00:01  *** Mark_Cockrell has quit IRC
1462020-01-30T09:03:19  <aj> fanquake: #18028 should be the problem, completely unrelated if so
1472020-01-30T09:03:20  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18028 | Some transactions cant be decoded from hex strings · Issue #18028 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1482020-01-30T09:04:19  <fanquake> aj: thanks for following up! Looks like a pretty rare failure then
1492020-01-30T09:11:11  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502020-01-30T09:13:24  *** chief19831 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1512020-01-30T09:28:02  *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
1522020-01-30T09:29:34  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1532020-01-30T09:38:12  *** Isthmus has quit IRC
1542020-01-30T09:43:17  *** dr-orlovsky has quit IRC
1552020-01-30T09:58:04  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1562020-01-30T10:02:46  *** SiAnDoG__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1572020-01-30T10:05:03  *** SiAnDoG_ has quit IRC
1582020-01-30T10:10:24  *** dr-orlovsky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1592020-01-30T10:34:42  *** jonatack has quit IRC
1602020-01-30T10:54:45  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1612020-01-30T11:04:55  *** DavidMitchell[m] has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1622020-01-30T11:07:21  *** jcoe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1632020-01-30T11:14:12  *** electric-sheep[m has quit IRC
1642020-01-30T11:14:12  *** transist0[m] has quit IRC
1652020-01-30T11:14:13  *** castlenine[m] has quit IRC
1662020-01-30T11:20:11  *** braydonf has quit IRC
1672020-01-30T11:20:16  *** braydonf_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1682020-01-30T11:34:38  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1692020-01-30T11:40:47  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1702020-01-30T11:43:35  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1712020-01-30T11:57:33  *** promag has quit IRC
1722020-01-30T12:00:01  *** chief19831 has quit IRC
1732020-01-30T12:02:53  *** tecnecio_ has quit IRC
1742020-01-30T12:03:26  *** tecnecio_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752020-01-30T12:07:26  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
1762020-01-30T12:14:56  *** larsivi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1772020-01-30T12:15:40  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1782020-01-30T12:18:31  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1792020-01-30T12:40:42  *** jonatack has quit IRC
1802020-01-30T12:43:06  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1812020-01-30T12:47:00  *** ghost43_ has quit IRC
1822020-01-30T12:47:24  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1832020-01-30T12:48:01  *** Deacyde has quit IRC
1842020-01-30T13:04:03  *** PaulTroon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1852020-01-30T13:09:56  *** promag has quit IRC
1862020-01-30T13:20:18  *** jcoe has quit IRC
1872020-01-30T13:21:59  *** jcoe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1882020-01-30T13:24:36  *** pkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1892020-01-30T13:25:24  <kallewoof> If people have time, energy, effort, will, and patience, please review the signet BIP? It feels like it's frozen in place! #16411
1902020-01-30T13:25:27  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16411 | BIP-325: Signet support by kallewoof · Pull Request #16411 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1912020-01-30T13:26:31  *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1922020-01-30T13:37:46  *** pkr has quit IRC
1932020-01-30T13:38:14  *** pkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1942020-01-30T13:42:21  *** dr-orlovsky has quit IRC
1952020-01-30T13:45:31  *** dr-orlovsky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1962020-01-30T13:48:42  *** pkr has quit IRC
1972020-01-30T13:53:28  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1982020-01-30T13:53:29  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/44c2400bccbc...0130abbdb7f5
1992020-01-30T13:53:29  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1b96a3c fanquake: tests: reset fIsBareMultisigStd after bare-multisig tests
2002020-01-30T13:53:30  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0130abb MarcoFalke: Merge #18018: tests: reset fIsBareMultisigStd after bare-multisig tests
2012020-01-30T13:53:32  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2022020-01-30T13:53:48  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2032020-01-30T13:53:48  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #18018: tests: reset fIsBareMultisigStd after bare-multisig tests (master...fix_p2sh_tests_failure) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18018
2042020-01-30T13:53:49  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2052020-01-30T13:57:49  *** dr-orlovsky has quit IRC
2062020-01-30T13:59:38  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2072020-01-30T13:59:39  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 4 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0130abbdb7f5...7fcaa8291c6e
2082020-01-30T13:59:39  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6ef0491 practicalswift: tests: Update FuzzedDataProvider.h from upstream (LLVM)
2092020-01-30T13:59:40  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ccc3c76 practicalswift: tests: Add fuzzer strprintf to FUZZERS_MISSING_CORPORA (temporarily)
2102020-01-30T13:59:41  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master cc668d0 practicalswift: tests: Add fuzzing harness for strprintf(...)
2112020-01-30T13:59:42  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2122020-01-30T13:59:58  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2132020-01-30T13:59:58  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #18009: tests: Add fuzzing harness for strprintf(…) (master...fuzzers-strprintf) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18009
2142020-01-30T13:59:59  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2152020-01-30T14:02:28  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162020-01-30T14:32:19  *** davterra has quit IRC
2172020-01-30T14:32:49  *** davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2182020-01-30T14:32:55  *** emilengler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2192020-01-30T14:41:16  *** davterra has quit IRC
2202020-01-30T14:41:58  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
2212020-01-30T14:42:33  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2222020-01-30T14:42:33  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7fcaa8291c6e...3b69310beb17
2232020-01-30T14:42:34  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master faf4081 MarcoFalke: test: Make msg_tx a witness tx
2242020-01-30T14:42:34  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa6b57b MarcoFalke: test: Fix whitespace in p2p_permissions.py
2252020-01-30T14:42:35  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master aaaae4d MarcoFalke: test: Add p2p test for forcerelay permission
2262020-01-30T14:42:36  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2272020-01-30T14:42:52  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2282020-01-30T14:42:52  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #17984: test: Add p2p test for forcerelay permission (master...2001-qaTxForceRelay) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17984
2292020-01-30T14:42:55  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2302020-01-30T14:46:59  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2312020-01-30T14:51:50  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2322020-01-30T14:55:42  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2332020-01-30T14:58:09  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342020-01-30T15:00:01  *** larsivi has quit IRC
2352020-01-30T15:00:27  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2362020-01-30T15:01:33  *** molly has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2372020-01-30T15:05:28  *** molz_ has quit IRC
2382020-01-30T15:08:38  <wumpus> kallewoof: I'll take a look at it
2392020-01-30T15:09:18  <kallewoof> wumpus: Appreciate it :) (And I meant PR, not BIP)
2402020-01-30T15:16:03  *** gribble has quit IRC
2412020-01-30T15:17:25  *** justMaD has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2422020-01-30T15:28:27  *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2432020-01-30T15:33:25  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2442020-01-30T15:35:20  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2452020-01-30T15:48:39  *** dr-orlovsky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2462020-01-30T15:49:15  *** jonatack has quit IRC
2472020-01-30T15:55:16  *** goatpig has quit IRC
2482020-01-30T16:01:25  *** dr-orlovsky has quit IRC
2492020-01-30T16:06:26  *** thor_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2502020-01-30T16:06:29  *** Isthmus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2512020-01-30T16:06:38  *** thor has quit IRC
2522020-01-30T16:07:12  *** thor_ has quit IRC
2532020-01-30T16:11:54  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2542020-01-30T16:11:54  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #18029: tests: Add fuzzing harness for AS-mapping (asmap) (master...fuzzers-asmap) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18029
2552020-01-30T16:11:55  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2562020-01-30T16:16:39  *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2572020-01-30T16:31:25  *** goatpig has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2582020-01-30T16:47:28  *** tsujp has quit IRC
2592020-01-30T16:47:51  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2602020-01-30T16:51:50  *** tsujp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2612020-01-30T16:55:58  *** promag has quit IRC
2622020-01-30T17:10:23  *** andrewtoth has quit IRC
2632020-01-30T17:10:44  *** andrewtoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2642020-01-30T17:18:05  *** dr-orlovsky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2652020-01-30T17:19:39  <gwillen> so I got an email about my PR, saying that "bitcoin-core-ci" failed -- is this an experimental alternative to Travis and Appveyor? Is it known-broken? It appears to have failed due to reasons unrelated to the PR.
2662020-01-30T17:20:08  *** morcos has quit IRC
2672020-01-30T17:21:23  *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2682020-01-30T17:22:07  <hebasto> gwillen: could be useful https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17803
2692020-01-30T17:25:57  *** morcos_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2702020-01-30T17:28:02  <hebasto> begging devs, who is interested in GUI i18n, for reviewing of #16224
2712020-01-30T17:28:05  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16224 | gui: Bilingual GUI error messages by hebasto · Pull Request #16224 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2722020-01-30T17:29:23  *** morcos has quit IRC
2732020-01-30T17:29:24  *** morcos_ is now known as morcos
2742020-01-30T17:37:50  *** dr-orlovsky has quit IRC
2752020-01-30T17:42:23  *** mryandao_ has quit IRC
2762020-01-30T17:43:30  *** mryandao has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2772020-01-30T17:50:21  *** dr-orlovsky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2782020-01-30T18:00:01  *** justMaD has quit IRC
2792020-01-30T18:14:47  *** Amanda1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2802020-01-30T18:22:51  *** cryptoIndio has quit IRC
2812020-01-30T18:24:36  *** jonatack has quit IRC
2822020-01-30T18:25:06  *** Aaronvan_ is now known as AaronvanW
2832020-01-30T18:31:41  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2842020-01-30T18:31:41  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Sjors opened pull request #18030: doc: Coin::IsSpent() can also mean never existed (master...2020/01/doc_is_spent) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18030
2852020-01-30T18:31:43  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2862020-01-30T18:32:16  *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2872020-01-30T18:35:05  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2882020-01-30T18:40:41  *** jcoe has quit IRC
2892020-01-30T18:44:08  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
2902020-01-30T18:48:04  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2912020-01-30T18:48:04  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipsorcery opened pull request #18031: Remove GitHub Actions CI workflow. (master...remove-ghaction) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18031
2922020-01-30T18:48:05  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2932020-01-30T18:49:00  <wumpus> we disabled actions so you shouldn't be getting mails from that
2942020-01-30T18:49:14  <wumpus> not recently at least
2952020-01-30T18:50:12  <sipa> i get those for every PR i open
2962020-01-30T18:50:38  <sipa> the past days
2972020-01-30T18:50:38  *** lightlike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2982020-01-30T18:50:44  <gwillen> this was last night
2992020-01-30T18:50:51  <gwillen> so they're definitely not disabled
3002020-01-30T18:50:57  <wumpus> where is the mail coming from?
3012020-01-30T18:52:00  <gwillen> From: notifications@github.com, [gwillen/bitcoin] Run failed: bitcoin-core-ci - feature-psbt-ops-dialog (b58e6f7)
3022020-01-30T18:52:08  <gwillen> cc: ci_activity@noreply.github.com
3032020-01-30T18:52:22  <gwillen> "Workflow: bitcoin-core-ci
3042020-01-30T18:52:24  <emilengler> gwillen: This is in your fork, I believe you can disable this
3052020-01-30T18:52:25  <sipa> yeah, same (but sipa/bitcoin)
3062020-01-30T18:52:35  <gwillen> I mean, I never intentionally enabled it
3072020-01-30T18:52:42  <wumpus> ohh maybe github actions is enabled for your clone
3082020-01-30T18:52:50  <emilengler> gwillen: The featrue is new, it was enabled for everyone
3092020-01-30T18:52:53  <gwillen> like, I cloned while it was enabled, and now it will stay enabled until I remove it?
3102020-01-30T18:52:56  <emilengler> Well it's not that new anymore
3112020-01-30T18:53:13  <sipsorcery> PR has been added to remove the GitHub Actions job see #17803.
3122020-01-30T18:53:14  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17803 | ci: Migration from AppVeyor to GitHub Actions · Issue #17803 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3132020-01-30T18:53:19  <emilengler> gwillen: Go to Settings > Notifications > GitHub actions
3142020-01-30T18:53:20  <sipa> ah, and having the github actions files in the bitcoin/bitcoin repo they end up in our repos too, where github automatically picks it up?
3152020-01-30T18:53:42  <sipa> ok, disabled
3162020-01-30T18:53:47  <wumpus> sipa: yes, exactly, sipsorcery's PR would remove it so it's no longer picked up
3172020-01-30T18:54:06  <gwillen> oh, and it runs based on the existence of the ci.yml file in the branch being PR'ed?
3182020-01-30T18:54:13  <gwillen> so once that file is gone in master this will stop happening
3192020-01-30T18:55:00  <sipsorcery> yes
3202020-01-30T18:55:23  *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3212020-01-30T18:57:42  <gwillen> sipsorcery: how do I disable it?
3222020-01-30T18:57:48  <gwillen> er sorry, sipa: ^
3232020-01-30T18:58:25  <gwillen> I can see a list of "actions" on my fork, but I see no way to remove or disable one (while the file exists)
3242020-01-30T18:58:56  <sipa> settings -> actions -> actions permissions -> "Disable actions for this repository"
3252020-01-30T18:59:24  <sipa> it's actually under settings
3262020-01-30T18:59:30  <sipa> not the top bar actions menu
3272020-01-30T19:00:21  <gwillen> thanks
3282020-01-30T19:00:35  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3292020-01-30T19:00:35  *** promag has quit IRC
3302020-01-30T19:00:49  <wumpus> #startmeeting
3312020-01-30T19:00:49  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Jan 30 19:00:49 2020 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
3322020-01-30T19:00:49  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
3332020-01-30T19:00:51  <provoostenator> hi
3342020-01-30T19:00:52  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3352020-01-30T19:00:58  <sipa> hi
3362020-01-30T19:01:01  <fjahr> hi
3372020-01-30T19:01:02  <emilengler> hi
3382020-01-30T19:01:04  <sipsorcery> hi
3392020-01-30T19:01:04  <promag> hi
3402020-01-30T19:01:06  <hebasto> hi
3412020-01-30T19:01:06  <gwillen> hi
3422020-01-30T19:01:08  <nehan_> hi
3432020-01-30T19:01:12  <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 moneyball kvaciral ariard digi_james amiti fjahr
3442020-01-30T19:01:14  <wumpus> jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55
3452020-01-30T19:01:17  <jonasschnelli> hi
3462020-01-30T19:01:42  <meshcollider> hi
3472020-01-30T19:02:02  <jonatack> hi
3482020-01-30T19:02:16  <wumpus> one pre-proposed topic in https://gist.github.com/moneyball/071d608fdae217c2a6d7c35955881d8a: topic idea collection for physical meeting (kanzure)
3492020-01-30T19:02:44  <elichai2> Hi
3502020-01-30T19:02:45  <wumpus> PSA: 0.19.1rc1 was released, please help testing and report any issues you find to the bug tracker
3512020-01-30T19:04:00  <jeremyrubin> Hiya!
3522020-01-30T19:04:03  <wumpus> also, the 0.20 feature freeze is in one and a half month (see #17432)
3532020-01-30T19:04:04  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17432 | Release schedule for 0.20.0 · Issue #17432 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3542020-01-30T19:04:24  <wumpus> any last minute topic proposals?
3552020-01-30T19:04:33  <jeremyrubin> #proposedmeetingtopic I'd love to chat about the mempool project and share trajectory
3562020-01-30T19:04:44  <wumpus> thanks
3572020-01-30T19:05:24  <wumpus> let's start with the usual then
3582020-01-30T19:05:30  <wumpus> #topic High priority for review
3592020-01-30T19:06:23  <achow101> #16528 pls
3602020-01-30T19:06:27  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16528 | Native Descriptor Wallets using DescriptorScriptPubKeyMan by achow101 · Pull Request #16528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3612020-01-30T19:06:36  <wumpus> we've managed to merge a few things this week! the first PR for the asmap-based clustering of peers went in, and step 3 of sipa's serialization improvements
3622020-01-30T19:07:05  <wumpus> that leaves 7 blockers, 1 bugfix and 6 items chasing concept ACKs
3632020-01-30T19:07:06  <jeremyrubin> #17925 I think is more or less RTM, and there's a lot of work waiting on it. Not sure it needs to go in high prio since things seem to be moving that way.
3642020-01-30T19:07:06  <sipa> and the wallet boxes
3652020-01-30T19:07:08  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17925 | Improve UpdateTransactionsFromBlock with Epochs by JeremyRubin · Pull Request #17925 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3662020-01-30T19:07:13  <wumpus> sipa: yes!
3672020-01-30T19:07:43  <fanquake> hi
3682020-01-30T19:08:54  <wumpus> added #16528 and #17925
3692020-01-30T19:08:58  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16528 | Native Descriptor Wallets using DescriptorScriptPubKeyMan by achow101 · Pull Request #16528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3702020-01-30T19:09:00  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17925 | Improve UpdateTransactionsFromBlock with Epochs by JeremyRubin · Pull Request #17925 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3712020-01-30T19:09:15  <jeremyrubin> thanks -- will share more details when it's my topics turn
3722020-01-30T19:09:40  <jeremyrubin> #proposedmeetingtopic nanobench
3732020-01-30T19:09:50  <wumpus> FWIW kallewoof has the idea review kind of ground to a halt on signet (#16411) and is looking for more reviewers
3742020-01-30T19:09:54  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16411 | BIP-325: Signet support by kallewoof · Pull Request #16411 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3752020-01-30T19:11:15  <wumpus> #topic mempool project (jeremyrubin)
3762020-01-30T19:11:22  <jeremyrubin> Howdy!
3772020-01-30T19:11:43  <jeremyrubin> So I've been working on a bunch of improvements to the Mempool with a few other contributors
3782020-01-30T19:11:59  <jeremyrubin> We have a project allocated here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/14
3792020-01-30T19:12:09  <jeremyrubin> to triage work on the MemPool
3802020-01-30T19:12:26  <jnewbery> hi
3812020-01-30T19:12:53  <jeremyrubin> The general goal is to get these changes reviewed and merged in a more orderly fashion
3822020-01-30T19:13:27  <jeremyrubin> And prevent things from suffering the tradeoffs of small PRs and big PRs by more clearly presenting what the projects are
3832020-01-30T19:13:31  <kanzure> hi.
3842020-01-30T19:13:51  <wumpus> thanks for the explanation,  I found "mempool improvements" is a bit vague for a project name as it doesn't really aim at a specific goal
3852020-01-30T19:13:57  <jeremyrubin> One of the first projects is to refactor almost every traversal algorithm in the mempool to use Epochs
3862020-01-30T19:14:48  <jeremyrubin> This should be an enormous performance improvement, but the goal is not to improve performance nescessarily, but rather to permit larger descendants limits
3872020-01-30T19:15:15  <wumpus> awesome!
3882020-01-30T19:15:29  <jeremyrubin> Increasing the descendants limits (or making some new policys) is going to be neccessary to make Lightning-y stuff work better (and CTV)
3892020-01-30T19:15:45  <jeremyrubin> Because currently there are issues with "pinning" caused by descendants limits
3902020-01-30T19:16:12  <wumpus> you also might want to write this up somewhere else than IRC so it doesn't get lost :)
3912020-01-30T19:16:26  <hebasto> what is an estimation of future descendants limits?
3922020-01-30T19:16:29  <wumpus> maybe the project description
3932020-01-30T19:16:32  <jeremyrubin> None at present
3942020-01-30T19:16:38  <jeremyrubin> wumpus: will do
3952020-01-30T19:16:46  <jeremyrubin> In conjunction with/after the epoch mempool improvements, it then becomes possible to make a lot of the mempool algorithms have no "short lived" allocations
3962020-01-30T19:17:19  <fjahr> jeremyrubin: cool that you are coordinating this but is there an endgame to this or is the plan to keep this open indefinitely? Just curious...
3972020-01-30T19:17:29  <jeremyrubin> We allocate a ton of memory in mempool traversal, these allocations can basically go to zero in a lot of places by having some preserved scratch space
3982020-01-30T19:18:12  <jeremyrubin> fjahr: It's sort of indefinite, but I would like to get all the changes through to the point that we solve these higher order goals, but then maybe we won't need more stuff in the mempool
3992020-01-30T19:18:21  <jeremyrubin> * major changes == stuff
4002020-01-30T19:18:44  <jeremyrubin> Also as a part of this work we've lumped in amiti's rebroadcasting and sdaftuar's packagerelay work
4012020-01-30T19:19:20  <jeremyrubin> Both of these should greatly help with making the mempool more rational, and better traversal algorithms help package relay be less DoS-able
4022020-01-30T19:19:36  <wumpus> well, closing projects is a whole different issue, we still have "libconsensus" and "P2P refactor" open despite not having had work in progress for quite some time
4032020-01-30T19:19:49  <jeremyrubin> There are also, looking forwards, some more changes inspecting the interface between mempool mining and validation
4042020-01-30T19:20:27  <jeremyrubin> There's a general notion of figuring out a "streaming createnewblock" algorithm that always immediately returns the best block but does constant gradient descent to find better ones
4052020-01-30T19:20:30  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4062020-01-30T19:20:30  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack closed pull request #17535: test: add block height test to listsinceblock.py  (master...rpc-wallet-blockheight-followups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17535
4072020-01-30T19:20:41  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4082020-01-30T19:21:03  <jeremyrubin> This in general can allow us to have more expensive to traverse mempool graphs (so we can not have restrictions that create pinning)
4092020-01-30T19:21:22  <jeremyrubin> But when mining we can still quickly return "good" blocks
4102020-01-30T19:21:58  <jeremyrubin> There are a few other projects being considered, such as Child*ren* pay for parent, Cousin-RBF (instead of Conflict-RBF), and some other optimizations
4112020-01-30T19:22:27  <jeremyrubin> As a bedrock to some of this, we need to have much better instrumentation and testing of the mempool
4122020-01-30T19:22:40  <jeremyrubin> There are a lot of edge cases currently not tested anywhere
4132020-01-30T19:22:45  <jeremyrubin> We should test these!
4142020-01-30T19:22:55  <jeremyrubin> We also don't have a good asymptotic framework for microbenches\
4152020-01-30T19:23:03  <jeremyrubin> We should do that (see nanobench)
4162020-01-30T19:23:20  <jeremyrubin> So to summarize a bit (and then maybe more questions):
4172020-01-30T19:23:33  <jeremyrubin> 1) There's a lot of exciting work being shaped out & plotted for the mempool
4182020-01-30T19:23:46  <jeremyrubin> 2) If you're excited about the design space/working on this, please let me know
4192020-01-30T19:24:11  <jeremyrubin> 3) Key to making this happen is clear communication, but also keeping review motivated for sometimes small PRs as a part of a bigger picture
4202020-01-30T19:25:06  <jeremyrubin> 4) keeping non-functional PRs (or other mempool work) limited in scope/in consultation with the project, to keep prioritization in focus & not cause a crapload of rebase hell as these projects will have potentially a lot of un-PR'd code
4212020-01-30T19:25:50  <jeremyrubin> If you disagree with 4 it's fine, ultimately up to the contributors & maintainers, but I'm trying to chart a course that's going to keep these projects moving forward
4222020-01-30T19:26:42  <jeremyrubin> We could maybe open a sub-channel for this stuff on IRC if people want Yet Another IRC Channel
4232020-01-30T19:26:48  <jeremyrubin> Any questions?
4242020-01-30T19:27:27  <jonasschnelli> as for testing, I think kallewoof has some recordings and a test framework (AFAIK)
4252020-01-30T19:27:31  <wumpus> it's not like a lot of discussion is happening in this channel lately, IMO it's fine (and preferable) to do so here
4262020-01-30T19:28:16  <wumpus> you can always decide to create another channel if it reall yends up monopolizing the channel (e.g. I guess that's why #bitcoin-builds is separate)
4272020-01-30T19:28:33  <wumpus> it's up to you of course
4282020-01-30T19:28:37  <fanquake> What do you mean by non-functional PRs in 4)? Is there a specific set of things that you’d like to have done for 0.20.0?
4292020-01-30T19:29:13  <jeremyrubin> Things which should have no user observable change
4302020-01-30T19:29:15  <MarcoFalke> I think for 0.20.0 we should focus on amiti's rebroadcast stuff
4312020-01-30T19:29:24  <jeremyrubin> E.g., moveonly
4322020-01-30T19:29:28  <jeremyrubin> renaming variables
4332020-01-30T19:29:49  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: agree, it wold be really nice to get the mempool privacy in
4342020-01-30T19:29:54  <amiti> :D
4352020-01-30T19:30:13  <jeremyrubin> I agree modulo concerns raised by some about needing more understanding of it.
4362020-01-30T19:30:18  <sipa> jeremyrubin: are there any PRs being merged that are just moveonly/variable rename stuff? that shouldn't be the case
4372020-01-30T19:30:33  <jeremyrubin> sipa: there are
4382020-01-30T19:30:47  <MarcoFalke> sipa: I removed a bunch of ::mempool
4392020-01-30T19:30:54  <MarcoFalke> I think jeremyrubin is referring to that
4402020-01-30T19:31:07  <jeremyrubin> there are other ones too that have a lot of acks and stuff not yet merged
4412020-01-30T19:31:24  <jeremyrubin> I guess it would be nice to have sort of the expectation that stuff isn't getting merged for now
4422020-01-30T19:31:29  <wumpus> please be more specific
4432020-01-30T19:31:53  <jeremyrubin> sure, didn't want to pick on anyone's PR but will give an example
4442020-01-30T19:32:04  <jeremyrubin> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17786
4452020-01-30T19:32:19  <wumpus> FWIW I try to mostly focus on "high priority for review" as for what to merge lately, there's just too many PRs
4462020-01-30T19:32:25  <jnewbery> I think removing ::mempool in order to clarify initialization order is a sensible project
4472020-01-30T19:32:40  <jonasschnelli> 17786 has a single ack
4482020-01-30T19:32:44  <wumpus> #17786
4492020-01-30T19:32:46  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17786 | refactor: Nuke policy/fees->mempool circular dependencies by hebasto · Pull Request #17786 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4502020-01-30T19:33:01  <wumpus> also: feel free to comment these kind of things *in* the PRs
4512020-01-30T19:33:23  <wumpus> if something has a lot of ACKs and no one is pseaking against it, it tends to get merged
4522020-01-30T19:33:26  <jeremyrubin> jnewbery: I agree, but the point is that if we're maintaining a few different complex projects on mempool stuff, and we're trying to slice it into many PRs to make review easier, it just becomes a headache
4532020-01-30T19:33:33  <MarcoFalke> Yeah, maybe we could postpone 17786 for until after the functional/user-facing mempool changes got in?
4542020-01-30T19:33:40  <sipa> yeah, if there are obvious things that interfere, it's best to discuss in the PR itself; maybe one of the authors has no problem rebasing on top of the other for example
4552020-01-30T19:33:47  <sipa> or discuss what can wait
4562020-01-30T19:33:58  <wumpus> yes, what sipa says
4572020-01-30T19:34:02  <sipa> but it's hard to discuss a blanket "please don't do things that interfere with my work"
4582020-01-30T19:34:17  *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4592020-01-30T19:34:27  *** michaelfolkson has quit IRC
4602020-01-30T19:34:47  <MarcoFalke> I think we can have a rough sketch in what order things should be merged. It can always be amended as needed
4612020-01-30T19:34:48  <wumpus> right
4622020-01-30T19:35:01  <jeremyrubin> Yeah it's fine, this is part of the goal of the mempool project
4632020-01-30T19:35:06  <sipa> ok
4642020-01-30T19:35:07  <provoostenator> It's useful to make Draft PR's so that Drahtbot can warn others about overlap.
4652020-01-30T19:35:08  <jeremyrubin> to triage the priority of these things
4662020-01-30T19:35:53  <wumpus> yes, makes sense
4672020-01-30T19:36:10  <wumpus> but please:  comment these things on github on the issue too, otherwise it'll likely be forgotten at some point
4682020-01-30T19:36:22  <jeremyrubin> fanquake: I'd like to get Amiti's stuff improved. I'd really like to get package relay shipped. And I think it's possible to do enough work on the Epoch Mempool to bump the descendants limit by 2x.
4692020-01-30T19:36:26  <MarcoFalke> agree with wumpus
4702020-01-30T19:37:34  <jeremyrubin> amiti and I are discussing how to chop up her work to get the PR complexity down, I think the worry is that the earlier PRs don't do anything "useful", except to make the later work easier (things like new testing harnesses)
4712020-01-30T19:37:36  <fanquake> jeremyrubin: ok. Re the non-PR’d/WIP changes, are they linked to from the project as well?
4722020-01-30T19:37:47  <jeremyrubin> fanquake: yes, in general
4732020-01-30T19:37:49  <jeremyrubin> If there's code
4742020-01-30T19:37:56  <jeremyrubin> Things that are still design stage not really
4752020-01-30T19:38:26  <fanquake> Given the amount of basic fuzzing harnesses we’re adding at the moment, I don’t think a mempool test harness would be rejected
4762020-01-30T19:39:06  <wumpus> more fuzzing harnesses is good
4772020-01-30T19:39:09  <jeremyrubin> I think it's possible it would be bikeshedded though, which I'd want to avoid
4782020-01-30T19:39:12  <MarcoFalke> left a comment here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17786#issuecomment-580419545
4792020-01-30T19:39:29  <fanquake> wumpus yes
4802020-01-30T19:40:18  <MarcoFalke> jeremyrubin: if you refer to style feedback with "bikeshedding", keep in mind that a valid response to style feedback is a simple "no, I like the current style because I don't see the benefit of switching to something else"
4812020-01-30T19:40:25  <wumpus> which reminds me, we need to merge the examples in the -qa repository
4822020-01-30T19:40:33  <MarcoFalke> wumpus: Already did
4832020-01-30T19:40:34  <fanquake> I think that has been done
4842020-01-30T19:40:39  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: thanks
4852020-01-30T19:40:43  <jeremyrubin> MarcoFalke: in this case more of a "we could also Mock out XXXX in this harness too!"
4862020-01-30T19:40:59  <jeremyrubin> Whereas for the testing harness we need to just introduce YYYY
4872020-01-30T19:41:10  <MarcoFalke> In general I am not a fan of mocking all the stuff
4882020-01-30T19:41:26  <MarcoFalke> If it can be tested reasonably without mocking, it should be done without
4892020-01-30T19:42:04  <jeremyrubin> MarcoFalke: fair, which is sort of what I'm pointing to?
4902020-01-30T19:42:18  <MarcoFalke> I guees, yes
4912020-01-30T19:42:20  <jeremyrubin> I.e., do we need to mock this? What if we do x y z instead?
4922020-01-30T19:42:41  <jeremyrubin> But amiti has already done a lot of hard work in making a mock framework and writing tests against that framework
4932020-01-30T19:42:42  <sipa> this is a very abstract discussion
4942020-01-30T19:42:58  <jeremyrubin> oops I went concrete
4952020-01-30T19:43:00  <amiti> yeah... it seems like we're discussing my proposal to mock the scheduler, which marco and jeremy are both aware of... I think this convo makes more sense for when I open an actual PR
4962020-01-30T19:43:03  *** vasild has quit IRC
4972020-01-30T19:43:08  <jeremyrubin> sgtm
4982020-01-30T19:43:21  <wumpus> we still have two topocs to go and about 15 minutes
4992020-01-30T19:43:23  <sipa> and the question of mocking vs testing things otherwise seems very much a case by case discussion
5002020-01-30T19:43:29  <jeremyrubin> yeah
5012020-01-30T19:43:38  <MarcoFalke> Yes, it is case-by-case
5022020-01-30T19:43:43  <MarcoFalke> ok, other topics?
5032020-01-30T19:43:48  <jeremyrubin> we can move on unless there's a new question unanswered, I'll also be online after meeting
5042020-01-30T19:44:30  <wumpus> #topic propose physical meeting topics (kanzure)
5052020-01-30T19:44:34  <kanzure> just the topic collection topic.
5062020-01-30T19:44:50  <jeremyrubin> So not actual topics?
5072020-01-30T19:44:55  <kanzure> right, so, i'd like suggestions so i can write a document giving an overview of what people would like to hear
5082020-01-30T19:45:00  <kanzure> for the physical IRL meeting
5092020-01-30T19:45:04  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5102020-01-30T19:45:11  <kanzure> these are just suggestions and not actually a schedule or anything draconian like that.
5112020-01-30T19:45:19  <jeremyrubin> Where should we send them? Is there a google form or just email you?
5122020-01-30T19:45:29  <provoostenator> I think jnewbery has been collecting topics too.
5132020-01-30T19:45:31  <kanzure> just send em to me.
5142020-01-30T19:45:43  <jeremyrubin> kanzure: I wouldn't *mind* a schedule ;)
5152020-01-30T19:45:46  <kanzure> right or him
5162020-01-30T19:45:52  <fanquake> kanzure will this be public somewhere before the meetup?
5172020-01-30T19:46:04  <kanzure> well in the past they have been semi-public (link circulated) but not actually public
5182020-01-30T19:46:12  <kanzure> i think that's up to the group really. do you prefer public or private topic suggestions?
5192020-01-30T19:46:17  <fanquake> Sure, semi-public
5202020-01-30T19:46:30  <jeremyrubin> public; I can't remember which ones I already submitted
5212020-01-30T19:46:54  <jnewbery> yeah, I've also sent out a survey to some people. Thanks to everyone who responded (which is most!)
5222020-01-30T19:47:02  <kanzure> anyway, for topics, it's not just what you have been working on, but also things that you think the group would benefit from hearing from someone else
5232020-01-30T19:47:24  <provoostenator> jeremyrubin: downside of doing open source work where everything is logged is that you tend to develop a write-only memory :-)
5242020-01-30T19:48:15  <wumpus> hehe
5252020-01-30T19:48:24  * jeremyrubin searches for my memex
5262020-01-30T19:49:20  <kanzure> that's all i have.
5272020-01-30T19:49:52  <wumpus> #topic nanobench (jeremyrubin)
5282020-01-30T19:50:04  <jeremyrubin> So I'm not the maintainer of nanobench
5292020-01-30T19:50:07  <jeremyrubin> but I really like it
5302020-01-30T19:50:18  <jeremyrubin> I think if we can do a cursory check it's not actually malware
5312020-01-30T19:50:29  <jeremyrubin> we should just merge it
5322020-01-30T19:50:34  <wumpus> general question: why do people want to switch to another benchmarking framework?
5332020-01-30T19:50:39  <wumpus> what's wrong with the current one?
5342020-01-30T19:50:51  <jeremyrubin> a few things:
5352020-01-30T19:50:51  <wumpus> a while ago there was a PR to switch it to boost::test, now yet another dependency
5362020-01-30T19:50:57  <jeremyrubin> 1) It's slow
5372020-01-30T19:51:03  <wumpus> is there anything they do that we cannot do?
5382020-01-30T19:51:08  <MarcoFalke> Yeah, I think we need to take a closer look to see where they differ and what they improve. To make sure there are no regressions
5392020-01-30T19:51:09  <jeremyrubin> 2) there's no support for testing asymptotics
5402020-01-30T19:51:10  <wumpus> what makes it so slow? it's very simple
5412020-01-30T19:51:22  <MarcoFalke> For example, a lot of tools rely on the output format of the current bench framework
5422020-01-30T19:51:27  <wumpus> it should hardly have any overhead
5432020-01-30T19:51:33  <jeremyrubin> I think it runs too many trials
5442020-01-30T19:51:42  <wumpus> then reduce that?
5452020-01-30T19:51:43  <jonasschnelli> which could be changed,... right?
5462020-01-30T19:51:44  <jeremyrubin> I beleive nanobench autodetects variance or something
5472020-01-30T19:52:30  <jeremyrubin> martinus also claims it's more accurate -- less variance than with old benching framework
5482020-01-30T19:52:49  <wumpus> so does it use a different clock?
5492020-01-30T19:52:51  <jeremyrubin> It also measures more things
5502020-01-30T19:52:53  <wumpus> how can accuracy differ?
5512020-01-30T19:53:26  <wumpus> or does it do CPU/OS-specific cache flushing?
5522020-01-30T19:53:28  <sipa> i think the current code we have is kinda crap; it started off being kinda general and automatically measuring things, and when it was shown that it introduces inaccuracies, it was changed to needing iterations counts in the code itself
5532020-01-30T19:54:11  <sipa> wumpus: i think it's mostly due to some tests running far longer than necessary, resulting in getting OS interrupts etc inside of them
5542020-01-30T19:54:12  <jeremyrubin> w.r.t. output and tooling, nanobench also outputs new information (e.g., instructions, cycles, branches, ips, branch misses)
5552020-01-30T19:54:31  <jeremyrubin> so we'd fundamentally need some new tools.
5562020-01-30T19:54:31  <jnewbery> is there anything that needs discussing here that isn't covered in the PR? I think the only action is to review that if you're interested, no? (#18011)
5572020-01-30T19:54:33  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18011 | Replace current benchmarking framework with nanobench by martinus · Pull Request #18011 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5582020-01-30T19:54:36  <wumpus> we used to measure cycles, this was removed at some point
5592020-01-30T19:54:53  <sipa> yeah let's discuss in the PR
5602020-01-30T19:55:30  <jeremyrubin> Sounds good -- my point in making it a topic was that it's relatively low risk to adopt as nothing really relies heavily on the benching
5612020-01-30T19:55:36  <wumpus> sounds good to me, I was just curious why everyone wants to replace the benchmark framework (with different things)
5622020-01-30T19:55:39  <jeremyrubin> and being able to write asymptotic benches is going to be a big help
5632020-01-30T19:55:44  <wumpus> but if the current one is crap that's clear :)
5642020-01-30T19:55:46  <jeremyrubin> Because we need that for the mempool work
5652020-01-30T19:56:04  <jeremyrubin> And I tried to introduce it in a since-closed PR, but it seemed we needed a more thought out approach
5662020-01-30T19:56:09  <jeremyrubin> and nanobench has that
5672020-01-30T19:56:18  <jeremyrubin> fin
5682020-01-30T19:57:07  <wumpus> #endmeeting
5692020-01-30T19:57:07  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Jan 30 19:57:07 2020 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
5702020-01-30T19:57:07  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-01-30-19.00.html
5712020-01-30T19:57:07  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-01-30-19.00.txt
5722020-01-30T19:57:07  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-01-30-19.00.log.html
5732020-01-30T19:57:26  <kanzure> send me a message if you want a link to the topic collection file i am preparing.
5742020-01-30T19:58:03  <wumpus> at least nanobench is only one cpp+header file (right?), that's nice
5752020-01-30T19:58:08  <sipa> yeah
5762020-01-30T19:58:09  <jeremyrubin> yeah
5772020-01-30T19:58:22  <jeremyrubin> I also like that we have an active maintainer for it
5782020-01-30T19:58:28  <jeremyrubin> e.g., it's written by martinus
5792020-01-30T19:58:33  <wumpus> would dread to depend on the google monstrosity
5802020-01-30T19:58:43  *** mryandao has quit IRC
5812020-01-30T19:58:57  <wumpus> yes!
5822020-01-30T19:58:57  <sipa> wumpus: our current bench framework was based on google's :)
5832020-01-30T19:59:47  <jeremyrubin> One interesting thing is if it's hard to backport nanobench
5842020-01-30T19:59:50  *** mryandao has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5852020-01-30T19:59:55  <jeremyrubin> Then collect nanobenches from prior releases
5862020-01-30T20:00:08  <wumpus> sipa: true, but I meant subtreeing it
5872020-01-30T20:00:09  <jeremyrubin> But that sounds annoying
5882020-01-30T20:00:39  <jeremyrubin> wumpus: I suggested that martinus make it a subtree; which it sounds like he could use a bit of guidance on how best to do that
5892020-01-30T20:00:48  <wumpus> jeremyrubin: backporting tests and benchmarks is ok with me if you want to, it's outside the things we normally backport (bugfixes) but also has zero risk for users
5902020-01-30T20:01:05  <jonasschnelli> I guess there is no need to backport it for a release
5912020-01-30T20:01:19  <jonasschnelli> A local backport should be enough to collect and compare
5922020-01-30T20:01:32  <jeremyrubin> jonasschnelli: yeah that's what I meant
5932020-01-30T20:01:38  <wumpus> the thing with subtrees is that we end up with all kinds of unnecessary stuff in our tree
5942020-01-30T20:01:58  <wumpus> esp. if it is only a cpp/h pair, we don't subtree tinyformat for a similar reason
5952020-01-30T20:02:05  <jeremyrubin> Maybe martinus can make a new git repo which is just the header
5962020-01-30T20:02:21  <jonasschnelli> just copy it in?
5972020-01-30T20:02:25  <jeremyrubin> and then make the nanobench repo with build stuff have a subtree of that
5982020-01-30T20:02:32  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: this is what he did right now and that's ok imo
5992020-01-30T20:02:32  <jeremyrubin> and then subtree the repo that's just the header
6002020-01-30T20:02:53  <jeremyrubin> wumpus: yeah if you're good with copy'd in then let's go that way.
6012020-01-30T20:03:05  <jeremyrubin> I think we just want to avoid diverging from upstream
6022020-01-30T20:03:27  <jonasschnelli> a subtree needs also maintenance and pulling
6032020-01-30T20:04:04  <sipa> unrelatedly, should we work on moving all subtrees to a single location? (e.g. src/subtrees/...) ?
6042020-01-30T20:04:16  <jeremyrubin> diverge meaning adding special cased stuff into nanobench rather than having a general feature that gets upstreamed/reviewed by other nanobench users
6052020-01-30T20:04:38  <wumpus> sipa: I don't know
6062020-01-30T20:04:39  <fanquake> I think we’ve got an issue open for the sun tree consolidation
6072020-01-30T20:04:43  <fanquake> *subtree
6082020-01-30T20:04:58  <wumpus> yes, looking for it
6092020-01-30T20:05:12  <jeremyrubin> wumpus: maybe just tell martinus that copied in is fine for now, and we can consider subtreeing later?
6102020-01-30T20:05:12  <wumpus> #17413
6112020-01-30T20:05:14  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17413 | Subtree exclude mess in linters and update scripts · Issue #17413 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6122020-01-30T20:05:33  <wumpus> jeremyrubin: sounds good to me
6132020-01-30T20:05:54  <wumpus> sipa: it would definitely make some things easier, but it'd also be quite a bit of disruption
6142020-01-30T20:06:21  <jeremyrubin> I'll leave a comment on the PR.
6152020-01-30T20:08:32  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6162020-01-30T20:09:37  *** Talkless has quit IRC
6172020-01-30T20:11:39  *** promag has quit IRC
6182020-01-30T20:15:05  *** hanhua has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6192020-01-30T20:15:55  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6202020-01-30T20:18:25  *** promag has quit IRC
6212020-01-30T20:22:28  *** emilengler has quit IRC
6222020-01-30T20:30:55  <wumpus> anyone oppposed to cleaning up the projects list a bit and closing "P2P refactor" and "libconsensus"? the former is finished, AFAIK, the latter has not had any active work for more than a year
6232020-01-30T20:31:02  <wumpus> they can always be reopened if needed
6242020-01-30T20:33:18  <sipa> sure
6252020-01-30T20:33:22  <sipa> i mean, not opposed
6262020-01-30T20:37:44  *** lightningbot has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6272020-01-30T20:41:14  <sdaftuar> sipa: any further thoughts on #17951?  would like to know if that is ready for merge, i have a wtxid-based-inv proposal ready to follow that up
6282020-01-30T20:41:16  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17951 | Use rolling bloom filter of recent block txs for AlreadyHave() check by sdaftuar · Pull Request #17951 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6292020-01-30T20:41:31  <sipa> sdaftuar: yeah, let's improve the wiping later
6302020-01-30T20:41:52  <sipa> will will review after lunch
6312020-01-30T20:41:56  <sdaftuar> thanks!
6322020-01-30T20:48:57  *** pncl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6332020-01-30T21:00:02  *** Amanda1 has quit IRC
6342020-01-30T21:02:48  *** lightlike has quit IRC
6352020-01-30T21:17:12  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
6362020-01-30T21:17:27  *** goatpig has quit IRC
6372020-01-30T21:17:29  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6382020-01-30T21:24:27  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6392020-01-30T21:24:43  *** vasild has quit IRC
6402020-01-30T21:25:02  *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6412020-01-30T21:26:27  *** pncl has quit IRC
6422020-01-30T21:29:13  *** promag has quit IRC
6432020-01-30T21:29:49  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6442020-01-30T21:29:58  *** promag has quit IRC
6452020-01-30T21:33:27  <jeremyrubin> sdaftuar: worth noting that your parameter selection puts you above the max filter size I think
6462020-01-30T21:41:24  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6472020-01-30T21:42:24  *** ajbiz11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6482020-01-30T21:56:23  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6492020-01-30T21:56:23  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #18032: Output a descriptor in createmultisig and addmultisigaddress (master...createms-descriptor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18032
6502020-01-30T21:56:35  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
6512020-01-30T22:03:01  *** pncl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6522020-01-30T22:05:18  <elichai2> Saw the thing MarcoFalke said about tools relying on the output of the benchmark utility, should I drop the commit that tries to make it more readable then? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18014
6532020-01-30T22:11:41  <jeremyrubin> probably? also it's likely that we'll soon replace bench, so might be wasted effort anyways? is the outup still intelligible?
6542020-01-30T22:13:33  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
6552020-01-30T22:14:03  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6562020-01-30T22:14:04  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3b69310beb17...1d1f8bbf5711
6572020-01-30T22:14:04  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b951b09 Larry Ruane: on startup, write config options to debug.log
6582020-01-30T22:14:05  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1d1f8bb MarcoFalke: Merge #16115: On bitcoind startup, write config args to debug.log
6592020-01-30T22:14:06  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
6602020-01-30T22:15:17  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6612020-01-30T22:15:18  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #16115: On bitcoind startup, write config args to debug.log (master...args-to-debug-log) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16115
6622020-01-30T22:15:19  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
6632020-01-30T22:28:36  *** kexkey has quit IRC
6642020-01-30T22:28:51  <elichai2> jeremyrubin: only changed spacings so the columns will be readable for humans
6652020-01-30T22:32:48  <fanquake> wumpus I agree
6662020-01-30T22:34:52  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6672020-01-30T22:34:53  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 closed pull request #16528: Native Descriptor Wallets using DescriptorScriptPubKeyMan (master...wallet-of-the-glorious-future) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16528
6682020-01-30T22:34:54  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
6692020-01-30T22:35:13  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6702020-01-30T22:35:13  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 reopened pull request #16528: Native Descriptor Wallets using DescriptorScriptPubKeyMan (master...wallet-of-the-glorious-future) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16528
6712020-01-30T22:35:14  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
6722020-01-30T22:42:15  *** hanhua has quit IRC
6732020-01-30T22:45:13  *** promag has quit IRC
6742020-01-30T22:45:22  *** tecnecio_ has quit IRC
6752020-01-30T22:47:44  <fanquake> review beg #18003
6762020-01-30T22:47:45  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18003 | build: remove --large-address-aware linker flag by fanquake · Pull Request #18003 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6772020-01-30T22:56:16  <jeremyrubin> sipa: I fixed my comments!
6782020-01-30T23:01:22  *** pncl has quit IRC
6792020-01-30T23:01:43  *** pncl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6802020-01-30T23:07:33  *** Skirmant has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6812020-01-30T23:16:44  *** Skirmant has quit IRC
6822020-01-30T23:38:52  *** pncl has quit IRC
6832020-01-30T23:41:36  *** jb55 has quit IRC
6842020-01-30T23:41:36  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
6852020-01-30T23:41:59  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6862020-01-30T23:42:04  *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6872020-01-30T23:43:57  *** pncl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6882020-01-30T23:52:02  <jeremyrubin> Can anyone clarify/point to documentation on when cleanstack gets applied?
6892020-01-30T23:52:11  <jeremyrubin> I couldn't find anything fleshed out
6902020-01-30T23:52:18  <jeremyrubin> (other than,,, the code
6912020-01-30T23:53:38  *** inoor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6922020-01-30T23:53:58  <sipa> jeremyrubin: bip62 rule 6 is implemented as a standardness rule
6932020-01-30T23:54:16  <sipa> it's also required (as a consensus rule) in p2wsh
6942020-01-30T23:55:20  <jeremyrubin> Interesting.
6952020-01-30T23:55:36  <jeremyrubin> There's a kind of nice script I'm looking at for CTV which is
6962020-01-30T23:56:02  <jeremyrubin> <t1> ... <tn> <N> OP_ROLL OP_ROLL OP_CTV
6972020-01-30T23:56:17  <jeremyrubin> So I would need to follow it by a bunch of op_drops then?
6982020-01-30T23:56:17  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6992020-01-30T23:57:01  <sipa> seems silly to use that post taproot
7002020-01-30T23:57:28  <jeremyrubin> someone asked :)
7012020-01-30T23:59:29  <jeremyrubin> Which is fine, no cleanstack works in v2  bare script transactions right?