12020-04-09T00:00:01 *** BusError1 has quit IRC
22020-04-09T00:02:54 *** ddustin has quit IRC
32020-04-09T00:07:40 *** dviola has quit IRC
42020-04-09T00:09:31 *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
52020-04-09T00:21:33 *** Jarsto1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
62020-04-09T00:31:09 *** belcher has quit IRC
72020-04-09T00:41:56 *** vincenzopalazzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
82020-04-09T01:02:28 *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
92020-04-09T01:07:56 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
102020-04-09T01:12:53 *** captjakk has quit IRC
112020-04-09T01:13:20 *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122020-04-09T01:17:44 *** captjakk has quit IRC
132020-04-09T01:23:00 *** Krellan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142020-04-09T01:30:36 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
152020-04-09T01:34:46 *** Krellan_ has quit IRC
162020-04-09T01:47:20 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172020-04-09T01:49:30 *** vincentpalazzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182020-04-09T01:52:04 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
192020-04-09T01:52:09 *** vincenzopalazzo has quit IRC
202020-04-09T01:53:08 *** Highway61 has quit IRC
212020-04-09T02:04:35 *** ddustin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
222020-04-09T02:09:47 *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232020-04-09T02:12:18 *** vincentpalazzo has quit IRC
242020-04-09T02:18:49 *** ddustin has quit IRC
252020-04-09T02:24:22 *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
262020-04-09T02:24:45 *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272020-04-09T02:29:01 *** molly has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
282020-04-09T02:31:19 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
292020-04-09T02:32:17 *** mol has quit IRC
302020-04-09T03:00:01 *** Jarsto1 has quit IRC
312020-04-09T03:04:41 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
322020-04-09T03:05:27 *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
332020-04-09T03:08:37 *** molly has quit IRC
342020-04-09T03:13:03 *** molly has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
352020-04-09T03:16:23 *** molz_ has quit IRC
362020-04-09T03:17:45 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
372020-04-09T03:20:37 *** molly has quit IRC
382020-04-09T03:20:49 *** josevalim1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
392020-04-09T03:24:04 *** molly has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
402020-04-09T03:26:39 *** mol has quit IRC
412020-04-09T03:31:09 *** Krellan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
422020-04-09T03:31:16 *** Eagle[TM] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
432020-04-09T03:33:40 *** EagleTM has quit IRC
442020-04-09T03:42:02 *** Krellan_ has quit IRC
452020-04-09T03:58:18 *** captjakk has quit IRC
462020-04-09T03:58:45 *** captjakk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
472020-04-09T04:03:36 *** captjakk has quit IRC
482020-04-09T05:02:12 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
492020-04-09T05:07:39 *** DougieBot5000 has quit IRC
502020-04-09T05:08:26 *** DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
512020-04-09T05:10:06 *** ddustin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
522020-04-09T05:11:00 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
532020-04-09T05:13:43 *** molly has quit IRC
542020-04-09T05:34:31 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
552020-04-09T05:35:22 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
562020-04-09T05:35:22 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #18572: Wallet: Accept "changedata" db key as an alias to "destdata" (master...changedata_forwardcompat) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18572
572020-04-09T05:35:23 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
582020-04-09T05:45:43 *** mol has quit IRC
592020-04-09T05:46:26 *** ddustin has quit IRC
602020-04-09T05:47:00 *** ddustin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
612020-04-09T05:56:29 *** Krellan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
622020-04-09T05:57:50 *** Krellan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
632020-04-09T06:00:02 *** josevalim1 has quit IRC
642020-04-09T06:06:41 *** Krellan_ has quit IRC
652020-04-09T06:11:44 *** Kiminuo has quit IRC
662020-04-09T06:20:11 *** Kiminuo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
672020-04-09T06:20:55 *** tasmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
682020-04-09T06:27:24 *** jarthur_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
692020-04-09T06:30:37 *** jarthur has quit IRC
702020-04-09T06:40:14 *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
712020-04-09T06:43:23 *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
722020-04-09T07:16:36 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
732020-04-09T07:18:53 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
742020-04-09T07:27:21 *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
752020-04-09T07:27:47 *** jonatack has quit IRC
762020-04-09T07:34:33 *** manantial has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
772020-04-09T07:38:12 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
782020-04-09T07:41:07 *** vasild_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
792020-04-09T07:43:00 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
802020-04-09T07:43:00 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #18333: build: Drop deprecated ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS variable (master...20200311-deprecated-amflags) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18333
812020-04-09T07:43:00 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
822020-04-09T07:44:03 *** vasild has quit IRC
832020-04-09T07:44:04 *** vasild_ is now known as vasild
842020-04-09T07:45:26 *** emilengler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
852020-04-09T07:48:15 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
862020-04-09T07:59:48 *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
872020-04-09T08:01:36 <jonasschnelli> Can someone restart https://ci.appveyor.com/project/DrahtBot/bitcoin/builds/32034256?
882020-04-09T08:01:51 <jonasschnelli> Or tell me how to do it? I logged in but don't have a restart build button
892020-04-09T08:01:58 <fanquake> done
902020-04-09T08:02:09 <sipa> fanquake beat me to it
912020-04-09T08:02:17 <fanquake> how unusual
922020-04-09T08:02:24 <sipa> not really
932020-04-09T08:02:46 <jonasschnelli> heh... bored in quarantaine?
942020-04-09T08:04:00 <fanquake> jonasschnelli: I'm not sure how to get you a restart button. Are you authed via github, or a different method?
952020-04-09T08:04:15 <jonasschnelli> I just logged in via github, yes.
962020-04-09T08:04:33 <jonasschnelli> I haven't manually added a project,.. which I think i don't have to do?
972020-04-09T08:04:59 <jonasschnelli> well,... i won't use it too much. So no urgency.
982020-04-09T08:05:11 <fanquake> I don't think so, but can't quite remember.
992020-04-09T08:05:26 <fanquake> I've currently lost my Travis restart button, which is much more annoying.
1002020-04-09T08:05:43 <fanquake> Re-authing didn't seem to help either.
1012020-04-09T08:13:06 *** Talkless has quit IRC
1022020-04-09T08:13:44 *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1032020-04-09T08:20:57 *** Eagle[TM] has quit IRC
1042020-04-09T08:39:16 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1052020-04-09T08:39:17 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #18573: [RFC] bitcoin-asmap utility (master...202004_asmap_tool) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18573
1062020-04-09T08:39:17 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1072020-04-09T09:00:02 *** tasmo has quit IRC
1082020-04-09T09:12:06 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1092020-04-09T09:12:06 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #18574: getinfo: call getbalances.ismine.trusted instead of getwalletinfo.balance (master...getinfo-call-getbalances-instead-of-getwalletinfo-balances) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18574
1102020-04-09T09:12:07 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1112020-04-09T09:20:58 *** Dantman has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1122020-04-09T09:26:33 *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1132020-04-09T09:35:19 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142020-04-09T09:35:19 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] brakmic closed pull request #18570: rpc: return block hash in getbalances json (master...return-blockhash-with-wallet-calls) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18570
1152020-04-09T09:35:20 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1162020-04-09T09:52:09 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172020-04-09T09:52:09 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] brakmic reopened pull request #18570: rpc: return block hash in getbalances json (master...return-blockhash-with-wallet-calls) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18570
1182020-04-09T09:52:21 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1192020-04-09T10:01:28 *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
1202020-04-09T10:01:40 *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1212020-04-09T10:03:55 *** Chanel50Weissnat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222020-04-09T10:24:10 *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
1232020-04-09T10:25:16 *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1242020-04-09T10:31:58 *** Emcy has quit IRC
1252020-04-09T10:32:35 *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1262020-04-09T10:46:07 *** lucaferr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1272020-04-09T10:46:25 *** timothy has quit IRC
1282020-04-09T10:49:30 *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1292020-04-09T10:50:25 *** tryphe has quit IRC
1302020-04-09T10:51:19 *** filchef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312020-04-09T10:56:45 *** timothy has quit IRC
1322020-04-09T10:57:15 *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332020-04-09T11:04:12 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1342020-04-09T11:04:42 *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1352020-04-09T11:06:34 *** Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca
1362020-04-09T11:17:22 *** amsudeep has quit IRC
1372020-04-09T11:32:51 *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1382020-04-09T11:34:00 *** amsudeep has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1392020-04-09T11:47:37 *** Chanel50Weissnat has quit IRC
1402020-04-09T11:58:24 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1412020-04-09T12:00:02 *** Dantman has quit IRC
1422020-04-09T12:08:04 <wumpus> unless anyone disagrees strongly I'm going to merge #18553 and tag rc1 in a bit
1432020-04-09T12:08:06 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18553 | Avoid non-trivial global constants in SHA-NI code by sipa · Pull Request #18553 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1442020-04-09T12:08:15 <wumpus> (after branching off 0.20 etc ofc)
1452020-04-09T12:09:57 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1462020-04-09T12:09:58 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/661bd5dea3d0...dcef5ad6ec10
1472020-04-09T12:09:58 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa68a3e MarcoFalke: appveyor: Enable minimal unit test logging to aid debugging
1482020-04-09T12:09:59 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa7af33 MarcoFalke: ci: Run unit tests sequential once
1492020-04-09T12:09:59 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master dcef5ad MarcoFalke: Merge #18562: ci: Run unit tests sequential once
1502020-04-09T12:10:01 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1512020-04-09T12:10:17 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1522020-04-09T12:10:17 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #18562: ci: Run unit tests sequential once (master...2004-qaFixTestTeardown) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18562
1532020-04-09T12:10:18 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1542020-04-09T12:16:19 *** izy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1552020-04-09T12:21:23 *** peeja has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1562020-04-09T12:22:40 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1572020-04-09T12:22:40 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/dcef5ad6ec10...87374d80a71d
1582020-04-09T12:22:41 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa5e973 MarcoFalke: test: Set -use_value_profile=1 when merging fuzz inputs
1592020-04-09T12:22:41 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 87374d8 MarcoFalke: Merge #18566: test: Set -use_value_profile=1 when merging fuzz inputs
1602020-04-09T12:22:43 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1612020-04-09T12:23:00 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1622020-04-09T12:23:00 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #18566: test: Set -use_value_profile=1 when merging fuzz inputs (master...2004-fuzzValueProfile) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18566
1632020-04-09T12:23:01 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1642020-04-09T12:27:23 *** EagleTM has quit IRC
1652020-04-09T12:28:40 *** izy has quit IRC
1662020-04-09T12:40:29 <fanquake> wumpus: sounds good
1672020-04-09T12:41:48 *** emilengler has quit IRC
1682020-04-09T12:42:05 *** emilengler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1692020-04-09T12:44:28 <wumpus> the other option would be to skip #18553 for now
1702020-04-09T12:44:30 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18553 | Avoid non-trivial global constants in SHA-NI code by sipa · Pull Request #18553 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1712020-04-09T12:45:19 <wumpus> as some people think it invokes strange undefined C++ behavior maybe that's better, though I'm not sure it's strictly worse than calling optional instruction sets in the initializers
1722020-04-09T12:46:11 <wumpus> but I don't want to block 0.20 for it for days
1732020-04-09T12:46:19 *** fearbeag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1742020-04-09T12:49:21 *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752020-04-09T12:50:58 *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
1762020-04-09T12:51:00 *** Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca
1772020-04-09T13:07:29 *** plaza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1782020-04-09T13:07:30 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1792020-04-09T13:08:56 *** emilengler has quit IRC
1802020-04-09T13:10:51 *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1812020-04-09T13:17:04 *** vasild has quit IRC
1822020-04-09T13:17:04 *** braydonf has quit IRC
1832020-04-09T13:17:04 *** alec has quit IRC
1842020-04-09T13:17:04 *** SiAnDoG_ has quit IRC
1852020-04-09T13:17:04 *** morcos has quit IRC
1862020-04-09T13:17:04 *** andrewtoth has quit IRC
1872020-04-09T13:17:04 *** kristapsk has quit IRC
1882020-04-09T13:17:04 *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
1892020-04-09T13:17:04 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
1902020-04-09T13:17:04 *** sipa has quit IRC
1912020-04-09T13:17:04 *** afk11` has quit IRC
1922020-04-09T13:17:04 *** per has quit IRC
1932020-04-09T13:17:04 *** jb55 has quit IRC
1942020-04-09T13:17:05 *** sdaftuar_ has quit IRC
1952020-04-09T13:17:12 *** timothy has quit IRC
1962020-04-09T13:17:40 *** braydonf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1972020-04-09T13:17:42 *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1982020-04-09T13:18:35 *** afk11` has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1992020-04-09T13:18:42 <wumpus> fanquake: we might want a linter at some point that checks for init.* sections in the object files for optional instruction sets
2002020-04-09T13:18:50 *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2012020-04-09T13:19:37 <fanquake> wumpus: interesting
2022020-04-09T13:19:39 <wumpus> i mean, .text.startup sections
2032020-04-09T13:20:00 *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2042020-04-09T13:20:01 *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052020-04-09T13:20:02 *** sdaftuar_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2062020-04-09T13:20:35 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2072020-04-09T13:22:16 *** per has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2082020-04-09T13:22:18 *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2092020-04-09T13:22:19 *** alec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2102020-04-09T13:24:34 <wumpus> a quick hack using "find -name \*.o -print0 | xargs -0 grep -l '.text.startup'" doesn't seem to find any others that might be problematic
2112020-04-09T13:26:51 *** alec has quit IRC
2122020-04-09T13:27:03 *** sdaftuar_ has quit IRC
2132020-04-09T13:27:42 <fanquake> wumpus: I see these sections in a fairly recent master https://gist.github.com/fanquake/90bfbed7d8e31e2191ec806cb67b78cf
2142020-04-09T13:28:06 *** kljasdfvv has quit IRC
2152020-04-09T13:29:16 <wumpus> sections such as .text.startup won't be in the final executable (the linker map collapses them)
2162020-04-09T13:29:42 <wumpus> but it's fine to have them in .o's compiled with the default compiler options
2172020-04-09T13:29:52 <fanquake> ah I see. I do have a map
2182020-04-09T13:30:00 <fanquake> I see:
2192020-04-09T13:30:08 <fanquake> .rela.text.startup
2202020-04-09T13:30:08 <fanquake> *(.text.startup .text.startup.*)
2212020-04-09T13:30:08 <fanquake> .text.startup 0x0000000000001090 0x74 /tmp/ccjlo7po.o
2222020-04-09T13:32:04 <fanquake> Was playing around with this for #17929. We are going to swap to just passing the optimization flags to the linker, and I was examining the differences in the binaries.
2232020-04-09T13:32:05 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17929 | build: add --enable-linker-optimizations configure flag by fanquake · Pull Request #17929 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2242020-04-09T13:32:21 *** alec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252020-04-09T13:32:39 *** sdaftuar_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2262020-04-09T13:33:02 *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2272020-04-09T13:34:38 *** afk11` has quit IRC
2282020-04-09T13:35:02 *** afk11` has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2292020-04-09T13:39:55 *** mol has quit IRC
2302020-04-09T13:40:10 *** andrewtoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2312020-04-09T13:51:58 *** timothy has quit IRC
2322020-04-09T13:53:43 *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2332020-04-09T13:57:13 *** kabaum has quit IRC
2342020-04-09T14:01:16 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2352020-04-09T14:07:22 *** timothy has quit IRC
2362020-04-09T14:14:42 *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2372020-04-09T14:15:17 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
2382020-04-09T14:16:20 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2392020-04-09T14:20:09 *** shigeya has quit IRC
2402020-04-09T14:20:59 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2412020-04-09T14:21:00 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/87374d80a71d...1ae366ecb067
2422020-04-09T14:21:00 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 97ba77a Hennadii Stepanov: ci: Add native s390x
2432020-04-09T14:21:01 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6136a96 Hennadii Stepanov: ci: Rename RUN_CI_ON_HOST to DANGER_RUN_CI_ON_HOST
2442020-04-09T14:21:01 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1ae366e MarcoFalke: Merge #18569: ci: Add big endian native s390x build
2452020-04-09T14:21:03 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2462020-04-09T14:21:19 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2472020-04-09T14:21:19 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #18569: ci: Add big endian native s390x build (master...20200326-allow-s390x) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18569
2482020-04-09T14:21:21 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2492020-04-09T14:22:59 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2502020-04-09T14:22:59 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1ae366ecb067...081dcbde6623
2512020-04-09T14:22:59 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master faede1b MarcoFalke: test: Properly raise FailedToStartError when rpc shutdown before warmup fi...
2522020-04-09T14:23:00 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 081dcbd MarcoFalke: Merge #18561: test: Properly raise FailedToStartError when rpc shutdown be...
2532020-04-09T14:23:01 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2542020-04-09T14:23:18 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2552020-04-09T14:23:18 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #18561: test: Properly raise FailedToStartError when rpc shutdown before warmup finished (master...2004-qaFailedToStartConnectionReset) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18561
2562020-04-09T14:23:19 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2572020-04-09T14:23:32 *** shigeya has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2582020-04-09T14:29:12 *** ddustin has quit IRC
2592020-04-09T14:29:25 *** ddustin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2602020-04-09T14:34:14 *** Kiminuo has quit IRC
2612020-04-09T14:48:15 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
2622020-04-09T14:49:02 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2632020-04-09T14:56:59 *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
2642020-04-09T14:57:17 *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2652020-04-09T14:58:50 *** amsudeep has quit IRC
2662020-04-09T15:00:01 *** peeja has quit IRC
2672020-04-09T15:02:18 *** Kiminuo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2682020-04-09T15:07:07 *** amsudeep has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2692020-04-09T15:12:00 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
2702020-04-09T15:13:20 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2712020-04-09T15:17:56 *** filchef has quit IRC
2722020-04-09T15:19:48 *** amsudeep has quit IRC
2732020-04-09T15:20:17 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
2742020-04-09T15:22:04 *** tummy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2752020-04-09T15:27:53 *** amsudeep has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2762020-04-09T15:34:11 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2772020-04-09T15:36:56 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2782020-04-09T15:44:35 *** amsudeep has quit IRC
2792020-04-09T15:47:51 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
2802020-04-09T15:48:37 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2812020-04-09T16:05:03 *** sdaftuar_ has quit IRC
2822020-04-09T16:06:00 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2832020-04-09T16:06:34 *** Livestradamus has quit IRC
2842020-04-09T16:06:56 *** Livestradamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2852020-04-09T16:10:34 *** sdaftuar_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2862020-04-09T16:11:30 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
2872020-04-09T16:12:27 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2882020-04-09T16:14:23 *** SiAnDoG_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2892020-04-09T16:19:23 *** sdaftuar_ has quit IRC
2902020-04-09T16:19:41 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2912020-04-09T16:21:54 *** sdaftuar_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2922020-04-09T16:22:41 *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2932020-04-09T16:27:20 *** michaelfolkson has quit IRC
2942020-04-09T16:31:25 *** michaelfolkson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2952020-04-09T16:31:35 *** michaelfolkson has quit IRC
2962020-04-09T16:38:35 *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2972020-04-09T16:42:32 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
2982020-04-09T16:42:36 *** Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
2992020-04-09T16:43:49 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
3002020-04-09T16:45:05 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3012020-04-09T16:53:34 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3022020-04-09T16:53:34 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #18575: bench: Remove requirement that all benches use same testing setup (master...2004-benchNoGlobalReg) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18575
3032020-04-09T16:53:39 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3042020-04-09T16:54:03 *** sdaftuar_ has quit IRC
3052020-04-09T16:54:43 *** sdaftuar_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3062020-04-09T17:02:19 *** ddustin has quit IRC
3072020-04-09T17:03:10 *** ddustin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3082020-04-09T17:04:03 *** sdaftuar_ has quit IRC
3092020-04-09T17:04:58 *** timothy has quit IRC
3102020-04-09T17:07:21 *** sdaftuar_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3112020-04-09T17:14:07 *** xinan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3122020-04-09T17:14:29 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
3132020-04-09T17:15:50 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3142020-04-09T17:16:25 *** ddustin has quit IRC
3152020-04-09T17:16:29 *** kabaum has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3162020-04-09T17:16:37 *** ddustin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3172020-04-09T17:18:31 *** emilengler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3182020-04-09T17:20:57 *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3192020-04-09T17:23:46 *** xinan has quit IRC
3202020-04-09T17:26:11 *** emilengler has quit IRC
3212020-04-09T17:28:08 *** nijhh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3222020-04-09T17:30:01 *** nijhh has quit IRC
3232020-04-09T17:30:53 *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3242020-04-09T17:31:49 *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3252020-04-09T17:39:54 *** sdaftuar_ has quit IRC
3262020-04-09T17:41:48 *** sdaftuar_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3272020-04-09T17:41:55 *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
3282020-04-09T17:42:47 *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3292020-04-09T17:46:15 *** molly has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3302020-04-09T17:49:10 *** mol has quit IRC
3312020-04-09T18:00:02 *** tummy has quit IRC
3322020-04-09T18:01:05 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
3332020-04-09T18:01:56 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3342020-04-09T18:05:16 *** kabaum has quit IRC
3352020-04-09T18:15:34 *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
3362020-04-09T18:20:38 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3372020-04-09T18:20:38 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gzhao408 opened pull request #18576: wip [test] use unittest for test_framework unit testing (master...framework-unittests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18576
3382020-04-09T18:20:39 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3392020-04-09T18:21:08 *** ram1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3402020-04-09T18:21:43 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
3412020-04-09T18:21:46 *** ddustin_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3422020-04-09T18:22:24 *** ddustin has quit IRC
3432020-04-09T18:22:36 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3442020-04-09T18:23:28 *** filchef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3452020-04-09T18:25:51 *** roconnor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3462020-04-09T18:26:28 *** kabaum has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3472020-04-09T18:28:13 *** jarthur has quit IRC
3482020-04-09T18:30:15 *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3492020-04-09T18:34:42 *** cubancorona has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3502020-04-09T18:41:41 *** ddustin_ has quit IRC
3512020-04-09T18:42:31 *** ddustin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3522020-04-09T18:46:45 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3532020-04-09T18:46:45 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] yahiheb opened pull request #18577: doc: Correct scripted-diff example link (master...correct-link) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18577
3542020-04-09T18:46:46 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3552020-04-09T18:48:42 *** promag has quit IRC
3562020-04-09T18:50:22 *** sdaftuar_ is now known as sdaftuar
3572020-04-09T18:52:55 *** amsudeep has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3582020-04-09T19:00:05 <wumpus> #startmeeting
3592020-04-09T19:00:05 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Apr 9 19:00:05 2020 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
3602020-04-09T19:00:05 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
3612020-04-09T19:00:12 <sipa> hi
3622020-04-09T19:00:22 <elichai2> hi
3632020-04-09T19:00:44 <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
3642020-04-09T19:00:46 <wumpus> jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55
3652020-04-09T19:00:51 <achow101> hi
3662020-04-09T19:00:52 <jonasschnelli> hi
3672020-04-09T19:00:52 <jonatack> hi
3682020-04-09T19:00:55 <hebasto> hi
3692020-04-09T19:00:58 <jkczyz> hi
3702020-04-09T19:01:05 <aj> hola
3712020-04-09T19:01:05 <MarcoFalke> hi
3722020-04-09T19:01:12 <sdaftuar> hi!
3732020-04-09T19:01:38 <MarcoFalke> (sorry, merge bot incoming in a few secs)
3742020-04-09T19:01:39 <cfields> hi
3752020-04-09T19:01:53 <amiti> hi
3762020-04-09T19:01:55 <wumpus> any proposed topics?
3772020-04-09T19:02:11 <jnewbery> hi
3782020-04-09T19:02:12 <MarcoFalke> wen release?
3792020-04-09T19:02:16 <wumpus> looks like there's one by achow101: deprecating signrawtx RPCs
3802020-04-09T19:02:28 <sipa> low priority topic if there's time: future of asmap?
3812020-04-09T19:02:31 <wumpus> MarcoFalke:depends on whether #18553 is a blocker
3822020-04-09T19:02:31 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3832020-04-09T19:02:32 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 6 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/081dcbde6623...405713d00fb4
3842020-04-09T19:02:32 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5560845 Pieter Wuille: Make a fuzzer-based copy of the prevector randomized test
3852020-04-09T19:02:33 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master eda8309 Pieter Wuille: Assert immediately rather than caching failure
3862020-04-09T19:02:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18553 | Avoid non-trivial global constants in SHA-NI code by sipa · Pull Request #18553 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3872020-04-09T19:02:33 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 402ad5a Pieter Wuille: Only run sanity check once at the end
3882020-04-09T19:02:34 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3892020-04-09T19:02:51 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3902020-04-09T19:02:52 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #18529: Add fuzzer version of randomized prevector test (master...202004_prevector_fuzz) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18529
3912020-04-09T19:02:52 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3922020-04-09T19:03:06 <achow101> rc1 soon?
3932020-04-09T19:03:11 <MarcoFalke> I wish rebroad could ACK it, since they reported the issue
3942020-04-09T19:03:16 <hebasto> why 18553 could be a blocker?
3952020-04-09T19:03:23 <wumpus> it's the only PR left that is tagged for 0.20
3962020-04-09T19:03:45 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3972020-04-09T19:03:47 <wumpus> hebasto: because if your system doesn't support the instruction it'll just crash before main()
3982020-04-09T19:04:11 <MarcoFalke> Does anyone have that CPU to test?
3992020-04-09T19:04:18 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
4002020-04-09T19:04:26 <elichai2> MarcoFalke: I'm surprised this is the first time we're hearing about this issue. I would've thought everyone without SSE* support will get this error
4012020-04-09T19:04:27 <sipa> i'm not sure the problem will appear in every build (it may be compiler dependent)
4022020-04-09T19:04:39 <wumpus> no, bitcoind master runs fine even on my oldest pc, but it might depend on compiler too
4032020-04-09T19:04:41 <sipa> would i understand how our existing code is broken for systems that do not have sse4
4042020-04-09T19:04:58 <sipa> *but i understand
4052020-04-09T19:05:13 <wumpus> movaps is SSE2, right?
4062020-04-09T19:05:16 <promag> hi
4072020-04-09T19:05:36 <wumpus> if the init code contained *SSE4* oh sure we'd have noticed
4082020-04-09T19:05:44 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4092020-04-09T19:05:51 <cfields> *sse2
4102020-04-09T19:05:54 <cfields> wumpus: right
4112020-04-09T19:06:08 <sipa> i suspect he is executing an sse4 instruction
4122020-04-09T19:06:10 <wumpus> almost(?) all amd64 processors support SSE2
4132020-04-09T19:06:14 <sipa> because his system has sse2
4142020-04-09T19:06:18 <wumpus> oh
4152020-04-09T19:06:32 <wumpus> okay in that case we don't know if the PR fixes theproblem at all
4162020-04-09T19:06:40 <sipa> it does
4172020-04-09T19:06:41 <wumpus> I suggest we just move on with the branch-off and rc1
4182020-04-09T19:06:58 <cfields> ah, I guess if we're targetting sse4 it's free to ignore the sse2 intrinsic. Annoying that those are only hints.
4192020-04-09T19:07:14 <sipa> wumpus: the sha256-shani module is compiled with sse4 on, so any code the compiler produces in that module is allowed to have sse4 instructions
4202020-04-09T19:07:24 <sipa> the fact that it has a global initializer is a bug regardless
4212020-04-09T19:07:30 <wumpus> sipa: yes, I agree
4222020-04-09T19:07:45 <wumpus> I'm the person who ACKed that PR, I think it's a good change
4232020-04-09T19:07:46 <elichai2> anyways the current code is somewhat broken
4242020-04-09T19:07:53 <elichai2> even if that's not his specific problem
4252020-04-09T19:08:01 <sipa> we don't know the exact conditions to reproduce it (which is hard, as it's compiler dependent), but i believe my PR is a bugfix independently of that
4262020-04-09T19:08:09 <elichai2> sipa: exactly
4272020-04-09T19:08:12 <wumpus> yes
4282020-04-09T19:08:29 <wumpus> it makes sense no matter what
4292020-04-09T19:08:46 <wumpus> even reduces code size a bit
4302020-04-09T19:09:03 <sipa> but if we want to make sure rebroad's issue is fixed in 0.20... we have no choice but to wait for him
4312020-04-09T19:09:07 <sipa> i think we can do that in rc1
4322020-04-09T19:09:13 <jarthur> If anyone needs time on a machine w/ hardware SHA-NI for profiling/memory sanitization, send me your SSH pubkey and I'll give you a VM
4332020-04-09T19:09:26 <sipa> i have one too
4342020-04-09T19:09:36 <wumpus> I'm not going to hold up rc1 on them testing it
4352020-04-09T19:09:39 <sipa> a machine without sse4 would be more useful :p
4362020-04-09T19:10:00 <luke-jr> (proposed topic: change destdata)
4372020-04-09T19:10:01 <sipa> there are very few x86_64 systems without sse4 i think
4382020-04-09T19:10:12 <luke-jr> although maybe better for wallet meeting tomorrow
4392020-04-09T19:10:21 <wumpus> true, even my old dev machine has "sse4a"
4402020-04-09T19:10:29 <luke-jr> (but does relate to 0.20)
4412020-04-09T19:12:41 <elichai2> jarthur: I would like to run some UB sanitizer on the patch, just because I'm a bit uncomfortable with C++'s alignment rules
4422020-04-09T19:13:05 <wumpus> in that case, let's do rc1 without it
4432020-04-09T19:13:11 <sipa> ack
4442020-04-09T19:13:16 *** kabaum has quit IRC
4452020-04-09T19:13:32 <cfields> elichai2: if you're that uncomfortable, there's an intrinsic that doesn't require alignment.
4462020-04-09T19:13:46 <luke-jr> should probably get at least #18572 into 0.20
4472020-04-09T19:13:48 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18572 | Wallet: Accept "changedata" db key as an alias to "destdata" by luke-jr · Pull Request #18572 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4482020-04-09T19:13:56 <cfields> compiler might even auto-upgrade it?
4492020-04-09T19:14:11 <sipa> cfields: i don't think it can
4502020-04-09T19:14:14 <wumpus> the current solution has 0 overhead at least
4512020-04-09T19:14:18 <elichai2> cfields: I'm not saying it's UB/ID just that I don't know the rules well enough :) I assume the unaligned load is costlier
4522020-04-09T19:14:31 <sipa> elichai2: on most systems they have the same cost, but not all
4532020-04-09T19:14:33 <wumpus> it even generates the same code as before
4542020-04-09T19:15:00 *** jarthur has quit IRC
4552020-04-09T19:15:14 <elichai2> sipa: I thought SIMD instructions do require aligned pointers. unlike regular loads/stores
4562020-04-09T19:15:22 <elichai2> (x86/x86_64)
4572020-04-09T19:15:23 <cfields> yeah, I'm not really understanding the concern. We use alignment tricks in sse4 as well.
4582020-04-09T19:15:26 <sipa> elichai2: correct
4592020-04-09T19:15:33 <luke-jr> depends on the CPU in my expereince
4602020-04-09T19:15:43 <wumpus> yes, alignas(__m128i) should just work
4612020-04-09T19:15:46 <sipa> elichai2: movdqa requires alignment, movdqu does not
4622020-04-09T19:16:11 <elichai2> Ok, if other people are confident in this than I'm ACK too
4632020-04-09T19:16:15 <luke-jr> for a long time at least, Mesa and glibc used ssse3 for memcpy-type stuff, even when unaligned - and it broke on (IIRC) Sandy Bridge
4642020-04-09T19:16:15 <sipa> but still on most systems they have the same cost; the distinction was made because on early CPUs they differed
4652020-04-09T19:16:35 *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4662020-04-09T19:17:28 <wumpus> we use alignas() in a few other places too
4672020-04-09T19:17:43 <wumpus> if the compier ignores it, we're screwed with regard to UB in either case
4682020-04-09T19:17:46 <sipa> yeah, i'm not worried about the alignment thing
4692020-04-09T19:17:59 <wumpus> (prevector comes to mind)
4702020-04-09T19:19:06 <elichai2> wasn't there a UB in a version of prevector?
4712020-04-09T19:19:43 <wumpus> yes, that was solved using the current explicit construction
4722020-04-09T19:19:52 <sipa> elichai2: the kind of technically-UB-by-the-C++-spec-but-not-on-any-real-platform one only, afaik
4732020-04-09T19:20:04 <wumpus> it wasn't alignas()'s fault
4742020-04-09T19:20:07 <elichai2> isn't that the worse kind? :P
4752020-04-09T19:20:28 <sipa> elichai2: i think bugs that affect production code are just *slightly* more serious
4762020-04-09T19:20:30 <elichai2> right it's a pragma thing
4772020-04-09T19:21:11 <elichai2> anyhow, we're talking about this too much :) I'm ACK if people feel confident, my lack of understanding shouldn't stop anything
4782020-04-09T19:21:16 <jeremyrubin> just noting that there is a pragma free version of prevector that could be written and has no UB; but it's a bigger refactor
4792020-04-09T19:21:27 <cfields> elichai2: nothing wrong with being paranoid.
4802020-04-09T19:21:33 <sipa> of course
4812020-04-09T19:21:50 <wumpus> #topic deprecating signrawtx RPCs (achow101)
4822020-04-09T19:22:11 <wumpus> jeremyrubin: we're not discussing refactoring prevector again :)
4832020-04-09T19:23:01 <achow101> so multisig signrawtransaction workflows don't work with descriptor wallets
4842020-04-09T19:23:20 <achow101> I was thinking that because we have psbt now, we should deprecate the signrawtx RPCs
4852020-04-09T19:23:35 <MarcoFalke> completely or only for multisig?
4862020-04-09T19:23:38 <jonasschnelli> can you quickly elaborate why it won't work with desc. wallets?
4872020-04-09T19:23:40 <wumpus> I'm not generally in favor of depracating signrawtx RPCs, many people use the raw transactions workflow
4882020-04-09T19:23:48 <achow101> it should be a longer deprecation cycle because it's so widely used
4892020-04-09T19:23:53 <wumpus> if we do it should be *very* well documented first
4902020-04-09T19:24:00 <sipa> i'm not so convinced here
4912020-04-09T19:24:00 <jonasschnelli> agree with wumpus
4922020-04-09T19:24:20 <sipa> i believe it's good to "nudge" people towards PSBT, but deprecation is probably too hard a hammer for that
4932020-04-09T19:24:28 <luke-jr> [19:23:38] <jonasschnelli> can you quickly elaborate why it won't work with desc. wallets?
4942020-04-09T19:24:29 <wumpus> like make a blog post how to *old thing* in *new way*
4952020-04-09T19:24:33 <achow101> jonasschnelli: because of the separation of watchonly things, currently we can't create a wallet that has both the multisig script and keys to sign for it
4962020-04-09T19:24:36 <wumpus> yes, I agree
4972020-04-09T19:24:51 <achow101> so doing a multisig becomes a half assed psbt workflow
4982020-04-09T19:25:09 <sipa> achow101: i don't understand why we'd want descriptor wallets to not support private keys for multisig
4992020-04-09T19:25:46 <achow101> sipa: the issue is with exporting the private keys to the multisig
5002020-04-09T19:25:59 <achow101> IIRC there was contention about exporting keys that used unhardened derivation
5012020-04-09T19:26:06 <jonasschnelli> are those technical or conceptual limitations?
5022020-04-09T19:26:17 <sipa> achow101: so use hardened derivation?
5032020-04-09T19:26:22 <achow101> jonasschnelli: conceptual and current implementation limitations
5042020-04-09T19:26:51 <sipa> i understand there may be UI issues on how to make this easy
5052020-04-09T19:27:20 <sipa> but say you have a private key, even generated manually or whatever... you should be able to import a descriptor for a multisig based on it, and have that private key in the same wallet
5062020-04-09T19:27:44 *** go11111111111 has quit IRC
5072020-04-09T19:28:01 <achow101> sipa: sure
5082020-04-09T19:28:04 *** go11111111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5092020-04-09T19:28:13 <sipa> and that would work fine with signraw*, right?
5102020-04-09T19:28:17 <achow101> (this is also partly in the context of making all of the RPC tests work)
5112020-04-09T19:28:31 <achow101> sipa: yes
5122020-04-09T19:29:33 *** jonatack has quit IRC
5132020-04-09T19:29:35 <sipa> ok
5142020-04-09T19:30:01 <achow101> but conceptually, it feels like psbt should be a directly replacement to raw txs, so we should move to remove those eventually
5152020-04-09T19:30:31 <jonasschnelli> I could understand why the signraw commands could refuse to work for BIP44-ish descriptor wallets (due to the hardening violation),... though for manual privkey-ckd it should work
5162020-04-09T19:30:36 *** amsudeep has quit IRC
5172020-04-09T19:30:58 <sipa> jonasschnelli: once you have all the right things in a descriptor wallet, it doesn't matter - hardened or not
5182020-04-09T19:31:14 <sipa> (is my understanding)
5192020-04-09T19:31:58 <sipa> achow101: i think my preference would be to mark signraw* as in "maintenance mode" or so, where they don't receive new features (e.g. they wouldn't support taproot signing when that gets in)
5202020-04-09T19:32:04 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5212020-04-09T19:32:10 <instagibbs> +1
5222020-04-09T19:32:29 <sipa> but i feel like deprecation is kind of ruthless
5232020-04-09T19:32:38 <achow101> I was thinking of an extra long deprecation cycle
5242020-04-09T19:32:40 <wumpus> yes
5252020-04-09T19:32:52 <instagibbs> imo I think the tooling is too widely used and PSBT still has an adoption curve to hit
5262020-04-09T19:32:58 <wumpus> agree
5272020-04-09T19:33:00 <achow101> like 2 releases with a note saying it's deprecated, but don't disable yet. then 2 releases with it hidden behind -deprecatedprc. then remove
5282020-04-09T19:33:02 <instagibbs> the tooling meaning *raw*
5292020-04-09T19:33:05 <wumpus> maybe in a few years bring this up again :)
5302020-04-09T19:34:08 * achow101 adds to 2022 calendar
5312020-04-09T19:34:33 <jonasschnelli> I can't completely follow why we should remove/deprecate it since in many use cases those commands work fine.
5322020-04-09T19:34:57 <jonasschnelli> (the accounting system had conceptual flaw in contrast)
5332020-04-09T19:35:02 <jonasschnelli> *flaws
5342020-04-09T19:35:08 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: what flaws?
5352020-04-09T19:35:09 <wumpus> yes
5362020-04-09T19:35:20 <sipa> jonasschnelli: i think the reasoning is "it's hard to make it work nicely with descriptors, and there is a better system already... would be easy to just get rid of it"
5372020-04-09T19:35:24 <luke-jr> the accounting system worked fine AFAIK, just nobody cared to maintain it
5382020-04-09T19:35:30 <wumpus> accounting system discussion is off topic
5392020-04-09T19:35:34 <luke-jr> true
5402020-04-09T19:36:00 <luke-jr> couldn't signrawtx be reimplemented as a wrapper around PSBT?
5412020-04-09T19:36:01 <jonasschnelli> is the plan to only support descriptor wallets in the future?
5422020-04-09T19:36:02 <jonasschnelli> with some sort of migration
5432020-04-09T19:36:14 <sipa> luke-jr: yes (and probably should), but that wouldn't solve the problem
5442020-04-09T19:36:17 *** go11111111111 is now known as go1111111
5452020-04-09T19:36:24 <achow101> my plan is to make descriptor wallets the default wallet type
5462020-04-09T19:36:27 <achow101> eventually
5472020-04-09T19:36:55 <jonasschnelli> this would be fine. As long as "legacy" wallets are still supported, signwith* commands shound't go away?
5482020-04-09T19:37:33 <sipa> the issue (as i understand it) is constructing a descriptor wallet that has all the same pieces of information as a current legacy wallet is unclear (where do the keys come from, how to import without reintroducing mixed wallets or watching the wrong kind of things...)
5492020-04-09T19:37:54 <achow101> sipa: yes
5502020-04-09T19:38:01 <sipa> i believe it would be nice to spend some time on actually solving that... because there is no technical reason why a descriptor wallet couldn't have that information
5512020-04-09T19:38:16 <jonasschnelli> exactly
5522020-04-09T19:38:35 <sipa> achow101: FWIW, i think your envisioned workflow (having two wallets, one with the multisig, and one with the private keys) is also pretty suboptimal
5532020-04-09T19:38:37 <jonasschnelli> we shouldn't enforce modes of use due to solvable technical imitations
5542020-04-09T19:38:42 <MarcoFalke> If the call doesn't work with descriptor wallets, it should be disabled for those wallets, not for legacy wallets as well.
5552020-04-09T19:38:46 <MarcoFalke> agree with jonasschnelli
5562020-04-09T19:38:53 <sipa> it isn't a technical limitation
5572020-04-09T19:39:02 <sipa> it's an unsolved UI question
5582020-04-09T19:39:12 <sipa> (where UI includes RPC and workflows)
5592020-04-09T19:41:07 *** vasild_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5602020-04-09T19:42:03 <achow101> i suppose it is
5612020-04-09T19:42:57 <sipa> i don't think disabling signraw* for descriptor wallets would even solve the root of the issue - users would still need a workaround to do what they could before (having two wallets, and run PSBT RPCs on both)
5622020-04-09T19:43:08 <jonasschnelli> achow101: maybe you could write a short gist/paper about the issue for help us to understand it better?
5632020-04-09T19:43:32 <sipa> can i try in 3 lines?
5642020-04-09T19:43:36 <jonasschnelli> plz
5652020-04-09T19:43:49 <achow101> jonasschnelli: sure. I should write release notes for descriptor wallets anyways and there should be section on known limitations
5662020-04-09T19:43:55 *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
5672020-04-09T19:44:43 *** vasild has quit IRC
5682020-04-09T19:44:44 *** vasild_ is now known as vasild
5692020-04-09T19:44:53 <wumpus> +1
5702020-04-09T19:45:04 <sipa> currently you can construct a legacy wallet which has (1) a private key for one key and (2) watchonly records for multisigs involving that public key - this is crazy (because it means payments to the individual single key will be treated as incoming money, unable to separate it from the multisig funds), but it works great: you have the script information (the the multisig watchonly) and the private
5712020-04-09T19:45:10 <sipa> key for one of the keys in one wallet,...
5722020-04-09T19:45:13 <sipa> so it can do everything
5732020-04-09T19:46:58 <sipa> in descriptor wallets, you'd need to explicitly import a descriptor for the multisig, and then add a private key for one - you can't have started with a wallet that had that private key already as a single-key wallet (because then you reintroduce the mixing of singlekey/multisig funds), and you can't export that private key from another wallet (because we don't want export of non-hardened keys)....
5742020-04-09T19:47:04 <sipa> so where does it come from?
5752020-04-09T19:47:31 <sipa> i think the only question is a UX one around construction of such wallets
5762020-04-09T19:47:55 <sipa> </fin>
5772020-04-09T19:48:22 <jonasschnelli> I see. So one would need a watch-only-ms desc wallet and a single-key desc wallet for signing the PSBT (or whatever)
5782020-04-09T19:48:50 <achow101> yes
5792020-04-09T19:48:59 <achow101> and with both psbt and raw tx, the workflow is the same
5802020-04-09T19:48:59 <sipa> right, that would work - and the PSBT would carry the script information from the watch-only-ms wallet to the signing-key wallet
5812020-04-09T19:49:04 <instagibbs> user stories may help cover cases, I tend to only think about MY use case
5822020-04-09T19:49:18 <jonasschnelli> Which the signraw commands could construct in the background (assume providing all the infos)?
5832020-04-09T19:49:21 <luke-jr> aren't the multisig funds classified as watchonly?
5842020-04-09T19:49:53 <sipa> luke-jr: right, fair - that's the reason watchonly exists
5852020-04-09T19:49:56 <achow101> you go to the watch-only-ms wallet with a psbt or rawtx, it adds the scripts. then you go to the single-key wallet and sign it. it's the same workflow, but psbt is better suited for carrying this data
5862020-04-09T19:50:14 <sipa> but it's ridiculous that you currently can't do multisig stuff without also having payments to individual keys as balance in your wallet
5872020-04-09T19:50:35 <jonasschnelli> sipa: though that is rarely used, right?
5882020-04-09T19:50:45 <sipa> jonasschnelli: "used" ?
5892020-04-09T19:50:47 <sipa> it's an attack
5902020-04-09T19:51:10 <sipa> you can send funds to a individual key in a multisig, and the user may think it's paid to the multisig
5912020-04-09T19:51:16 <luke-jr> so we need a way to have can-sign non-ismine descriptors
5922020-04-09T19:51:22 <jonasschnelli> Kida. Yes. I see. Agree that it is a flaw/ridiculous
5932020-04-09T19:51:31 <sipa> luke-jr: descriptor wallets already do that
5942020-04-09T19:51:35 <achow101> luke-jr: we already do that. it's a question of the scripts
5952020-04-09T19:51:58 <sipa> we just need a good way to import a multisig descriptor + individual key into a descriptor wallet
5962020-04-09T19:51:59 <instagibbs> IsMine implementation in descriptor is a relative beauty :P
5972020-04-09T19:52:25 <sipa> if that works, signraw* and PSBT* will function just as before
5982020-04-09T19:52:34 <sipa> if that doesn't work, it's going to be shitty to use for both
5992020-04-09T19:52:39 <jonasschnelli> Now I see why it's a UX issue. We have set our own limitations which IMO could be worked around by creating the right structures on the fly for the signraw* commands when using desc.-wallets
6002020-04-09T19:52:46 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
6012020-04-09T19:53:10 <instagibbs> achow101, if you do this you're also going to have to get rid of the "private keys disabled" hack we've been using
6022020-04-09T19:53:25 <instagibbs> to detect if we want to do PSBT stuff or try to sign the transaction
6032020-04-09T19:54:19 <achow101> instagibbs: I don't think so. but I'll experiment
6042020-04-09T19:54:40 <achow101> jonasschnelli: which "right structures"
6052020-04-09T19:54:43 <instagibbs> achow101, well, if there exists a private key, it will try to sign and fail unexpectedly, I think, but you can test yes :)
6062020-04-09T19:56:04 <jeremyrubin> BTW: if you have thoughts on BIP-119 Next Steps please submit them in this survey; want to collect feedback from everyone https://forms.gle/rT3v4JjHbdn3RMnL6
6072020-04-09T19:57:03 <instagibbs> The wallet should just probably know explicitly that it should try to auto-sign or return a PSBT, but that's yet another UX q.
6082020-04-09T19:57:37 <wumpus> 3 minutes to go
6092020-04-09T19:57:57 <jonasschnelli> achow101: maybe I get it wrong. But if someone invokes a signraw, depending on the input, you could create either a watch-only-ms wallet or a single-privkey wallet in the background and use the PSBT workflow
6102020-04-09T19:58:36 <achow101> but where does the multisig script come from?
6112020-04-09T19:59:01 <sipa> jonasschnelli: the question is not about signraw* or PSBT*; the question is constructing a wallet that has the right information
6122020-04-09T19:59:08 <achow101> it's not hard to wrap signrawtx around psbts so it uses psbt internally. but it just doesn't have all of the data there
6132020-04-09T19:59:24 <luke-jr> descriptor wallets can or can't have multiple descriptors?
6142020-04-09T19:59:36 <jonasschnelli> provide it manually or provide it via a second wallet
6152020-04-09T19:59:55 <sipa> luke-jr: can; change and payments in general will come from distinct descriptors
6162020-04-09T20:00:12 <instagibbs> luke-jr, you can import any number of descriptors, there are 6 "Active" ones, aka keypool, by default
6172020-04-09T20:00:30 <achow101> luke-jr: can, but having a descriptor wallet contain both multisig and single key descriptors goes back to the mixed watchonly wallet thing
6182020-04-09T20:00:39 <instagibbs> legacy/p2sh-segwit/bech32 x internal/external
6192020-04-09T20:00:49 <luke-jr> achow101: not if you flag the single-keys descriptor as non-ismine?
6202020-04-09T20:00:54 <wumpus> sorry, time to wrap up the meeting
6212020-04-09T20:00:56 <achow101> jonasschnelli: yes, and that's the shitty ux sipa was talking about
6222020-04-09T20:01:06 <wumpus> #endmeeting
6232020-04-09T20:01:06 <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Apr 9 20:01:06 2020 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
6242020-04-09T20:01:06 <lightningbot> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-04-09-19.00.html
6252020-04-09T20:01:06 <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-04-09-19.00.txt
6262020-04-09T20:01:06 <lightningbot> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-04-09-19.00.log.html
6272020-04-09T20:01:24 <instagibbs> luke-jr, what you need is a way to import a key and say "yeah it's not an address", right
6282020-04-09T20:01:38 <instagibbs> that's what people were discussing
6292020-04-09T20:01:58 <sipa> instagibbs: and also how do you then come up with that key
6302020-04-09T20:02:11 <luke-jr> [19:51:16] <luke-jr> so we need a way to have can-sign non-ismine descriptors [19:51:31] <sipa> luke-jr: descriptor wallets already do that
6312020-04-09T20:02:12 <luke-jr> :/
6322020-04-09T20:02:31 <sipa> luke-jr: the internals can do this fine
6332020-04-09T20:02:35 <sipa> the question is UX
6342020-04-09T20:02:40 <achow101> luke-jr: given a psbt with the redeemScript, a descriptor wallet without the multisig can sign the psbt
6352020-04-09T20:02:48 <instagibbs> if you have a privkey, and it can sign something, it does. So single-key desc wallet can sign a multisig
6362020-04-09T20:02:55 <instagibbs> but that's a 2 wallet solution
6372020-04-09T20:03:11 <sipa> but it there shouldn't need to be any single-key desc wallet whatsoever
6382020-04-09T20:03:19 <instagibbs> right
6392020-04-09T20:03:21 <sipa> there should just be one multisig wallet with one of the keys
6402020-04-09T20:03:22 <instagibbs> "just a key"
6412020-04-09T20:03:28 <luke-jr> achow101: descriptor wallet w/ multisig descriptors ismine + singlekey descriptors non-ismine?
6422020-04-09T20:03:37 <jonasschnelli> I think that -> <sipa> there should just be one multisig wallet with one of the keys
6432020-04-09T20:03:43 <achow101> luke-jr: can't do that
6442020-04-09T20:03:47 <luke-jr> why not?
6452020-04-09T20:03:57 <sipa> luke-jr: my point is that's even a stretch; there shouldn't be a singlekey descriptor at all
6462020-04-09T20:04:09 <sipa> a descriptor is a way to encode information about scriptPubKeys
6472020-04-09T20:04:14 <sipa> there is no interesting scriptPubKey here
6482020-04-09T20:04:25 <jnewbery> sipa: we didn't get to it in the meeting, but is the future of asmap to fork https://github.com/sipa/asmap to https://github.com/bitcoin-core/asmap ?
6492020-04-09T20:04:35 <sipa> there should just be a key in the wallet, without a descriptor for the single-key version of that key
6502020-04-09T20:05:06 <luke-jr> sipa: so just multisig descriptor + private seed
6512020-04-09T20:05:13 <sipa> luke-jr: right, something like that
6522020-04-09T20:05:28 <instagibbs> "just"
6532020-04-09T20:05:29 <instagibbs> ;P
6542020-04-09T20:05:52 <sipa> jnewbery: #18573 would make my asmap repo obsolete
6552020-04-09T20:05:54 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18573 | [RFC] bitcoin-asmap utility by sipa · Pull Request #18573 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6562020-04-09T20:06:27 <sipa> we still need infrastructure for determining the mappings we want, which gleb has been working on
6572020-04-09T20:17:55 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
6582020-04-09T20:19:12 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6592020-04-09T20:20:10 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
6602020-04-09T20:20:37 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6612020-04-09T20:20:55 *** ddustin has quit IRC
6622020-04-09T20:21:14 *** ddustin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6632020-04-09T20:34:08 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
6642020-04-09T20:35:26 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6652020-04-09T20:45:27 *** kristapsk has quit IRC
6662020-04-09T20:46:17 *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6672020-04-09T20:53:21 *** fearbeag has quit IRC
6682020-04-09T21:00:02 *** ram1 has quit IRC
6692020-04-09T21:12:41 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
6702020-04-09T21:14:07 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6712020-04-09T21:21:05 *** AntiSpamMeta has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6722020-04-09T21:21:16 *** AntiSpamMeta is now known as Guest9036
6732020-04-09T21:24:50 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
6742020-04-09T21:38:02 *** jarthur has quit IRC
6752020-04-09T21:43:25 *** manantial has quit IRC
6762020-04-09T22:09:25 *** filchef has quit IRC
6772020-04-09T22:11:43 *** per has quit IRC
6782020-04-09T22:15:47 *** dr-orlovsky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6792020-04-09T22:21:59 <achow101> jonasschnelli: https://gist.github.com/achow101/94d889715afd49181f8efdca1f9faa25 here's a writeup of some of the issues
6802020-04-09T22:22:16 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
6812020-04-09T22:23:08 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6822020-04-09T22:27:45 <sipa> achow101: i think exporting descriptors (without private keys) should always be fine
6832020-04-09T22:28:31 <achow101> sipa: yes, but it's only really useful if unhardened derivation is being used
6842020-04-09T22:28:40 <sipa> agree
6852020-04-09T22:29:18 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6862020-04-09T22:29:18 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] promag opened pull request #18578: gui: Fix itemWalletAddress leak when not tree mode (master...2020-fix-coincontroldialog-leak) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18578
6872020-04-09T22:29:19 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
6882020-04-09T22:29:25 <achow101> so one question is how to support the two use cases in the same wallet
6892020-04-09T22:31:05 <sipa> i *think* that exporting descriptors including private keys is also fine, as it doesn't risk exporting something that leaks the entire wallet while the user thinks it's just a single key (as in: it'll always leak the entire thing)
6902020-04-09T22:31:45 <sipa> but it shouldn't be possible to export derived private keys (except maybe if they're hardened... unsure)
6912020-04-09T22:32:28 <achow101> yes
6922020-04-09T22:33:10 <achow101> but exporting derived keys is necessary for the usual multisig workflow
6932020-04-09T22:33:36 <achow101> otherwise all you can do are ranged multisigs when maybe you just want a one time thing
6942020-04-09T22:34:35 <sipa> i feel that in that case you should also have started from just a single key, rather than an xpub
6952020-04-09T22:34:46 <sipa> i see the complication, but i'm not sure how important it is
6962020-04-09T22:34:56 <achow101> but how would you have started from just a single key?
6972020-04-09T22:35:03 <sipa> that's a great question :p
6982020-04-09T22:41:07 <sipa> it would be great if a ranged multisig setup already just worked
6992020-04-09T22:43:07 <sipa> say there was an RPC generatexpub which would generate an xprv, and import the private key, but not watch anything, and then return the xpub
7002020-04-09T22:44:03 *** Talkless has quit IRC
7012020-04-09T22:45:19 <achow101> maybe if used a wallet global SigningProvider? so keys aren't associated with the scripts directly
7022020-04-09T22:45:37 <sipa> yeah, i think that makes sense
7032020-04-09T22:46:30 <achow101> ugh, rewriting it all again :(
7042020-04-09T22:47:32 <achow101> i'm not sure that's necessarily useful though
7052020-04-09T22:48:03 <sipa> you'd still need to be able to generate derived private keys
7062020-04-09T22:51:02 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
7072020-04-09T22:51:18 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7082020-04-09T22:51:27 <sipa> alternatively, i think it'd be fine if there was just a way to import descriptors with some public and some private keys... without worrying how someone would obtain those for now
7092020-04-09T22:52:03 <achow101> sipa: yes, but worrying about how someone would obtain those is important
7102020-04-09T22:52:10 <sipa> oh absolutely
7112020-04-09T22:52:37 <sipa> but as a first step... that'd be great already
7122020-04-09T22:59:30 <sipa> fanquake: what is link-time garbage collection?
7132020-04-09T23:00:31 <fanquake> sipa: basically just the use of --gc-sections.
7142020-04-09T23:01:08 <fanquake> Curious, was there anything in particular that prompted you to test building like that?
7152020-04-09T23:06:11 <sipa> fanquake: seeing the size of bitcoin-asmap in #18573
7162020-04-09T23:06:12 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18573 | [RFC] bitcoin-asmap utility by sipa · Pull Request #18573 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
7172020-04-09T23:06:48 <sipa> it's around 600 kB, nothing too terrible... but with gc sections etc, it's 100 kB
7182020-04-09T23:07:12 <sipa> i had always assumed we already enabled those options
7192020-04-09T23:07:26 <sipa> so i went to check if it would benefit our existing binaries as well
7202020-04-09T23:25:12 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
7212020-04-09T23:25:58 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7222020-04-09T23:26:02 *** plaza has quit IRC
7232020-04-09T23:42:54 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7242020-04-09T23:42:54 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/405713d00fb4...d486991aa59d
7252020-04-09T23:42:55 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5ca90f8 fanquake: scripts: add MACHO lazy bindings check to security-check.py
7262020-04-09T23:42:55 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d486991 fanquake: Merge #18295: scripts: add MACHO lazy bindings check to security-check.py
7272020-04-09T23:42:58 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
7282020-04-09T23:43:18 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7292020-04-09T23:43:18 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #18295: scripts: add MACHO lazy bindings check to security-check.py (master...does_noone_care_about_MH_BINDATLOAD_anymore) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18295
7302020-04-09T23:43:20 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
7312020-04-09T23:45:52 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
7322020-04-09T23:59:01 *** ddustin has quit IRC